Did PF for 4 years. Flay -

I want mechanization of every link chain in every speech that you are extending it. I will not weigh sloppily extended arguments i.e X hurts the economy which leads to recession which leads to 100 million people dead globally. You have to warrant out and mechanize every step of that link chain or I am not gonna buy it.

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

No prog arguments I can't judge it

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to 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)
. PDFs for speech docs
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) rohana@princeton.edu to the email chain.

Did PF for 4 years, competed in local and national circuit tournaments. You can talk as fast as you want, but I'd ask for you to please not spread. Tech > truth

I'd prefer no theory or K's, since I have little to no experience with them and won't be able to give an informed decision.

Otherwise, I am willing to answer any q's before the round starts but I'm pretty open and flexible to anything.

For link chains, add luigi.auquilla@gmail.com

Current policy debater at NYU. Did public forum through high school.

I prefer a clear link story. Clearly articulate your arguments, clearly frame your methodology, and make sure to cover all arguments made by the opponent. I want to hear good analysis on the ev, not just dropping stats and hoping that covers your basis.

Should be obvious, but be civil and respectful to each other in round.

hey!! im elle (she/her pronouns) and i did pf national circuit for 4 years at oakwood (partnered w/ sylvie turk :))

***my email is elleballe1@gmail.com - please lmk if you have any questions before round and add me to any email chains/ev sharing docs

-- penn update -- if you're flight 2, please be ready to go as soon as flight 1 leaves so we can keep the tournament running smoothly

general prefs (pf):

- i'm ok with any speed as long as you talk clearly, i'll never be unhappy with a speech doc

- pleasepleaseplease have evidence cut properly. if the other team just sends a link or misrepresents their evidence, point it out in a speech and i'll cross it off the flow and drop their speaks.

- WEIGH!!!!! the easiest path to my ballot is to collapse on one of your contentions and tell me what to vote off of and why in comparison to your opponent's strongest arguments. i want to know exactly where you're winning and why - do the work for me so i make a fair decision

- tech > truth: i like theory and ks, i ran both as a debater & i'll basically evaluate anything - make sure progressive stuff is warranted and if it's super techy, don't run it against a novice team; i'll evaluate any args as well (entertain me !!) but they need to have decent warrants and my threshold for responses will be lower the more frivolous they are

- signposting is super important. i'll flow the whole round so tell me clearly where to write down your arguments so i don't miss anything (i won't flow cross though so if you want something that was said to go on my flow, bring it up in the next speech)

- you have to extend the same arguments in summary and final. anything that's in final had to have been in summary for me to evaluate it. i won't weigh something that was dropped in summary bc defense isn't sticky lol. on that, i'm fine with new implications in second summary but new responses are only ok in first summary

- if you want me to look at a card , ask me - i won't call for anything of my own volition

- i'll time - once you go 30 seconds over i'll put my pen down (evidence/prep ethics are really problematic in pf and i don't want to worsen that)

- if you're sexist/racist/homophobic/ableist etc i won't hesitate to drop you. be respectful to your opponents and make sure the debate stays productive and beneficial to everyone

• +.5 speaks if you send a speech doc with all your (properly) cut cards before the round

if you have any other questions before or after the round (i'm chill with respectful post-rounding) don't hesitate to ask !!!

Hello, I am a parent judge with a lot of experience on the PF. Here are the main things I care about.

Overview- I love good debates of many kinds. I try to decide debates solely on what is said in the round. I love good evidence, but love good explanation, and evidence comparison even more. I will give a lot of weight to the way you argue the evidence. Everyone works very hard to get where you are, and I know these rounds are very important to you, so I try to work hard as a judge also. It is important that you treat your opponent and your teammate with respect, so that everyone can enjoy the debate.

• Mind your speed - this is not a speed reading competition. It is hard to keep up with your ideas if all my focus is spent trying to keep up with the words. Moreover, if I don’t understand what you say, it’s hard to give you points!
• Truth over tech. I value well though-out analytics equally as much as empirics.
• Keep it respectful during round. Disrespecting the other team or mean behavior will not be tolerated.
• I take notes throughout the round, including cross. So don’t worry if I’m scribbling away when you are speaking. I’m listening.
• Regardless of the validity or logic of an argument/contention (or lack thereof), I will buy it if the other side does not challenge it.
• I do not buy any theories, Ks, or any sort of technical tricks used in round. I expect you to debate the resolution.

Finally, while impact is obviously important, I am almost never swayed by the prospect of all of us dying in 2030 because of global warming, nor do I expect us all to die of nuclear strike at the drop of a hat. Nuanced arguments are more valuable as they are more real-world.

Good luck

Hi,

I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:

- I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round.

- Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.

With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!

Hi, I'm a parent. This is my fourth high school tournament this year; I judged a couple of debates last year, a tournament hosted by the State University of New York at Cortland in the mid-1990s and have taught public speaking. But I am not a debater. I was an opinion columnist for several years and have taught journalistic writing for more than 20 years. To me, facts are persuasive, bombast is a sign of a failing argument. An argument needs to be coherent and well articulated. Vague generalities and sweeping generalizations are signs of sloppy thinking.

More stuff written by my daughter:

-give me good link chains, not voting on an insane argument (if you impact to nuke war you've already lost)

-if there's an evidence challenge I would like to see it

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

upenn '24, reagan '20

email: remadebate@gmail.com

she/her

i debated for 4 yrs at reagan hs, qual to the toc, attended ddi and mich k lab.

for prefs:

1 - k debaters 2 - flex debaters 3 - "soft left" policy debaters 4 - policy throwdowns

tldr: ik everyone says this, but really u do u. i think debate is one of the best spaces to express urself in the way that u want and with the args u want to. most of my experience is with k's so i prolly wouldn't be the best for policy throwdowns but i can adjudicate pretty much all debates. what i will say abt some debate "rules": disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. don't clip cards, and don't cheat. if you clip, i'll let u know after ur speech ends to be more careful and clear, and if u continue, it's an L. spreading is cool but also if ur opponents require speed accommodation bc they're hard of hearing, u should slow down. be aware of how ur identity affects others in this space and check ur privilege. respect pronouns. i will call out microaggressions and i am comfy voting down teams that don't apologize or clearly don't respect who they're debating.

fw vs. k affs:

this was the majority of my debates and i'm pretty experienced with both sides. procedural fairness isn't an impact unless you explain why it is. for fw debaters, what can the ballot resolve and for the aff what does the aff resolve that o/w the impacts of fw?

i am sympathetic to fw when the aff team is unable to explain what their aff does or if the aff explanation changes significantly throughout the debate

i do not auto vote k affs and don't auto vote against fw. u gotta explain ur stuff w nuance.

pls don't copy paste fw blocks from old topics

clash debates are good and i enjoy them but do NOT say that k's don't belong in the debate space bc that won't end well for u lmao

t vs. policy affs:

i love t against policy affs. default to competing interps

went for T in p much every 2nr my junior year

topical and untopical caselists <3

k's:

most of my experience is with k's. i'm familiar with afropessimism, settler colonialism, baudrillard, and some others

love em and read em well

no links of omission

invest time in the fw part of these debates pls

major props to going for k's vs k affs <3

policy things:

wasn't in many of these debates, but i can evaluate tech and the flow

i will auto judge kick but if the aff is like don't do that, i'll need yall to debate it out

theory has to be not wild, condo is good, i'm not that good at cp theory doe like if u go for textual v functional competition pls slow down and really explain why the cp doesn't meet ur interp

post-round:

debate is a learning space for judges and debaters so post-rounding is valuable imo but just don't post up and then get wilded out after i post up back

other thoughts:

do not graphically describe violence or suffering of any kind

be aware of ur identity when reading structural k's like afropessimism and settler colonialism if you are not black or not indigenous

do not pornotrope black suffering if u are a nonblack debater

don't speak over ur opponents and be wary of gendered interactions (i will call those out and lower speaker points)

sassy debaters r hilarious and i love u

debate is competitive but be kind to your opponents. this doesn't mean don't bring the heat, but instead do not personally attack ur opponents or insult them bc 0 for speaks ok

for online debate, pls keep ur camera on when u speak bc like i wanna see ur face and also debate is communicative ya know

have fun, kill it, byeeeeeeeeee :)

I am a parent lay judge. Things to note to win vote and speaker points:

1. Don’t spread, and speak with clarity / conversational speed
2. Be respectful especially in crossfires
3. Follow NSDA PF technical rules e.g. “no new arguments after Summary”
4. Try not to use technical terms (delink etc) so I can follow

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to 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 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

i dont flow cross, it doesnt rly play a role in my decision

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: do not mention SA in round, any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round- how to do so:

- if you believe an argument could be triggering, default to reading a warning before the speech begins

- if this the content within the speech is explicit, anonymous opt-outs should be sent to everyone in the room via an anonymous google form that can be as simple as an "opt in" vs "opt out" question. this can be easily sent via the google chain

- i am extremely receptive to trigger warning theory ie why a team should have read a trigger warning with a specific argument they are reading in the round

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog args

i like prog (ks + theory)... dont read on novs pls

I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

I am a lay judge - make sense and I vote for you :).

Be kind and have a great debate.

Try not to spread because I won't be able to flow. If you don't see me flowing, you're probably going too fast.

I have been judging PF for three years. I flow to capture and compare both arguments I appreciate the need for speed, but also ask that competitors don't speak so quickly, I can't understand them. Respect for other debaters during and after the rounds is very important. Be assertive, certainly, but rudeness is unnecessary. I appreciate debaters who have clearly prepared well and researched their topic sufficiently to be able to address unexpected ideas or approaches to a topic.

I am a flow judge.

That is all.

Put simply, weighing will win you my ballot. I want to see very clear comparative weighing, tell me exactly what to vote off of and why. If your claims and impacts are well-extended and weighed against your opponent's, I will give you the round.

Don't spread. It doesn't help anyone in the round if we can't understand you. I will value articulation and clarity in my decision if the round is technically messy. Especially online, slowing it down will definitely help you.

Be nice to each other. Not much more to say in this regard, kind of a no-brainer. Snark and rudeness will not win you the debate; you'll be dropped pretty quickly if you are mean.

I am tech over truth to an extent. I value how well you explain your link chains; if your opponent doesn't interact with your arguments at all and you extend them through round, they leave me little choice but to give you those impacts. However I personally dislike crazy link chains. Probably won't affect my decision but good for you to know anyway.

I will call for cards if it sounds like you are misconstruing or not telling the truth about your evidence. Please use evidence; warrantless impacts just won't be granted.

Overall> I'm a parent-judge and have been judging for 6 years now. I enjoy the intelligent arguments and appreciate the constructive spirit to drive the debate. I believe that debating is a life-skill that is preparing you to build new solutions in future in a team setting vs. winning arguing against your colleagues and make them angry in the process.

Methods> I'm open to all techniques in debate but will mainly focus on the central argument. I don't like it when the teams try to debate on technicalities itself and move away from the given topic.

Spreading>I rate the flow based on active participation in the argument/ counter-arguments vs. a speech like reading of your own arguments only. Spreading is a NO-NO as I believe that debate happens in the moment and research is only a small part of the prep.

Rubric> My rubric is based on:

• Quality of arguments,
• Quality of rebuttals,
• Organization and clarity of summaries
• Impact/ weighing

Rebuttal and weighing are most important criteria in my rubric; Try to provide distinctive arguments in a claim-warrant-impact format.

Evidence> You should be able to pull out the card and highlight the evidence in the card within a minute of the request or I'll assume that you have yielded. I do like to see the evidence myself and be on the email list when cards are being exchanged between teams. Pls add me to the email chain nitin.chawla.000@gmail.com

Parent judge.  Please speak clearly.  Don't spread.  

Like well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning.  Cross fire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Summary and final focus are key.  Arguments need to be extended effectively.  Prioritize, weight and crystalize.  No need to add a new argument in the final focus. 

Have fun!

Please focus on logic and quality of your debate.

Please don't speak too fast. Be clear, concise and focus on the key points.

Respect each other and be polite.

I have judged several local county and more than 10 regional/national (online and in-person) tournaments over the past two years. With that being said, I am still a parent (lay) judge. My paradigm consists of the following:

1. If you spread anywhere near 200 words per minute, I will, at a minimum, need your case(s) to follow along. If you spread too fast, I will not be able to capture everything and it is highly likely that will impact both your team and speaker point scores;

2. As a lay judge, I do not accept any theory cases, which I hope is common knowledge. In the rare situation a theory case is provided, I will immediately drop your team. For PF, I believe everyone should argue the resolution because the teams worked so hard on their respective cases. Regardless, I understand that theory cases do have their merits, but please save those cases for tech judges;

3. When presenting your case, please clearly state out your contentions so I can properly flow the debate. It is sometimes easy miss your contention if it is not clearly stated;

4. My decision will ultimately be decided by weight the impacts, magnitude, and scope. As I am not a tech judge (yet), I will be looking for valid warrants (please do not go too far down the warrant rabbit hole) and will do my best to follow link chains accordingly;

5. Please ensure that evidence is accurate and properly represented. Also, please make sure that your evidence is from reputable sources and not fabricated/from fabricated sources. I prefer truth over tech;

6. Any/all discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in an immediate disqualification. Please be respectful of everyone at all times;

7. I will do my best to explain my RFD at the end of each debate round (unless the tournament specifies otherwise). I understand that everyone wants to win, but since this is a competition between two teams; only one can win the round. Instead of taking it negatively, please try to learn from the experience and leverage any/all feedback. My feedback may not help with tech decisions, but the feedback could be useful with other lay judges; and

8. Have fun, make new friends/friendly rivals, build relationships, and cherish all of your experiences.

As Albert Einstein said, "The only source of knowledge is experience."

e-Mail for cases/evidence: davcho64@hotmail.com

My Background:

- I am a parent judge who started judging when our son began debating as a freshman in high school

- Have judged Public Forum

What I expect from debaters:

- Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot stress this enough. If you speak too quickly and I can't follow you, you will not be helping your team.- --- Persuade me with arguments that are supported by evidence. Evidence should be presented with full citations and explained clearly. Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive.- Tell me why I should vote for your side by explaining with particularity why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.

Focus me on the important issues in your favor.

- Be respectful of everyone who is participating in your debate - your opponents, and your partner. Consider your tone, your conduct, and your words.

• Do not assume that I understand acronyms or phrases that are peculiar to the topic but not necessarily in common use in the English language. Please take the time to define them.

I feel honored to judge your debate and debating skills. Please do not feel I am ever judging you as a person. I feel privileged to hear your learned thoughts on the debate topics.

I have been impressed with all debaters I have heard to date and you and your colleagues gift me great hope for the future! :-)

Hi! I am Ryan, I am a college student and coach my alma mater's S+D team. I did Speech in HS for 3 years and had success on the local level (qualled for States/NCFLS).

I highly prefer email chains, just send here- rynocu24@gmail.com.

TLDR; I can judge trad/prog rounds, but don't be too pushy with prog. I am fine with speed, but don't do so without checking w opponents. Tech over truth, but don't abuse that to the highest limits!

DISCLAIMER- I am hard of hearing, so I will need you to speak loud and clear. This is just to let you know in advance if you wonder why I ask you to repeat something. I am fine with speed, just PLEASE send me your case in advance. Also, if I cannot hear/understand you, I will say a verbal/nonverbal clear (either comes down as to what you prefer).

Accommodation Note: PLEASE disclose to your opponents about anything, whether you are more of a prog/trad debater, if you spread, etc. It makes things easier, especially if you go against someone who has a disability. Debate is an educational activity, and should be accessible for everyone :)

For all events- Make me laugh!!! I love it when students crack jokes during speeches, even for debate.

• I notice that some students feel a bit limited in their creative aspects-- go wild. I love seeing students going beyond the limits of speech and debate.
• Feel free to ask me stuff about continuing speech and debate outside of HS!! I've been involved in nonprofit work regarding this activity, in addition to judging, assisting with research, etc. I would rather assist you than to remain silent and not say anything about resources/materials!

PF and LD:

Consider me as a prog/lay judge. I love hearing debates that are more of so on the tech/prog side but note that I started coaching/learning debate, in general, less than 2 years ago. I still love traditional debate just as much, also because it's the most familiar I am with when I was on the team and now. However, I am fine with whatever you run (obviously not something that's just blatantly wrong or ignorant, as well as tricks).

I am fine with speed (as mentioned before), but let your opponents know before round. It makes me frown like this :( when varsity debaters spread/run progressive args without checking in with those beforehand or novices

Tech > Truth, but please for the love of god, don't abuse that. There are limits I will look at where there's absurd arguments (similar to what I said before about tricks)

Weigh weigh weigh. It helps me to see your arguments and to know WHY I should be voting for you.

Let me know where you are at during the round via signposting!!! This way I know where you are, and I don't have to worry about that. I want to at least hear your tags so I'm not lost where I am at.

Be concise with your refutations. I want you to focus on the points that you know your opponent will likely carry over/collapse towards the end of the round. I do not want to hear you say the same thing when your opponents contentions/turns/anything go unheard and now you’ve left it for them to bring those up

Same thing with off time roadmaps, that'll help me a lot, but don't go on and on, just summarize.

I do flow most of the debate, including cross-ex, just keep that in mind. I've been flowing either on computer or paper, which I’ve had a love/hate relationship with both.

Congress:

I have realized that my preference for Congressional Debate may be different than others, so I wanted to list down some stuff I like to see in a chamber/round:

• Be clear and precise in your speech. Quality will outweigh quantity in my eyes. Even if you have two points in your speech, you have enough time to state your data, analysis, and more within each of them.
• Parliamentary procedure is key! I want to know that your performance is on point not just through your speeches, but your delivery of motions before/during/after.
• I have seen more walking in speeches the last year or so. I like it, but don't be too excessive.
• Clash clash clash.

Presiding Officer- I commend students who have taken on this role. It is not an easy feat, and can be screwed over during rounds. I will always start my PO within the Top 5 rankings of the chamber.

• However, you are going to have to be consistent with your recency/overall charts. Take control of the round and stand your ground if needed.
• If you are doing an online tournament, I would highly recommend using index cards when giving time signals. There are references you can find on YouTube where previous PO's at nat circuit tournaments have used them.

Speech:

There's really nothing I have specific in terms of preferences for Speech, since it is typically obvious with the rules under each event.

• But, I will say that I am not a huge fan of excessive walking (as said before with Congress). I did Oratory, so I have seen and judged numerous speeches where this happens.
• In interp events, I really like technical use of the room/binder/piece. It can be hard sometimes, but note that this is a strong factor I take into account when judging.

If there are any specific questions you have before or after a round, just lmk. Any form of discrimination during rounds will result in an automatic drop. Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable space where you are able to delve into the world of argumentation and research.

I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging public forum debate, online and in-person.

Please treat everyone with respect. Use conversational tone and speed. In your final focus, I would appreciate clear analysis of why your team should win. Thanks.

I judge LD and PF at all levels. I debated all throughout high school: in LD my freshman year and in PF for the subsequent three (NCFL, NJFL, NFL). I have been judging debate for over 10 years.

For email chains, my email is taylordiken@gmail.com.

Style

• Theoretical arguments are welcome if you can reason them through. In Public Forum, though, you also need evidence to back up your claims.
• I dislike spreading, and if you spread for every speech WITHOUT signposting, you will likely see that taken off in speaker points. If you need to speed up to get all of your points in, that's fine once or twice, but policy-level speed is not my preference.
• Most importantly: please be civil during your rounds. Everyone at a meet/tournament is an adult and should be treated like one. If you talk down to your opponents, you will absolutely have speaker points taken off.
• Where it is allowed, I do give low point wins. The easiest way to make sure you get the speaker points you're looking for is to speak clearly and politely throughout the round.

Technicalities

• Time yourself, time your partner, and time your opponents. Keep each other honest. As the judge, I will keep the official time.
• No new evidence can be presented after the second crossfire - I will not flow it and you'll waste your time. No new arguments should be presented after grand cross.
• Summary is a summary and final focus is a final focus. Do not use summary as a rebuttal or FF as a summary.
• When required, I disclose only the result of the round. I do not give oral critique. I generally do not answer questions after the round like "What did you think of x" as it gives the debater(s) an unfair advantage. I write any comments on the ballot instead so the information goes to your coach as well.

Judging

• I vote off the flow. I try to take down every argument made and follow it throughout the round. That means I'll know if you mistakenly extend a point or even an entire contention, and you will definitely lose that point/contention if you pretend you've won when you haven't. That means the FF of "and my opponent dropped X and Y and Z" doesn't fly when I have the flow of the opponent actually addressing X, Y, and Z right in front of me.
• If you have eleven subpoints to a contention for the sole purpose of confusing your opponent, I'm likely not going to extend them if the opponent runs out of time at point three.

Hi! My name's Alex (she/her) :)

Email chain: alexandrardischler@gmail.com

General info:

I competed for Teurlings Catholic (Louisiana) in PF, Congress, and occasionally LD. I now compete in APDA at American University (majoring in IR and Phil)

TLDR:

-Please send speech docs (preferably pdf/not copy pasted into the body of the email) before the speech for accessibility purposes, I'll be an objectively better judge if so

-I'm apparently bad at controlling my facial expressions so you'll probably be able to tell how I feel about your argument based on that

-You don't have to call me judge, Alex is fine

-I don't care if you sit/stand and you don't have to ask me if it's okay

-I won't eval identity args if ur not a part of that identity (aka if you're not black don't run afropess)

-I probably don't know the topic (ie keep topic specific jargon minimal)

-I won't vote for something I don't understand/wasn't well extended

-Tech>truth (except for morally bad stuff)

-Clear weighing/voters = my heart

-I <3 excessive signposting

-Use ff/last rebuttal to write the ballot

-Ask me questions post-round/over email if you want!! I'm happy to answer anything

***be as accessible as possible!! Always ask pronouns or default to they/them - if anything happens that makes you feel unsafe please let me know. Please use trigger warnings!! If you aren't respectful (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc) I will def drop you/tell tab

Prefs:

1- trad, policy, stock Ks

2- T, theory, phil, other Ks,

3- tricks (I'm generally unfamiliar with tricks beyond spikes/hijacks - if you're running them and they're in a paragraph please send me a separate doc w them numbered<3)

Actual Paradigm Stuff:

Framework:

Big fan of framework (esp in PF - so underutilized). Please extend it tho!! Most of my framework tended to be util but I'll really vote for whatever. With that being said, not a huge fan of framework debates but I won't be devastated if it happens either. I <3 deontology u will get a speaks boost (or if you just generally mix it up from mitigating SV/util)

Cases:

General: Run whatever as long as you understand it. If you run phil heavy stuff (k or not) I would prefer if you explain the arg more than you usually would!! I love ks but not super familiar with performance cases but run whatever you think is fun!!

Favs: Derrida, Foucault, Puar, dedev/anything cap bad, and wipeout

Biggest opps: Academy (please just don't. I simply do not understand no matter how much I read - just go for charity cannibalism or something)

Impacts:

Meta weighing = speaks boost!! Live, laugh, love, terminal impacts

CX:

I don't flow cross, flex prep is fine. If they say something weird/contradictory in cross extend it or I'm not voting on it

Evidence:

Don't clip. Compare evidence yourself, I'll read cards if you want but it will be begrudgingly.I don't like paraphrasing. Evidence ethics in PF went to hell and I'm not voting for you if you can't produce a source or author when asked/on the speech doc. Bare minimum is tag, author's last name, and date. Will vote on paraphrasing theory

Signposting:

Signposting is important for me. I try my best to keep an organized flow, and if you signpost well I'll probably give you a speaks boost. I love a good "we have 3 responses, to their contention 1 link evidence - first." Always always always elaborate. Don't say cross apply this or extend that and not tell me why. If you line by line I <3 u

Speed:

Send docs either way!!I value clarity over speed and will say "clear" twice and then stop flowing. Slow down more than you think you should on tags and authors.

PF: Not a fan of policy spreading in PF. Just keep in mind that your opponents may not be comfy with it

LD/POL: Do what you want if everyone is chill w it

Theory Shells:

I used to say this isn't my favorite style of debate but (sadly) it's become one of my favs. However, this is really only regarding equity theory/in-round callouts/that type of stuff. If you wanna run friv, go for it, but I probably won't vote on it alone, add some actual case/other shell/whatever debate too. Disclosure good but 50/50 shot I'll vote on it (depends on the round and if it's some absurd interp). I'll happily vote for theory regarding in-round abuse. If someone says something offensive/harmful I'll vote on it even if it isn't a flushed-out shell (ie they said it late in the round) so feel free to make it a voter. I'll sometimes vote on RVIs, but it depends on the round, and 9 times out of 10 I'll be sad about it. All of this being said, please don't run stuff just to kick it/as a time suck cause that's boring and a waste of paper

Speaks:

I'm pretty generous with speaks. I don't think they really mean anything/determine anything about you as a debater but I usually give somewhere in the 28-30 range. I'll disclose them if asked!!

Equity:

I more than likely won't vote on respectability, especially if it's in the morning (everyone is cranky be fr). That being said, I will vote on misgendering/any other sj theory without batting an eye. If your response to misgendering theory is something like "I forgot" or "I didn't know" you should've either checked the wiki or asked them. I think any type of equity theory is a priori and won't be persuaded by arguments telling me otherwise. If they do it late in round/it's too late to run a shell just make it a voter and I'll vote on that!!

Other:

Basically just whatever you want as long as you're organized.

If u run Marx/Derrida in front of me you will LOVE your speaks<3 big specters fan

If I missed anything there's a good chance I agree w Lenox Leverett/Gio Piedimonte/Elizabeth Elliott so do with that what you will

If you have something silly/different/unique you wanna run and haven't had the yet chance, go for it!! I'm happy to judge whatever and it makes rounds more fun

**if I didn't cover something feel free to email/just ask me in person!! :)

I’m a parent judge since 2020, with no debating experience of my own. I'm looking forward to seeing you debate.

The clarity of your arguments will be the most important thing. Make sure that I can understand the structure you're following. The terms of art that you use in discussing debate among yourselves are probably less familiar to me, so plain language at a reasonable speed is best. I’m not likely to vote on something that doesn’t make any sense to me.

Impacts are what matter, and not the amount of arguments. Make sure everything you want me to vote for is extended, and important moments in crossfire are explained in speeches.

I will try to keep track of time including prep, but please make sure to do so as well.

Please keep in mind that in a virtual debate, true crosstalk in a crossfire usually means that I can't hear either speaker, so do your best to allow your opponent to finish before responding.

Have fun, try to come out of the round smiling.

NSU '22

UPenn '26

During my career, I won NSDA Nationals and got to quarterfinals of the TOC.

Add me to the email chain afrankk@sas.upenn.edu

Tech>truth - I will vote off the flow and on any argument that's well warranted, extended, and weighed.

I ran a lot of structural violence arguments during my career. When done well, I am very inclined to vote on these types of arguments. However, if you tell me why extinction/util matters more than I am also more than willing to vote on that.

Defense is not sticky - this is especially true with 3 minute summaries.

Frontline everything (offense and defense) in second rebuttal on the argument(s) you're going for; you should also probably already be collapsing in second rebuttal. There are very few teams who can pull off front-lining every contention well and still get to the other team's case with enough time.

I am extremely unlikely to default. I will try to find any piece of offense in the round I can vote on. If I can't, I'll probably just vote for the team that debated better.

I can usually flow most speeds, but if I think you're going too fast, I will ask for a case doc after.

Do:

- Roadmaps (you rlly only need to tell me where you're starting if you signpost well)

- Comparative Weighing

- Make me laugh in cross and/or speeches

- Pre-flow before the round

Do Not:

- Take a while to get a piece of evidence; more than 2 minutes and i'll probably get annoyed

- Call me "judge" - this feels too official

- Be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.

- Read that 900 million ppl go into poverty during recessions without some sort of warrant

Theory:

Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I won't drop you on face for paraphrasing or not disclosing, but I would be very likely to vote on disclosure and/or paraphrasing theory.

The purpose of theory is made to make the debate space more equitable and improve norms. Do not just read theory with the sole purpose of winning the debate.

Kritiks:

Probably not the best judge to read a K in front of. I have minimal experience with them, but if you want to run one I will try my best to evaluate it.

Weighing:

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. PLEASE. It doesn't matter if you're winning an argument if you don't tell me why that argument matters more than the other team's.

If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important and why.

Trigger Warnings:

Trigger warnings are only needed when describing graphic/explicit content. There have only been 2-3 times in my debate career in which I've encountered arguments that truly needed a TW. I don't think trigger warnings are necessary for arguments that say common phrases such as "domestic violence." These types of arguments are important and should be read in the debate space.

I will always disclose my decision and please feel free to postround me :)

I'm a flay parent judge. This is my second year judging PF. In high school I did speech and went to nationals in extemp. But I did not do debate. Expect me to vote on the flow. Make sure your warranting is clear. Because public forum debate is meant to be substantive and understandable to laypeople, I do not look favorably on progressive arguments or debate jargon.

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

I usually take on the longer side to decide debates (~10 minutes average) even if it's not close sorry!!!!

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD. Coaching Lex + some independents.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open CX. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Compiling a doc is prep, but sending it doesn't count. I don't have defaults--please don't make me flip a coin.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

For new 2NR evidence, my thinking is as follows: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to. Any defaults I have can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made regarding the matter.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is probably one of my favorite arguments to hear and I will especially enjoy if you read Van Inwagen!

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

T

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

PF

Given my background, I probably care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot (but it will, of course, factor into speaks). Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly. I would prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations when paraphrasing.

PLEASE share evidence/cases before your speeches with me (and probably each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

• Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
• Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
• Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
• Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 3 tries for each variant.
• Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution (NOT eevee)
• I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
• Beat me at Gamepigeon Word Hunt/Anagrams or Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
• W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

PF Judge

I like a good, clean debate with clash and coherent reasoning and logic.

Don’t spread (It’s my biggest pet peeve)

Speak clearly and slowly, and LOUDLY

If you are asking for evidence from the other team; make sure to bring it up don’t ask for evidence just for the sake of it.

Make sure you weigh in summary and final focus, I choose the winner based on overall consistency through the round and whichever team carries and extends their arguments throughout the whole round. Logic and coherent reasoning are super important.

Don’t just say “I have a card” explain to me the significance of it

Cross-ex should be civilized

Good luck :)

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

Varsity PF (JV/Novice/Middle School is Below):

TL;DR: Standard flow judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- LOCAL CIRCUIT: Disclo and parahrasing theory are not norms, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since local circuits tend to have much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. It is much easier to make rule changes in the local circuit. Thus, I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). I don't think second case ever needs to interact with first case, even in progressive debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. That said, prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

- Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Weighing should be done early. Don't wait until final focus. Metaweigh, too.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- If I have no offense on the flow, I default to the team that would win if I were a lay judge.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..." or "Douthat says..."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

History, English, and Philosophy educator with a medium amount of experience in debate and flowing. Drive towards impact, or you will most likely lose the round.

Spreading will not help you as much as you hope it will. Keep your contentions slow and clear. Racism, sexism, and stereotyping of groups will most likely get you DQ. Strong aversions to K. Lastly, I expect cross to be civil and will not flow it.

I am a lay judge. I am a volunteer parent of a high schooler and this is my first year judging - I've done a few tournaments.

I will evaluate on general cohesion of arguments, clarity, and engaging /respectful demeanor. Please keep your own time and signal to me when your opponent goes over on time. I don’t like when speakers go over.

No need to email me evidence. I may call for it.

I can handle a bit of speed but only if you give excellent framing and clear organization of arguments and keep things going in order. If you are going fast and you hop around, you will likely lose me.

Please make it super clear when any contentions are dropped by you and/or your opponent.

I appreciate a clear explanation of why you should win in the final focus. And while I’m not a tech judge I like hearing the most singular reason why you should win on a pure tech basis. Ultimately I’m a lay judge and will do my best to judge objectively without regard for my personal views on any arguments.

I also really appreciate if the team speaking first sits to my left. It just helps me in how I take notes in my spreadsheet. Thank you!

I am parent judge and I have limited experience especially at the VPF level.

Please speak clearly and while I do expect you to speak somewhat quickly, please be mindful of going too fast. I want to make sure I hear and understand and take note of all of your contentions. Also, I am a note taker, so please do not think I am ignoring you if I am writing.

On jargon & acronyms...please be cognizant that I am not a seasoned pro. Please explain what you are referencing at least once.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds. Please respect each other and have a great debate

Hello! I'm the current Debate & Speech coach at Wissahickon High School. I'm an alumna of the University of Pennsylvania (C'20), where I studied Linguistics and French, and I also have an M.S.Ed in Reading, Writing & Literacy from Penn's Graduate School of Education (GED '21). Outside of the classroom, I'm a Senior Fellow at Humanity in Action.

While I never competed in Debate or Speech as a student, I've interrogated intellectual and rhetorical dimensions of socio/geopolitical, historical, and other current world issues throughout my studies. I've also thought, questioned, written, and presented on a range of scholarly topics with keen attention paid to criticality and rhetorical moves. The range and depth of my intellectual explorations, coupled with my care for and enactment of critical thought and expression, have prepared me well to judge both debate and speech events. I have multiple years of experience coaching and judging high school debate.

As a judge, I'll do my best to be impartial and thoughtful. I do not tolerate hateful or discriminatory speech or actions of any kind. I approach my judging with an emphasis on rhetorical moves (both linguistic and extralinguistic); quality and depth of critical thought; cohesion and substantiation of arguments/claims; and on ability to deftly navigate extemporaneous portions of an event (i.e. questioning, rebuttals, unprepared speaking).

I have been judging speech and PF in both Novice and Varsity in tabroom and local tournaments in past few years.

Here are a few important aspects of speech and debate that are crucial in my mind:

1. Respect to your opponents
2. Speak slowly and clearly (I will stop taking notes if you talk too fast)
3. Avoid Debater Language
4. Do not speak over one another
5. I will give you a few seconds of leeway, but don't abuse it
6. Know your audience

Thanks

-Sandy Hou

A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.

Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.

So

1. State your point clearly
2. Give data/source directly support your point
3. Provide a clear link between your source and point
4. Finish with a firm conclusion

Hello! I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. Please speak clearly and logically. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. I will vote for any argument that is reasonable and has an impact. Additionally, I will only vote based on the information offered to me during the round. I do not evaluate progressive argumentation. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room. Please time yourselves.

basis ’22 | upenn ’26 | anshjaka@sas.upenn.edufor email chain

debated at basis for four years on both NatCir and TFA.

wont eval anything not on the flow, dont make late args.

feel free to read whatever you like. i typically wont disclose, but everything you need will be in the RFD.

dont overdo it on speed, dont be fast just to be fast make it clear and for coverage purposes.

extend everything you want as voters, weigh well.

no sticky defense, extend everything.

any sort of harmful, discriminatory, or inappropriate behavior in round will be auto loss with lowest speaks.

lmk if u have specific questions in round and i can try my best to answer.

good luck and have fun

Dear all,

I am a volunteer parent judge for the debate.

This following is my consideration for my judgment:

- I value clear and effective communication. Please articulate your arguments coherently, and avoid speaking too quickly, as it may hinder my ability to evaluate your points. Please speak at a relative slow pace so I can clearly understand your arguments.

- When presenting an opinion on a topic, it is essential to determine whether you have the ability to provide sufficient supporting evidence for your viewpoint and analyze it. I hope you will do your best to support the opinions you are advocating.

- During the back half of the debate please focus on why I should vote for your side.

- During questioning, be clear in your thought process when asking or answering questions.

Best of luck to all participants, and let's have a productive and intellectually stimulating debate!

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th 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

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

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.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) 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." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) 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. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

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 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 like 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.

Other important things:

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 conceptualize 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.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• 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 evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

I am a parent judge who competed quite a bit in speech and debate. I am also a trained trial lawyer. I appreciate clear arguments with delivery that shows me that you're actually trying to persuade.

I want to know that you understand your argument and your opponent's, and I value clarity of thought over a battle of the cards. I will weigh experts as needed, though, so give me a reason why your expert is better than theirs. Weigh the arguments, and be explicit. I do prioritize arguments: if you win the central argument, you will almost certainly win the round. Make sure you know what the central argument is.

I love a clever turn. It's one of my favorite things.

I can handle speed but ask you to keep it clear. I am also slightly hard of hearing and ask you to keep your voice up. I will tell you if I can't hear you.

Be civil, even during CX. I won't give the round to an underdog, but it will hurt your speaker points if you're rude to one.

I will absolutely never tolerate racist, homophobic, classist, misogynistic, or other arguments based in hate and ignorance rather than logic and compassion.

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

FOR NCFLS:I've never watched a policy round in my life, treat me like a 5 year old (some of them are probably smarter than me).

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in the summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

I'm a parent judge and new to VPF. Yet, I have PhD in Linguistics and reasoning and coaching is part of my daily work. Below are important things to me as a judge:

1) I'm fine with fast speech but control your breath so that I can hear you.

2) Follow rules and don't be abusive.

-I'll not stop you immediately when you go over time, but it will go against you. Checking and keeping time is your responsibility.

-Do not bring up new contentions/arguments in your summary or final focus. Stay with what you have prepared.

3) Strong evidence is essential, but I believe reasoning and weighing is more important in debate.

4) Be respectful. Let's learn from each other and enjoy it.

Hello Debaters!

First-time judge here! I'm a teacher at Riverdale Country School and this will be my first tournament on the SIngle Use Plastics topic.

I believe that arguments need to be warranted with evidence and that an argument should have an impact that tells me why I should vote for your side.

Good luck!

Hi all!

I'm a former Parli debater, though I've also done some PF and Worlds. I don't like spreading, though I generally don't put a lot of weight on presentation - as long as you're professional and legible it's ok. I care much more about the arguments you make and how they lay on the flow.

In terms of evidence/card, as long as you don't try to stretch the truth or lie, we won't have any problems. I will investigate any cards I deem suspect, but I also don't put heavy weight on them- arguments are more important to me.

Also, any K's or theory you can bring up is cool. I'm from east coast, so you will have to be clear and explain them well, but any unique arguments get brownie points.

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a manner that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude.

3. Please don't go too fast.

4. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.

Hello Debaters,

I have resumed my debate participation after a long break last year. I enjoy Public Forum judging and coaching.

I don't have speaker preferences and will judge mainly on flow, and the overall case. I weigh the round on the established parameters, each team's framework, and how the speakers appeal their case. I accept spreading as much as anyone in the field. Have fun, debate is a wonderful life experience!

For email chains sga1011@gmail.com

Please speak at a reasonable speed, not so fast as to make comprehension difficult. Also, have evidence ready when opponents ask for it.

Please use a respectful speech, tone, and body language.

I am a lay judge.

Provide an off-time roadmap of the order your speech will help.

Tell me 3 reasons, no more than 5, why I shall vote for you.

Give a big picture in the summary and final focus.

Value solid argumentation and reasoning over speed.

Please:

Talk slower so that I can understand.

Logos, pathos and ethos.

NO Theory.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

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

Mogwarts ‘23 -lindseylee1217@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did Policy for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH- be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk 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.

Prog Run Down

• Theory- I'm with with it.
• 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. There are some Ks I like/understand well: Cap Ks, and Securitization.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp -novadebate.org.
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable.I prefer Curribun to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• No postrounding.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

Pretty obvious stuff

Debate is won through good, well researched arguments, not technical "tricks". Don't claim drops when they didn't happen. Make sure you clash and explain why you won clearly - what did the debate come down to?

I'm not particularly interested in a statistics fight. It is impossible for me to know which statistics are more accurate.

Don't spread. It's not fun, not in the spirit of debate and has zero life skill or educational value.

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

As a parent, I have been following PF for several years and am familiar with the format, but this is the first year and fourth tournament I serve as lay judge.

In my daily job, I am a scientist focused on Stem Cell research, and English is my second language.

If you could, please send constructive documents to ylinster@gmail.com before the round so I can better follow your speech while you are speaking.

Please speak in conversation speed that I could follow along. No spreading as I have difficulty keeping up with fast pace.

I will not time speeches but expect the debaters to do so and watch their opponents.

I value debates showcasing constructive, logic arguments supported by solid evidence. I highly appreciate the skillful addressing of opponents' flaws or claims during crossfire, and final conclusion.

Please be polite and respectful. Personal attacks to the opponents or bullying are not tolerated.

I assure you that I will be unbiased and will work diligently to give a fair decision.

Enjoy the game!

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

Erica (she/her). Debated PF at Stuyvesant for four years. Email for speech docs and email chains: el963@georgetown.edu

Feel free to ask me questions before the round. Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will instantly drop you.

I won’t flow over 180wpm. (unless you speak so clearly that I don’t notice — which you probably won’t)

Speak fast at your own risk. I won’t vote on anything not on my flow. I also won't flow what's said overtime. I will absolutely clear you.

Tech > Truth, but just barely. In my heart it’s truth > tech. Do with that what you will. On the off chance I vote for your four extinction scenarios, I will be so unhappy, I’ll cap your speaks to 27.

If you lie in your speech and I catch you 27 max.

Anything you want me to vote on must be said in both summary and final focus. I like weighing and warranting.

For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing me, strike me.

No progressive argumentation. I will instantly drop you. If there’s abuse in the round, just say it; you don’t need a shell.

Time your own prep.

I am your typical parent judge -- pls focus on logic, clarity and quality. Explain and give reasoning to evidence/responses.

Do not speak fast or I will not be able to catch the arguments.

In final focus, please write my ballot for me -- comparatives, weighing, etc. Tell me where to vote.

Do not run arguments that are progressive (theory, etc. if I do not understand it I will drop it.) -- make it a lay debate.

Be polite. Good Luck!

Hi!! I did PF in high school, currently a junior in college. Here are some of my preferences/things I like to see in rounds:

1. If you want me to vote on an argument, explain it clearly in summary and final focus.

2. Frontlining in second rebuttal. If you're the second speaking team, defend any arguments you want to extend in second rebuttal.

3. Collapse! Please don't extend more than 1 (maybe 2) argument in summary. It's better to clearly explain 1 contention than speed through 3.

4. Weigh! Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponents'.

5. Be nice in cross! Please don't interrupt or talk over your opponents. If you do, I'll drop speaks. I'm not flowing cross, so if something important happens that you want me to consider, tell me in a speech.

I'll flow the round– please make sure to explain everything clearly, collapse, and weigh

Most importantly, please be nice and have fun!

1. Please be respectful to your opponents. Do not roll eyes, snicker, make rude gestures or comments. Treat them as you would want to be treated.
2. Please speak at a normal pace. No spreading, speed talking etc. If I can’t follow you as you are speaking, I can not understand you and judge you.
3. Do not interrupt others. You may reasonably do so during cross examination, if they are rambling on for a long time, but generally hear them out.
4. Remember, I am a parent judge not a professional one.
5. You are debating a topic, not a person. Do not make it personal. You can disagree without being insulting.
6. Keep your cards handy. I might call for them only if the two sides say the exact opposite thing, but your opponents may call for them anytime.
7. Speaker points are awarded on how you speak, not just on what you say. Look at the judge/others. Modulate your voice. Talking in a monotone is less interesting. When you talk, where you pause is also important. Show me that you care/ believe in what you are saying. Reading from a paper/computer without any eye contact or emphasis is less effective.
8. Remember that weighing is an important part of showing why your argument is more convincing. A great idea that can not be scaled/applied is not as effective as a good idea that can be scaled and applied and affect a broader change.
9. Look like you are enjoying yourself. More importantly, actually enjoy yourself.

Hey guys!

I'm an experienced PF debater. I did debate four years through high school, and three times at nationals. I am currently on the UPenn debate team. I am trying to get into judging hs debate during my free time while I pursue my masters. I am looking forward to judging you, and here are some things to keep in mind if I'm your judge...

1. Please don't spread.
2. If conflict about a specific card is brought up more than twice, I will ask to see it myself after.
3. Impacts are very important. Convince me you hold your value/impacts better than your opponent.
4. Use your cross-x strategically. My debate pet peeve is when a question is asked just to pass time. Use your time wisely and be strategic with your line of questioning.
5. Be polite. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, and showing general contempt is not good. You may win the round but it will be with 20 speaks. A little bit of sass and humor is great (and is usually fun and I encourage it!), but there is a very fine between sass and sass without the first s.
6. Don't get caught on small details (ie: definitions, small statistical differences, etc...) I love big picture arguments and good framing.
7. Don't ask your opponent for a card and then never address it again. If you take everyone's time to request a card, at least address it in a speech at some point. Requesting cards should not be a pass time, do it with purpose.
8. I won't mark you down on speaks for stuttering or pausing a couple of times here and there. Just make sure I can understand you and you'll be good. Talking pretty will not win you the round, I don't weigh it much in the final vote.
9. Keep me engaged!
10. Have fun! Don't beat yourself up if you did not win the round, I guarantee you did way better than you think.

In the interest of keeping rounds moving, I do not disclose after round unless specifically instructed by the tournament directors. If you want feedback later I will gladly discuss the debate with you between rounds. You can also email me at marlutng@seas.upenn.edu if you would like, and my comments will likely be put into tabroom after the round due to our time constraint.

I am a parent judge. I am looking for a thoughtful debate in which each debater thoroughly addresses his/hers/their opponents' points. Please do not speak too quickly; I want to be able to follow along with each of your points.

I am currently an M&T sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, but I did PFD on the national circuit for four years at Ravenwood High School. While I do understand the tech jargon, please clearly explain all responses and speak at a comprehendible pace (basically no spreading please). Also, please come pre-flowed to the round, so we don't waste time.

It is up to the debaters to keep track of their speech time and prep. I flow my own rounds during speeches but not crossfire. Any points of contention brought up in cross must be addressed in speeches.

Please extend and collapse in summary so that all voters are in summary. Frontlining should be done in second rebuttal and first summary. Please weigh arguments and extend any potential weighing through final focus. All responses should be warranted.

Please don't run theory/K's in the round with me. I'd much rather see a clash of ideas/evidence in the topic.

Please stand for your speeches and crossfire (except grand). Sitting is weird imo.

As always, please be respectful of each other and have fun.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at mitrariy@wharton.upenn.edu.

I'm a parent judge, so please don't use too much debate-y jargon.

Arguments need to have a clear explanation, and if your explanations aren't logical you are likely going to lose. Public forum should be PUBLIC, so no spreading or super techy arguments please. No prog debate please.

Please focus on why you win your arguments before why your opponents lose theirs. Make it as easy for me to see why you should win the debate, not just why your opponent shouldn't.

If you're being extremely rude to me or your opponent I have no problem bringing speaker points to below 25. Being firm is fine- being openly racist, homophobic, sexist, or aggressive, etc is not. Questions are fine, but if you find yourself pointlessly arguing, you've already lost. Kindness is key, be nice to your opponents.

I do take notes but in general I vote based off clash, clarity of speech/arguments and who won from a logical perspectives.

Now that I'm over the scary stuff remember to have fun! As long as everyone is respectful we'll have a good time. Take some deep breaths and try your best :)

A little bit about me: I'm a vet with a master in pharmaceutical sciences from the University of Florida, and a master in laboratory animal medicine from Penn State as well as a doctorate in vet medicine from UPENN.

I am a parent judge.

Preferences: No spreading and do not use debate jargon or fully explain it. Make sure you self time and keep track of your prep. Signpost and be respectful. Have fun!

I'm a first-year judge, representing RCS. Familiar with debate but learning about the topic.

I believe that arguments need to be warranted with evidence and that an argument should have an impact that tells me why I should vote for your side.

Good luck!

Update for Penn 2024: I haven't judged a round in 3 years. Please go slower than you normally would. Assume I have no topic knowledge.

Hi I did LD for Westwood for 4 years.

I want to be on the email chain: savmyneni@gmail.com

I likely missed something so if I didn't answer something here feel free to ask me anything at the begining of round or send me an email

Pref Shortcuts

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Kritiks - 1-4 (depending on lit)

Phil - 2-3 (depending on lit)

Tricks - Strike

I tend to agree with Jugal Amodwala and Truman Le.

Thoughts About Debate

I evaluate debates by looking for the highest level and then finding a framing mechanism and evaluating offense under it. This means weighing is important and I won't vote on floating offense.

I believe disclosure is good. I started open sourcing about halfway through high school and I think it's a good norm for debate. If you open source and tell me at some point before I submit my ballot, I'm willing to give +0.1 speaks. That being said, I will not always vote for disclosure shells. You still have to win the shell for me to vote for it, but I am likely to agree with you.

If you are debating a novice or someone who doesn't have a lot of experience with progressive debate, I'm fine if you go beyond the scope of lay debate as long as you keep the round educational and can explain the argument. Your speaks will suffer if you read 7 off with 6 condo PICs. A few examples of things I am fine with: a simple Cap K, a theory shell if there truly is abuse, etc.

If I don't know what I'm voting for I won't vote for it. Make sure you can explain your arguments.

Trigger warnings are good.

Evidence ethics challenges stop the round. If you win the challenge, I will give you the win and give you speaks based on performance until that point. If you lose, I'll give you an L25.

Speed - I haven't flowed in a while so go about 80% speed. If you are going to fast or are unclear I will say clear/slow twice then stop flowing.

If you want more perspective about what I read check my senior year wiki here.

LARP

I love case debate. Some of my favorite 2NRs from high school were 6 minutes of case turns. That being said case defense is not enough to win, you need offense that outweighs the 1AC offense.

DAs are great just make sure to weigh against the aff.

CPs are fine.

I tend to think politics DAs are pretty nonsensical but if you have evidence to support your argument I'll vote for it.

T/Theory

I tend to view these as pretty close to a Plan/CP debate. Give me a reason to prefer your shell and weigh standards that link back to a voter.

I default to competing interps and no RVIs but can be easily persuaded otherwise. I don't presume an impact to a shell, you have to make that argument.

Explain the abuse. I don't care if it's potential or in round but I need to know what it is.

Read out the full interp and counter interp. I don't think just saying CI: their interp plus my aff is a real counter interp. If you choose to read paragraph shells though, I'm fine with a lack of a definitive interp or counter interp. For example conditionality is a voter is enough and the 2NR just responding.

I hate super frivolous shells. I will vote for them, but I will tank your speaks if I think the shell doesn't make sense. Examples: must spec status in speech, can't read CPs, etc.

CP Theory: I think these shells are generally not frivolous. For example, I think one condo is a justifiable shell to read. However, there is a point at which they become frivolous so try not to pass it. If you have a specific question ask me before the round.

I tend to agree that brackets are bad but can easily be persuaded otherwise.

T specific things:

Definitions are good, but not necessary.

TVAs are defensive but one of the few arguments I will consider as terminal defense if you win it.

Kritiks

I think of Ks as a DA + CP with some kind of framing argument.

The biggest issue for me is when a kritik is not explained. If I don't understand what the alt looks like or what the link is I will be highly unlikely to vote for you.

I read a lot more Ks in high school especially my senior year and I am familiar with the following arguments: Security, Cap, Wilderson, Set Col. Even if the argument you plan on reading is listed here explain it thoroughly.

K affs: I'm fine with them. I didn't read any in high school, but I had many framework debates so I am willing to vote for a K aff if you win. That being said, I likely have a bias towards framework regardless of how much I try to ignore it.

Phil

I am unlikely to understand any dense literature.

I think the biggest issue for me is that the contention level of framework debate is often ignored. If someone reads Kant against you, I'd love to see you kick the aff and go for Kant affirms if it's strategic.

Clear syllogisms that explain the framework are more likely to get my ballot than random statements I can't understand.

Phil args I am more likely to understand:

-Kant

-Hobbes

-Virtue Ethics

Tricks

If you read these, I will likely give you very very low speaks and will definitely not want to vote for you.

I have revised my previous opinion that skep/permissibility are tricks just because they are read. However, I still believe that reading nothing but skep triggers is a waste of time.

Things I consider tricks:

A prioris

6 minutes of skep triggers

Extremely frivolous theory shells read as time sucks

I am a Flay Judge who has been judging public forum debates. I am an engineer and have been working in this capacity for over 25 years. Participants should produce evidence and data to backup arguments.

It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument.

You are in a public forum debate and as a parent and a working professional, I am your public. Even if you have the best collection of data, how you connect with public is vital. Body language, eye contact or connecting with real life examples can sometimes tip the vote in your favor

If both teams are great and as a judge I have a tough decision, one of the deciding factors has been the quality of rebuttal questions. Some of these questions can put the other team on the edge which can work to your advantage. So take good notes, look for those pointers from your opponent and strive for winning that round.

Thank you and good luck!

Hello, my name is Kristin Orrell. I am a parent judge. One of my priorities is clarity of speech. Please make sure to not speak too fast, and lay out your sentences clearly. Also, please make sure to signpost your contentions and main arguments so that I can follow your case. Make sure to define anything that might be confusing, and don't forget to weigh. Otherwise, thank you for your preparation and I look forward to judging.

PF: Please be respectful in letting your opponents speak and be clear.

Parliamentary: Please be clear in laying out your contentions so your opponent and I can follow your argument, and please make sure to notify your opponents and I when switching to a new contention or main point.

Email: kristinorrell@yahoo.com

Please speak at a reasonable speed, not too fast to make comprehension difficult. Also, have cut cards ready when opponents ask for them. Please use a respectful tone in speech and body language.

I am a Judge Mom and I like to judge LD and PF. As a judge, I am looking for a persuasive, logical argument with clear evidence. Pace and delivery are also important. Be respectful and enjoy the debate !

I am a parent judge. I value clear speaking and believe effectiveness outweighs quantity of points. Edited thinking is appreciated. Please try not to speak too fast, and lay out your points clearly. Also, please make sure to articulate your key arguments. Please avoid technical jargon where possible. Beyond that, I appreciate your preparation and participation and look forward to the debates

he/him | email: alexspollock@gmail.com

Competed in PF for in HS — I was very techy when I competed. Assume I have no topic-specific knowledge.

tl;dr: Ethics>tech>truth, extend your arguments well, tabula rasa.

Please ask me questions about my paradigm if you don't understand something.

N/JV:

I'm a pretty standard flow judge. Here's what I think you should do in each speech:

• Constructive: read it

• First rebuttal: refute opponent's case

• Second rebuttal: refute opponents case + rebuild your own

• Summaries: explain the arguments that i should vote on in the round, explain why you win them, and weigh impacts. don't try to recap all of your arguments here — pick your strongest one and go for that.

• Final Focus: summary but 2 minutes
  
  

Please tell me which argument you're on when you start talking about it.

If there’s a really important part of your argument in constructive or a really good refutation that you brought up in rebuttal, continue to reference that argument in summary and final focus.

For the most part, debate however you feel the most comfortable and I will do my best to accommodate.

Please ask me any questions you have about debate!

Varsity

Round Details:

Resolve clash. Don't continue to reiterate your points without a comparative. Tell me why you're winning certain arguments - this can be done with postdates, author qualifications, methodology comparisons, weighing, meta-weighing, etc.

Use an email chain(add me) to send speech docs before constructive and rebuttal

Speed is fine so long as you're clear. You must slow down if your opponents say "clear".

Extend your arguments properly: UQ, link chain + impact in summary, FF doesn't need UQ. Card names don't really matter to me.

If there's no offense, I presume 1st speaking team (but you can change my mind).

Don't use voter issues. Go your case, their case, weighing in summary and FF.

Probability weighing isn't real. Read defense instead.

Defense is sticky. If defense in first rebuttal isn't frontlined in second rebuttal, you don't need to read it in summary to go for it in FF.

No new arguments past first summary, no new weighing past first FF.

I'll try to pay attention in cross, but no promises.

Look at each other during cross, not me please.

Please postround me if you feel that I've made a mistake

Progressive Debate:

Theory is OK if:

- It's read in a shell format

- It's read immediately after the violation

- It's not frivolous

- It doesn't include RVIs.

Probably don't read K's unless you're very confident you can convince someone with no experience(me).

No tricks

Congress

Warrant and impact your arguments well.

I like clash — please don't get up and reiterate the same arguments over and over with minor tweaks. Past the first couple of speeches, I'm expecting refutations.

I don't bring any ideological biases into chamber so long as the arguments are solid. I will vote you down if your arguments are bigoted.

I value good presentation(eye contact, projecting, gesticulation), but probably less than a traditional congress judge would. You don't have to be perfect, just don't let mistakes fluster you.

Use unique rhetoric.

Signpost.

Crystals should be well structured and need to weigh arguments — any complex weighing will be rewarded. Crystals should also be reserved for the final speech cycles.

Hello!

I can handle speed, but if your opponent says clear you need to slow down

I'm not a fan of Ts that are run to suck up time- if theres a real T, by all means challenge it.

I like stock issues and on-case clash. I do not prefer Ks, but will vote on them if well done

Parent judge. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable speed - fast is OK, as long as you are clear.

When critiquing evidence, ad hominem attack on the author does not disprove the evidence.

Hi there!

I’m a college student here at Penn who has no debate experience. I prefer if you speak slowly and clearly and clearly explain your arguments. I have a background in mock trial and will try my best to flow.

Some preferences about the debate: second rebuttal must frontline, if you get me a snack I’ll give you +1 speaker points, and no progressive argumentation.

Include me on the email chain: kavya.ravishankar02@gmail.com

My name is kala and I am a lay judge.

For debate:

I will not factor in my political beliefs.

No theory or advanced frameworks.

Please introduce yourselves, your school, whether you are aff/neg, and also wether you are a first or second speaker before the round starts.

This is my second time judging - please go slow and elaborate on your arguments.

extend your arguments throught your rounds.

Start weghing early, preferably during summary. Collapse in FF.

I will not be timing you guys - time yourselves, and keep track of each others prep time. I dont know what running prep or other debate/speech jargon is, so I will not stop you if you go over time thats on the other team.

Please say what round we are in (EX first summary, second rebuttal, etc.) before each round. I will have a basic flow outline, but again please say what round we are in before we start. This is one thing I will emphasize.

Please be kind. I will not accept any rude comments or obscenities towards each other. This is my biggest rule. If you do, I will most likely vote for the other team and tank your speaker points.

If there are any major disagreement (over cards, time, case disclosure, etc), I will most likely not be able to figure it out. Please figure it out amongst yourselves or ask an organizer.

While I do strive to make everyone comfortable, please do not run trigger warrning or any moral arguments on me. I will not be able to follow, and as such wont weigh on it.

I will also try not to weigh to heavily in crosses. If anything happens, extend it later.

Have fun, and have a good debate.

For speech:

I have no clue what speech is or what I will be expected to do, until the morning of when I will be given a briefing by the organizers.

Please help me along, and also be kind.

I am not super knowledgeable in american pop culture.

I know you guys are supposed to memorize some but not others, so please tell me what you are supposed to memorize/not supposed to memorize before the round.

Time yourselves, for timed events, I may miss a hand signal or 2. Please help each other and if I am only judging one team, also have a stopwatch yourself

Please be kind. I will not accept any rude comments or obscenities towards each other. This is my biggest rule. If you do, I will most likely vote for the other team and tank your speaker points.

Parent judge. Please speak clearly. Don't spread.

Prefer well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning, crossfire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Truth>Tech

Arguments need to be extended effectively. Prioritize, and weigh.

Clarity, Evidence, and Courtesy go a long way.

Good luck!

i have a daughter who debates & i have judged at a couple of tournaments --

send constructive & rebuttal documents. I can not keep up with fast speaking & would prefer to have something I can read off of/reference when making my decision.

email - kerenandellen@gmail.com

- parent judge

- speak slow and clearly, clarity + presentation comes first

- i prefer logical arguments

- do not be rude in crossfires or during the round

- i do listen to crossfire and it does impact my decision

- please time yourself and your opponents, I may time sometimes

- i do not take many notes, i follow the main idea

- do not argue with my decision, i may lower your speaker points

I debated at NSU University School in Public Forum Debate for five years, where I amassed 12 bids and reached Quarters at TOC. I am currently a junior at Penn.

• Tech > Truth. I will vote for any argument that is extended, warranted, and weighed. Debate is a game. However, every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact) needs to be extended.
• Second rebuttal must frontline turns and defense you are going to collapse on.
• Defense is not sticky. Everything in final focus needs to be in summary.
• I prefer line-by-line instead of big picture in the second half of the debate.
• Signpost: I don’t need a roadmap if you signpost well.
• I can flow most speeds as long as you are clear.

Weighing:

• As a debater, I ran mostly structural violence arguments and weighing overviews. While I enjoy these types of debates, I think they need to be done well. I won’t assume this type of framework unless you give me a warrant.
• Only 3 types of weighing mechanisms: probability, time frame, and magnitude.
• Please do comparative weighing. Weighing your own arguments does not matter if it is not compared to how they weigh theirs. If two teams have competing weighing mechanisms, tell me which one is more important.

Evidence:

• I prefer cut cards over paraphrasing. It is harder to misconstrue evidence.
• I won’t call for evidence unless it is contested by both teams. I consider it judge intervention.

Progressive Arguments:

• Disclosure is good; paraphrasing is bad. While these are my personal opinions, I won’t pick you up automatically if you don’t win the shell.
• Theory is intended to make the debate space more equitable, so don’t read frivolous theory.

Ask me any questions you may have before the round. You can also refer to Amanda Frank’s paradigm for similar preferences.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: semplenyc@gmail.com

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (2020 - )

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-PRESENT)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director of the New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - Present)

Debater Background
Former Debater for New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
An alumnus of the IMPACT Coalition - New York Urban Debate League (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Rounds Judged
Jack Howe is the first I will judge on this LD topic.

LD Paradigm

I've judged LD in the northeast and given my policy background, I can judge a circuit LD debate. My thoughts on LD are pretty similar to Policy given that you can run whatever you want... just make an argument and impact it. My specifics on LD (which I judge similar to Policy) is listed below.

PF Paradigm
I've been coaching PF for a few years now and to talk about my judging paradigm on PF, I would like to quote from Brian Manuel, a well-respected debate coach in the debate community when he says the following:

"This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in the debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you"


Policy Short Version:
I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I enter my fifteenth year in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due of these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is failing to explain what your argument is and not telling me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that makes no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that its a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the on-going mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

Hi! My name is Jae, currently a Junior here at Penn studying business analytics. You can treat me as a lay judge as I do not have a formal debate background.

Do not treat me like a 4th grader.

Please be nice, do not post round, and best of luck!

I am a debate parent.

I've been judging JV Public Forum for a year and am a lay judge. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said and follow the connections made.

I usually don't have a lot of topic knowledge. So, be sure to implicate everything, have a clear collapsing strategy, and really explain your points well.

Be sure to extend EVERY part of offense/defense you're going for in back half.

No prog, no spreading.

Crossfire plays a role in my decision.

Lastly, the debate space should be inclusive and fun. Be assertive, not aggressive, don't mock your opponents, etc.

Hello everyone!

I competed in Congress from 2013-2017, accumulating 21 bids to the Tournament of Champions. I have been judging Congress/PF ever since.

When it comes to speeches, I care a tad about how you sound, but care WAY more about what you're saying. An unpolished speaker with awesome points wins my ballot over a polished speaker with subpar points every time.

Before getting to the main areas I focus on, a couple of quick notes:

I am a huge sucker for a good author/sponsorship speech. Never be afraid to give one! Especially when nobody wants to step up to give that first speech, that gets major brownie points for me. On a similar note, if there are unbalanced debates, I expect you to be able to flip sides if needed. Internet is a thing in rounds now, so there should be no excuse. Even if there's not, you have had weeks to prepare for this tournament and should have appropriate evidence and points to flip. If there are multiple speakers in a row on the same side and you continue to speak, you should expect your scores and ranks to be dropped accordingly. At that point, you are adding little to the debate by rehashing and exclusively speaking on one side.

For my Presiding Officers, as long as you do not make mistakes and allow for a smooth flow of debate, you'll end up on my ballot. Stay in the background and make the round easy for everyone.

I narrow my main critiques of speeches to these three points:

Evidence:

I am a HUGE stickler for good evidence. Be aware of the news you are citing and reading, and be cognizant of the political biases that may seep through. Make sure your evidence is either quantified or substantiated. Don't just overload me with analysis from pundits when you can provide prove-able evidence. I also take faking evidence very seriously and have no problem card-checking if the situation calls for it.

Refutation:

There is precisely one speech that gets an excuse for not refuting and it is the first affirmative. After that, you should be debating. If it is past the first affirmative and you are not refuting, expect your ranks and scores to suffer. I also think it's important to note that there is a significant difference between just name-dropping an individual and actively refuting the opposing side's argument.

Impact:

You all are Senators/Representatives (as an aside, please refer to each other as Senators/Representatives. Be respectful to those around you and avoid calling them Mr./Ms.), and as such, the bills you are debating have actual effects on the people that you are representing. So when you speak, make sure you acknowledge the people you represent, and how the bills in question affect them.

Have fun!

Freshman at UPenn, did PF for four years for Altamont School in Birmingham, AL and qualled to Nats and GTOC 2x. I consider myself a tech judge and I pretty much adapt to the style of the debaters but I have a few notes/preferences (Public Forum specific).

_________________________

GENERAL

- Add me to the email chain, email at bottom.

- Assume I have little to no topic knowledge.

- Tech > truth. Dropped arguments are true arguments and evidence is a necessity.

- Just don't be offensive/abusive it's not that hard. Debate should be about inclusivity. If you are offensive/abusive I will dock you speaks and maybe drop you depending on how bad you are.

- Novice Debaters: Please just use your whole speech time, it will always help you more than hurt you and I'll give you higher speaks.

- Talk however fast you want, I can understand speed but if you are going to spread, email me and your opponents a speech doc.

- Warning: I am not really familiar with theory/really progressive arguments but if you explain/warrant it well with evidence I'm open to it.

- If you want me to call for a card because you think your opponents are misrepresenting it, tell me to do so and I will.

SPECIFIC SPEECH STUFF

- Second rebuttal should at least respond to turns put on their case.

- Weigh from summary on, if not rebuttal.

- I will not vote on an argument if it is not in final focus and summary.

- No new unresponsive arguments from 2nd summary onward.

- I don't flow cross but it is binding. If something important is mentioned, bring it up in a speech.

_________________________

If you have any questions ask me before or after round or email me at wvsdebate@gmail.com Also I'm pretty much always gonna disclose, if you don't agree with my decision, ask me I'll be happy to explain.

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

I am a parent lay judge and have been judging for the past few years.
This means try to keep the debate at a conversational speed.

I have a business and marketing background.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
It would be beneficial for you to hash out your link chain and narrative throughout the round.

Please engage with what your opponents say in their speeches and not just ignore it.

Above all, please make the debate an inclusive space and be respectful to your fellow debaters.
Remember to have fun!

Add me to the email chain: htang8717@yahoo.com

Judged couple in-person and online tournament last year, still pretty new to PF debate judging, but I have been following debate topics very closely in the past couple years. Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I am looking forward to hearing from both sides arguments.

NYU 26' and College Prep 22'

add me to the chain please, callum.theiding [at] gmail.com

I did 4 years of policy in high school and I'm currently in my second year of college policy. I'm happy to judge anything you wanna read, barring anything bigoted and harmful. I think debate is an awesome community where you can show off whatever you've been researching.

There's a fine line in cross between being confident and being rude or mean. Err on the side of being nice.

Note for PF at the bottom

LD/Policy

T

people should go for T more. I like it. good T debates are beautiful

-I think fairness is an internal link to education, more education happens pre round during prep and research

-aff creativity has always been kind of ridiculous to me, affs that say this usually do explode the neg research burden, but i will vote on it if you can effectively weigh it

-love love love when affs on the fringe of topicality have a clever c/i or w/m, its smart and strategic

Ks

-links of omission are kinda lame, find specific lines or instances where the aff actually links

-i prefer a more material and defined alt but this not all at required. that said, if you're reading a rejection/inaction alt please have a specific warrant for why inaction is key

-lowered speaks if you're reading an incommensurability alt and say the k is conditional, either stand by what your authors actually say or don't read it

-i do not want to hear your high theory buzzword soup

CPs

-love a creative adv cp

-i think more than 3 condo is pushing it but if you can win your interp, do what you want

-not a fan of the 2ac perm shot gun

-please explain your process cp, a good chunk of these are way wonkier than they need to be. theres definitely a huge advantage to confusing your opponents but a confusing cp is hard to vote for

Theory

-be clear, if i can't flow it and you try to weigh it, good luck

-please impact your arguments out early

-prefer condo or process cp bad over things like a 5 sec vague alts bad that get exploded in the 1ar

Case

-for the neg, those hard right aff link chains are often very dubious, your speaks will be rewarded if you use a badly written case to your advantage instead of just spamming CPs and DAs

-2As, I get the need for speed but gimme at least half a second between answering 1NC case args to let me move my pen

DA

-pls pls pls do your impact calc, earlier the better, give me in depth comparison of impacts, not just "it happens faster, vote neg"

-not a fan of ptx, but if you win it, ill vote for it. it's been a hot second since i've seen a decent one.

K affs

I think the best ones are related to the topic but effectively articulate what the resolution is missing/why it's bad.

I'm more familiar with the cap debate than the fw debate. If you're going for fw, don't blitz through your blocks and slow down for your standards. Actually debating on the line by line and not just reading a script is mega ethos boost.

PF

-I will flow each round. If something is new in the last two speeches, it's much better if you flag it and implicate it. The more work you do yourself, the less I have to intervene.

-You don't have to ask to take prep. It's your prep time. You decide when you want to take it.

-I think teams should probably send speech docs. It's a good norm for ev ethics. Also it wastes less time than calling for cards.

-Impact calc is what wins round, not buzzwords. However, I think more people should be doing internal link work. It seems like most people don't have great defenses of their cases besides basically saying "nuh-uh".

-I do not want to be in theory rounds in PF. PF is too short to have meaningful theory debates with depth. If you want to read theory, I'd recommend switching to policy. There probably are cases where theory is warranted but the threshold for that is so insanely high. Also, RVI is not a thing.

I debated on the national circuit for Lambert back in the day (you should look me up to boost my ego) and am currently a student at Upenn.

Don't be rude or a bad person.

He/Him

put me on the email chain, please.

georgetian80@gmail.com

General

I strongly believe in Tech>Truth, but that does not mean doing sloppy debates with way too much on the flow. By the end of my flow I want a concise and clear way to vote.

I will probably have no idea what the topic is about, so please make everything easy to understand.

Everything extended must have a warrant.

Please clash and resolve said clash. I want to intervene as little as possible. Also, please weigh it'll make voting a lot easier.

I'm okay with speed but send a speech doc. (I have not debated for a while, I may be rusty so a speech doc will help no matter what)

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY IE if you don't extend a piece of defense even if your opponents don't frontline it I will not take it into account. You must extend everything you want me to write down. This is a hill I will die on.

Speech Specifics

Second rebuttal should frontline.

No new weighing in final focus unless it's responsive.

you should probably respond to frameworks in the speech directly after even if it's just for a few seconds.

Please time cross on your own. I don't really pay attention to cross either so use it as an opportunity to gain information not win the round.

Prog

I'm ok with theory (very rusty) especially, disclosure, open-source, paraphrasing, and some friv theory.

Theory must be in shell format

Please weigh in theory debates.

I have little experience with K lit but I will vote off of it if you warrant it well and explain everything. I am by no means experienced with kritiks and not be the best judge to read them with.

trix ^same as K

Since most of my debate career was online, I'm still super used to email chains as evidence sharing, and I think this should be a norm even in in-person debates.

Background: I debated Parli in High School and College. I am currently a coach for PF, have been judging PF ever since

-I don't mind speed, just speak clearly

-Time yourself, I will also keep time and will stop flowing when you run out of time

-I do prefer when you stand when giving speeches

-I vote on impacts. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims. Extend these through final focus.

-Please cut your cards in advance - if you can't find your card quickly, I will assume it does not exist and strike it from my flow

-I expect you to frontline, and please weigh in final focus

-I will not flow crossfire, if it is important bring it back in your speeches.

-Please signpost, makes flow easy

Please send all evidence and speeches to mgt2130@columbia.edu

Debated for 4 years for Princeton High School, NJ, did PF and CX debate. tech > truth. freshmen at upenn

lukert@sas.upenn.edu

1. Collapse

2. 2nd rebuttal should frontline

3. Extend ur offense in ur last 2 speeches

debate might be a game so have fun! if you make me laugh ill bump speaks, be snarky but not condescending!

Also if there's a 4-2 screw and you need high speaks to break, lmk at the end of the round and ill give you 30s

Update for TOC Digital 3: My background is in lay/traditional policy and it's been about a year since I've thought a lot about circuit debate/flowed spreading. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but the less I understand, the more likely I'll make a mistake. If y'all would help me out by slowing down (especially for arguments that aren't in the doc) and taking more time to explain complex arguments and how they function in the round, I'd really appreciate it :D

Hello, I'm Jason. I competed for Madison Central in Mississippi (mostly PF, Policy, and speech; dabbled in World Schools, Congress, and LD). I do BP and APDA debate at Penn now.

My background is mostly in lay/traditional debate, but I did some national circuit PF and policy and think about debate in a more technical way. Feel free to ask any questions before the round!

First and foremost, do what you do, and I'll do my best to follow and give constructive feedback. We are all here to learn, so above all else, please respect your opponents, teammates, and judges. At the end of the day, it's a lot more important to be a good person than a great speaker/debater.

General:

1- Tell me what argument(s) you’re winning, why you’re winning them, and why winning those arguments means you win the debate. The same goes for dropped arguments. Being technically proficient is important, but smart overviews, organization, and judge instruction can shape how I view technical issues on the flow.

2- Be smart and adaptable. Cases that are strategically written, clever logical analysis to respond to unpredictable/unrealistic arguments, and comparative weighing of arguments beyond probability/magnitude/timeframe are all great.

3- Here’s a video that shows the speed I am comfortable with without a doc. Please start off slow and work your way up to speed.

4- Highly warranted evidence is great. If there's evidence-sharing, I won't read evidence to make my decision unless you tell me to or I think there's something fishy going on. I might read it for fun though.

5- Try to make the round accessible and educational for everyone involved. Complex or unorthodox arguments are fine, but make them in a way that your opponents can easily understand and don't be mean or shifty in cross if you're asked to explain them. But also, if you read an argument that you wouldn't usually read just to confuse your seemingly-less experienced opponents, I'll be very sad.

Public Forum:

1- PF speeches are super short. Your speaks will be amazing if the last two speeches focus on winning and implicating a few arguments, rather than going for everything.

2- 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

3- An argument must have been in summary for it to be in final focus.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1- If the framework debate is clearly irrelevant (i.e. both debaters are staking the round on consequences) just concede to your opponent's framework and win under it.

2- If the values are different, I'll probably view the value and criterion as a single framework rather than two separate layers of the debate.

Policy:

1- I'm definitely more familiar with policy arguments than kritikal arguments. Seriously go for anything though (provided it isn't hateful), but the further something strays from what I'm familiar with, the more explanation I'll need to understand.

2- Pls slow down on taglines, analytics, and stuff you really want me to flow.

4- Honestly not super familiar with the K outside of Cap and Security. I like to learn though, so if that's your jam, just explain it well (especially how the K interacts with the aff) and I'll be happy to listen.

5- Same goes for K affs. Just be very clear on what your aff does and do impact calc vs framework. For what it's worth, I went for clash/skills impacts in 2NRs on framework, but am good for whatever.

6- I won't judge kick a counterplan in the 2NR unless I'm told to, and it wouldn't take much from the 2AR to convince me not to.

7- Probably not great for super techy competition/theory debates.

8- I'm not super comfortable adjudicating arguments about something that happened out-of-round.

9- The first lines of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words I put at the top of my RFD.

Other Events:

1- Be organized, be polished, and make me think.

2- Have fun!

***penn update: if you're flight two, be outside the door ready to debate 10 minutes before your flight is scheduled to start. thanks!

i debated for oakwood w elle balle !

+0.5 speaker point boost: add me to your email chains/evidence docs: sylviet@sas.upenn.edu, please send a speech doc before constructive and rebuttal.

above all else, conduct yourself responsibly in round. please be respectful to your opponents, don't talk over each other in cross. i'll vote down teams that are -ist. the goal is for the debate space to be accessible and safe for everyone, act in a way that furthers that.

if you spread i will put down my pen and put my head in my hands. put the public back in public forum as leon huang would say :(

make sure your evidence says what you're asserting it says; if the other team calls for a card and the evidence is miscut/misconstrued, i'll cross it off my flow. on that, if you want me to look at a contested card post-round in order to factor it into my decision, tell me.

weigh!!!!! please make weighing comparative; explain to me how to resolve the clash between your two weighing mechanisms. definitely have it in summary and final focus, i'd love it to be in 2nd rebuttal.

signpost clearly during your speeches.

you MUST extend the same pieces of evidence throughout your back half speeches. final must match summary.

i ran, love and am comfortable evaluating Ks and prog, with two notes.

first, don't run progressive arguments against novice debaters. don't be mean. make sure your argument is accessible, and that there are ways for your opponents to engage.

second, it's extremely unlikely i'll vote on frivolous theory, or any shell with no clear violation. i think theory is fine but i will literally never be happy voting on it - especially disclosure. run at your own risk

let me know if there's anything i can do to make the round a more comfortable space. if you have thoughts/questions after the round, feel free to ask.

IT Professional serving as the Senior Director of Enterprise Software Development at a Government Agency. Economics Enthusiast with an MBA. truth > tech

Please be sure to have fleshed out warranting and contextualize all of your arguments, make sure you do lots of weighing to explain why your impact matters within the scope of the round.

Tell me what I am voting for and why I am not voting for your opponents in the latter half of your speeches if you want an easier path to the ballot.

Do not spread and don’t run progressive arguments which aren’t intuitive to follow unless you are trying not to win.

Parent judge, prefer well developed arguments with good logic.

Please keep the debate at a conversational speed.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.

Please respect your opponents and keep speeches and crossfire civil.

Most importantly, remember to have fun!

I am a lay parent judge.

I value a clearly laid out argument, supported both by evidence and logic. Make sure to make the link chain especially clear when linking to particularly outlandish impacts (I.e. nuclear war, collapse of democracy, etc.)

When reminding me of evidence, make sure not just to use the card name, but also say what the evidence contains. I won’t remember random card names without the content of them.

I’m mostly unfamiliar with debate jargon (concede, collapse, extend, etc.) so try to avoid it, or I might not catch something.

Don’t spread, speak clearly

No theories, no kritiks

Generally be respectful, disrespect will result in low speaks

Upenn ‘27 - angela8wu@gmail.com &germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

Basic Rundown

• First time Lay Judge
• 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.
• I don't disclose decisions

I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents

I’m currently a first-year college student and on my college's Mock Trial Team as an attorney. I did policy debate (pretty much the only event I did) all 4 years of high school. My partner and I were flex debaters (mix of policy and kritikal arguments; we especially loved running soft left affs) and I competed in both the Wyoming circuit (very traditional and lay) as well as the national circuit and NSDA Nats, so I’m amenable to both progressive and traditional arguments and debate styles.

Be nice and don’t say sexist/homophobic/racist/etc. things or low speaker points for you/I’ll be inclined to vote against you. Speech and debate should not be a place where that behavior is tolerated.

Add me to the email chain: ayeung923@gmail.com

Policy/Cross Examination Debate

If you are confused about anything below, don’t be afraid to ask before the round. I’ll be happier if you ask questions than if you just stay confused, because it shows you actually read my paradigm. If I forgot to include anything, feel free to ask about that too.

Spreading: Do or don’t, it doesn’t matter to me. If you do, though, make sure you’re at least pronouncing every word and you take time to breathe. Slow down on taglines. I will ask all debaters beforehand whether or not they would prefer people spreading in the round for accessibility purposes, and if your opponents answer they’d rather you not spread, don’t do it. Slower, clear speakers sound more credible than unclear, fast ones.

Off-Time Road Maps: Please tell me how many pages I’ll need (case in order of advantages/contentions, off case positions in order)

Voters: I’m a SUCKER for impact calculus (I was a 2A), but of course the link work still has to be there. Line by line is also good; for me, tech > truth, and debates are won on the flow. I LOVE evidence comparison and love seeing crosses where debaters pull out lines from their/their opponents’ evidence.

Ks/K Affs: Good for both; I prefer K Affs to have a plan but if it doesn’t, at least make sure its link to the topic is clear. I’m familiar with the more common K lit (cap K, anthro, securitization, identity politics), but please take time to explain the jargon and links; never assume I know what you’re talking about. I’d caution you that I have little to no exposure to high theory (psychoanalysis, Deleuze, etc), so if you’re planning on running that, you’d better walk me through it every step of the way.

Theory:

· Framework – essential when opponent is running kritikal theory

· Topicality – I actually love a good T debate when it’s done well. Only go for T if you are confident you can debate it well.

· Condo – condo good. Of course, though, there’s a point where the number of off gets ridiculous.

· The following are bad unless the other team’s plan is borderline abusive

- PICs

- SPECs

- Process CPs

· These are fine:

- Agent CPs

- Other theory I haven’t listed

· Perms – valid perms are all of plan + all of counterplan

Public Forum Debate

I never did PF myself. However, most of my sentiments in the Policy/Cross Examination Debate section will most likely inform my judging for PF as well. That DOESNT MEAN, however, that I'm coming into PF expecting or wanting to see a policy-like round; I have respect for PF as its own event, so while judge adaptation is important and you should be aware of the type of arguments I lean towards, please understand that presentation-wise, I don't expect nor want to see you change your personal debate style to fit something more "policy-like."

Please no theory unless it's topicality, or framework for Ks, or if you're calling for your opponent to lose because they said something racist, for example. For any other theory: either ask me before round or use the general rule of thumb that you should only run other theory if the other team has actually done something egregious. For PF, I want to see theory as a legit check on abuse, NOT a strategy. I have come to the conclusion that I am more okay with policy rounds being engulfed by ridiculous theory debates because there is time to burn. That is not the case for PF, however, and I'd rather use the time we have on more substantive things.

The MOST IMPORTANT THING here is to make sure that you tell me how to vote; impact calc is still ultimately preferred.

Lincoln Douglas Debate

My experience with LD is minimal. I’ll evaluate the debate through the value criterion, which is what I’ve been told, but the MOST IMPORTANT THING here is to make sure that you tell me how to vote.

Congress/House

If you have me as a judge for these events, I’ll be crying and you should be too.

Speech Events

I am quite familiar with most if not all speech events. I did extemp for a short time (though I wasn’t particularly good at it) and watched my fair share of interps, oratories, infos, etc.

Some basic information about me

I will not tolerate arguments that are deliberately incorrect and/or offensive.

I am a traditional judge, and

1) I value a balanced approach between speed and clarity.

2) I appreciate a clear and holistic analysis of why you should win the case not your opponent.

3) I weigh more on the quality of arguments than on the quantity of arguments.