Hello Debaters,

My name is Div, I am a parent judge and excited to learn more about the topic from you.

I believe all participants should do their best. I am a flay judge and will try to follow the flow. If your debating skills paint a picture, especially - points are supported by evidence, counterpoints that are reasoned and contentions that are coherent. If you can do these, I will be happy to give you the points you deserve.

I look towards a healthy and respectful debate between contestants and inappropriate behavior - derogatory, inflammatory, demeaning remarks will impact your speaker score and result.

Most of all I encourage you all to have fun. Debate is an opportunity to learn and grow and more often than not paying careful attention to your opponents arguments will help you do that.

I wish you all the best and leave you with - "You may disapprove or disagree with your opponent, but you will defend their right to speech"

conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Lay Parent Judge

Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will likely lead to a loss. Be mature good people. Speak slowly and clearly.

-Make Arguments as to why I should prefer your side

-Make Arguments that make sense, I won't vote for it if I don't understand

Please No Speed, I only listen to what I can understand

Please Roadmap - Contention 1, Contention 2....Etc. Thank you

No Prog, No Ks, No Theory, No Arguments that are not related to the topic

Hi, my name is Monali Chakrabarty

I am a Parent Judge.

Speaking: Please speak coherently and avoid spreading

Please do not bring up new evidence after the first summary

Please weigh your impacts and compare your case against the opponent instead of stating that you're better

Please time yourself, and lastly no rude comments and please be respectful

My email in case you need it: monali_c@yahoo.com

As a relatively new debater with a foundational understanding of debate rules, I prioritize logic and clarity in arguments. I assess the coherence of arguments, examining how they interrelate and contribute to the overall debate.

I am cautious about accepting arguments solely based on research without thorough consideration of factors such as statistics, population demographics, bias, and sample size. I value evidence that is robust and well-supported.

For me, a successful debate isn't solely about winning but rather about fostering a meaningful discussion between two teams. I appreciate debates where each side engages thoughtfully and constructively with the arguments presented.

In summary, I seek arguments that are logically sound, supported by credible evidence, and contribute to a productive exchange of ideas within the debate round.

I'm still quite new to judging PF. Be clear in your arguments,,, I appreciate off-time road maps.

I won't flow cross, but I am listening

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

Please don't spread, don't use too much debater jargon, and most importantly, be kind. :-)

I'm a lay judge and have some experience in PF debate.

• Please speak clearly and not too fast
• Please be respectful to each other
• Have fun debating!

I will judge based on a combination of persuasion, general logic, and common sense. Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in the final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

I usually vote in a stock-issues paradigm, but I am open to alternative paradigms if the debate goes there. I like impact calculus in closing speeches. I do not like when debaters are rude to each other; please always be kind and respectful.

About me: I was raised by a single mom in Newton, Kansas. I hold a B.A. in Economics and History from Columbia University and a Masters in Public Administration from the University of California. My career is in community organizing and legislative work.

Experience:

• Four years of coaching experience (teams, camp seminars, private mentoring)
• Four years of high school policy debate (Flow, Lay, K, Performance)
• Broke at the NSDA tournament in three events: Domestic Extemp, International Extemp + Policy Debate
• Placed 9th speaker in Policy Debate at the NSDA (NFL) national tournament; broke to out rounds at several national tournaments

General paradigm:Tabula Rasa. Default policymaker. Judge Non-Intervention:Under no circumstances will I intervene to stop the round, tell you to slow down, request to see any evidence unless technical rules are at stake, make small talk with you before voting, etc.

General preferences:

• Be respectful of others.
• Use all of your speech time, use all of your prep time, and put effort into cross-examination.
• Please share electronic evidence prior to speeches. I'll only time flashing if it becomes a problem or if it's required of me.
• Spreading is fine (theory against spreading is also fine). I'm well accustomed to it, and you'll be able to recognize my non-verbal frustration if I cannot understand you. But remember that spreading never substitutes for persuasive arguments.

How to Win:

• Begin debate rebuttals with the words "the affirmative/negative has won the round because..." and then tell me exactly how my RFD (reason for decision) should be written on the ballot. Give me the big picture in your rebuttal, rather than immediately jumping into details.
• Use the terms magnitude, probability, and time frame to structure your arguments.

Theory:

• Conditionality - it's up for debate whether or not multiple-worlds is fair or educational. In high school, I ran two or three conditional positions whenever I had a suitable judge.
• Time sucks are often just a waste of your time. You should always just focus on making solid arguments, not arguments that just fill time.
• Don't read new evidence during the final rebuttals. The time is better spent explaining arguments you have already made.
• I generally see "Vote against the argument, not the team" as a persuasive answer to RVI arguments made by affirmatives.

Kritiks:

• Love 'em. And I have a strong familiarity with most literature used in debate.
• Contextualize the kritik to the aff.Be specific. Big words don't impress me. Analysis does.
• I've noticed that it can be difficult for me to vote for an untopical kritikal affirmative. Try to affirm the topic or relate to the topic in a meaningful way. That being said, I used k affirmatives a lot -- they're a lot more fun and educational when related to the topic.

Topicality:

• Reasonability vs. Competing Interps - it's up for debate. I like either one. Affirmatives are well-advised make a reasonability argument, a we-meet argument, and a counter-interp.
• Leverage topicality - cross-apply the standards to a theory flow; use it to establish links to disads or kritiks.
• Negatives running topicality should try to make a "there's a topical version of their aff" argument to non-uniq education voters affirmatives try to leverage. Negatives should use fairness to turn education claims. I.e "Kids will quit if debate's unfair" or "Affirmative stances unchallenged by clash inevitably fail or create political strategies wedded to violence."

Counterplans:

• Love 'em.
• Affs should be creative with perms and take time to explain them. For example, if someone runs a "Consult Russia" CP then you could argue that I, the judge, represent Russia and that the debate is the consulation. Combine cool perms like that with theory.
• Familiar with all the structures. I used a lot of creative PICs and advantage counterplans in high school. Ask me about other forms of counterplans -- I'd be happy to share some interesting ideas.

Disads and Oncase:

• Plan-specific disads coupled with well-warranted solvency turns: the best strategy ever.
• Use impact turns strategically.
• If you decide to run politics be creative. I don't particularly want to hear generic, outdated evidence I know you haven't personally cut.
• Affirmatives: when answering politics DAs, you may want to use "losers lose," impact turn the disad with better evidence, run anti-ptx theory, or try out a creative perm.
• Affirmatives should know how to strategically kick out of advantages-- competitive rounds are all about prioritization.

Things I don't like:

• Excessive small talk between speeches.
• Affirmatives that are loaded with a bunch of prempts - seems unwise to lock yourself into a position instead of giving the 2AC flexibility + chances are most of your preempts will not turn out useful.
• Certain mannerisms: speaking though your partner excessively, excessive swaring, throwing flash drives, refusing to stand up to speak when fully capable (it helps me hear better)
• Speaking into your laptop, thereby muffling your voice.
• Debaters who won't adjust their delivery pace for opponents -- If the other team obviously cannot keep up with your speaking pace, then you should reasonably adjust your pace to suit their needs.
• People spend the entirety of the 2AC or the neg-block just reading evidence to hide the fact that they don't know how to explain their arguments and do line-by-line analysis.
• Debaters who only read pre-written blocks. I can tell.
• People who make arguments embedded in road maps.
• Debaters who just read and flow their opponents' arguments off of shared electronic files. You'll miss something that's said and it may distract you from preparing your speeches. If you have to do it this way, then fine. But I often notice it leads to dropped arguments.
• Strategies in which teams run all of their oncase in the 2NC. The 1NC should lay out most of the key arguments of the round, so that the 2NC can be spent explaining some of those arguments in-depth.

As a debate judge, I believe it's essential to evaluate participants across three distinct metrics to ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of their performance. These metrics are Matter, Manner, and Method, each focusing on different aspects of the debate:

1. Matter: This metric revolves around the substance of the arguments presented by the debaters. It assesses the relevance, depth, and persuasiveness of the points they bring to the discussion. A strong performance in Matter entails presenting well-researched evidence, logical reasoning, and coherent analysis to support one's position. Debaters should demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic and effectively address key points raised by their opponents.

2. Manner: Manner pertains to the delivery and presentation skills of the debaters. It encompasses elements such as clarity, confidence, tone, body language, and overall speaking style. Effective communication is crucial in conveying arguments convincingly to the audience and the judge. Debaters should strive for articulate expression, engaging delivery, and respectful interaction with their opponents. A compelling presence and the ability to maintain the audience's attention can significantly enhance a debater's performance in this metric.

3. Method: Method evaluates the strategic approach and organization of the debater's speech throughout the debate. It considers how effectively debaters structure their arguments, respond to opposing points, and adapt their tactics based on the flow of the discussion. A successful debater employs a coherent and logical method of presentation, effectively utilizing rebuttals, cross-examination, and refutations to strengthen their position and undermine their opponent's arguments. Consistency, adaptability, and strategic thinking are key components of a strong performance in Method.

By assessing participants across these three metrics, I aim to ensure a comprehensive evaluation that takes into account both the content and delivery of their arguments, as well as their strategic approach to the debate. This approach fosters fairness, encourages excellence, and provides constructive feedback to help debaters improve their skills.

I have learned debate in school but I have not done competitive debate. I have judged practice rounds and helped assist debate classes, but I have limited judge experience at national competitive debate tournaments. I have directed debate tournaments and watched many debate rounds.

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the reason for decision should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

Hello My Name is Judge Forde and I have been judging debate for 3 years. I have been apart of the debate community for 4 years, where I started as a coach during my last years of High School. I mainly Judge Public Forum and I am willing to learn more about other competitions. Most of my tournaments have been through New York while others were not to far from New York. I am proud to be apart of these competitions and I look forward to Judging more Tournaments. Thank you for Welcoming me Aboard.

Background: I debated at Memorial High School in Houston for 3 years, graduating in 2018. I mainly competed in extemp in high school, and I qualified for TFA State in FX and the TOC in Extemp and Informative. I also qualified for Nationals in World Schools debate twice and reached the quarterfinals of World Schools in 2018. My main debate events were Public Forum and Congress, which I did on and off for the most part. I graduated from Harvard in 2022 with a degree in History, and I currently work for a LGBTQ rights nonprofit in Boston, MA.

I have judged on the TFA circuit in Texas since I graduated high school in 2018, judging disproportionately many tournaments in 2020-21 and then nearly every weekend in the 2022-23 school year. I consider myself most proficient at judging World Schools Debate and public speaking events, although I have of course judged many a round of LD or PF.

My email for any email chains is knfjudges@gmail.com.

WSD: Remember that WSD is not LD or PF, and I will not be "voting on the flow" the way that LD and PF judges do. I will generally try to stick to the 68-72 range for each speaker, although I've found myself going under that range more often than I've gone over. Of course, this means that you might not like my decision at the end of the day. To lessen the odds of that happening, here are some tips to maximize the chances of winning my ballot:

• For content: "The House" is understood to be the whole world unless specified otherwise. Therefore, your content score will not go above 28 unless you bring solid international examples to the table. Generally, the more empirical and the less hypothetical evidence you bring to the table, the better you'll tend to do.
• For style: I would say the easiest way to improve style points on my ballot is with speeches that have personality. Obviously, this will differ from speaker to speaker, but I have rewarded speakers who depart somewhat from the "clean speech without fluency errors" kind of model and bring humor, personal connections to the topic, anecdotes, etc. to the table.
• For strategy: Teams that are consistent down the bench, especially teams that have a consistent team line, will tend to do better in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here; generally, teams should take 2 POIs, usually at the transition between points that were elaborated on during the roadmap.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is the prevailing international style of debate, where the debate changes every round, concerns issues on a global rather than a national scale, and invites teams to clash on the central set of issues presented at conversational pace rather than trying to win with tricks or arcane points.

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

I generally prefer to flow on paper with different colors of pens representing the two teams, although in a pinch, I will flow on Excel on my computer.

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

I would say that, generally, a principled argument would carry my ballot - at the end of the day, if the team argues that I should care about the principle regardless of the practical effects, then I will probably buy that argument. That being said, I do not have any trouble discarding a principle argument where this type of framing is not employed. If a team advances a principle argument through the reply, but impacts it out to a practical impact, then I probably would not prefer the principle argument just because it is labeled a principled argument. If both teams advance principle arguments through to the reply, I would tend to evaluate the competing principle arguments first.

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

Essentially, the question of strategy is whether the debater addressed the main arguments in the round. If they focus too much on dropped or irrelevant arguments, they would have a deduction in strategy. I also evaluate POIs here - if there is a lack of engagement in POIs, this category would be negatively impacted, whereas if a debater does particularly well with POIs, they might have this category bolstered. Finally, the team line also figures in my calculation here - a team with a consistent bench will do well in strategy, whereas a team with three speakers who feel like they're making separate and distinct speeches would not do well in strategy.

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

Style.

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

I tend to rely heavily on warrants and examples; a warranted argument will outweigh an unwarranted argument, and I will generally prefer advocacy with solid international examples rather than merely hypothetical points. Of course, the examples must support the point, rather than just being examples for their own sake.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

I tend to adopt a broad view - did the OPP's quibbles with the PROP's model successfully challenge their advocacy of the motion as a whole, or did the Prop's use of the model nonetheless prove the truth of the resolution despite the OPP quibbling with it? Frankly, I see a "quibble" as seeing the forest for the trees - in my mind, OPP teams should play hardball with the model proposed by the PROP.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I would take a comparative worlds approach, but ultimately, look to whether either side either upholds or defeats the motion as a whole. The model vs. countermodel debate is not supposed to end up about the models - all models should be in service of each team's broader burden.

PF Debate: I want to see a clear claim/warrant/impact structure with clear weighing at the end of the day; I've frequently found myself wanting some brief framing analysis or meta-weighing throughout the round as well (especially on evidence quality and strength of link). I am not receptive to theory or kritikal arguments in PF (this includes disclosure theory, etc.). The more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you. Defense is not sticky (please carry it through the flow). Finally, please remember that this is public forum debate, not "shorter policy," so please avoid spreading, and touches of rhetoric are always welcome (and will be reflected in your speaker points).

LD Debate: I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments (I do not consider myself a traditional LD judge), but I simply ask that you explain your arguments well. If I cannot explain your argument in the RFD on the ballot, I will not vote for that argument. For Ks, make sure that the link is specific to the case and that the alt makes sense. I will warn you that I have heard many bad Ks in my life, and while I have voted for Ks in the past, that doesn't mean I automatically like every K that I hear. In addition, it's really no fun for anyone to hear rounds where the AFF has never heard of the K, and their only response is "the NEG doesn't have a value and a criterion so we should win." So try to remain respectful of your opponents as well.

Repeated from PF but... I really appreciate good meta-weighing (especially on evidence quality and strength of link), and the more that the final speeches can give me clear voters and/or write my RFD for me, the better the round will turn out for you.

Congress: I would say that I prefer content over presentation. When evaluating content, I look to the type of speech being given (constructive, rebuttal, and crystallization) and my expectations for each type of speech... Unfortunately, I have found that there are many constructive speeches given later and later in the chamber, and many so-called rebuttal or crystallization speeches that neither rebut nor crystallize. Please, please, please remember that this is congressional DEBATE and not congressional soapbox. I love clash and I hate repetitious arguments.

Relatedly, I really detest when chambers need to take in-house recesses at the beginning of items because nobody is prepared to debate. I believe that I have somewhat contributed to this problem by stating that I prefer well elucidated speeches over speeches that were extemped in the chamber. To be fair, I don't want to hear these speeches for the sake of giving a speech, but I am now of the belief that I should reward the representatives who are actually prepared to debate in my rankings. So do with that what you will.

Public Speaking: In extemp, make sure you answer the question in a well structured manner. Sources are also important to me; I read both foreign and domestic news on a regular basis, and BSing a speech is not the way to win my ballot. (For the record: I have checked sources that sounded fishy, and I have tanked speakers who have egregiously misrepresented sources. Misremembered the date or the publication for a source? Fine, I've done that before, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt! Told me that Boko Haram has attacked Egypt or that a New York Times editorial praised El Salvador's Bitcoin experiment when, in fact, it panned it? Not OK!)

For all events, I enjoy humor; for the two platform events, I also like to hear a personal connection to the topic throughout the speech, as well as unique takes on common topics. Please elucidate the stakes for your speech so we know why it's important that we listen to you for 10 minutes about a given topic.

Interp: Contestants should not try to change their pieces for my ballot, but here are a few things. For all events: Does the introduction adequately contextualize the piece, and does it lay out the societal critique the piece brings to the table? Does the cutting have a clear narrative arc? Does the teaser adequately tease the piece? For DI: Do you have a range of emotions (positive)? Do you yell as a substitute for other emotions (negative)? For HI: Is the piece funny? Does the piece add to a societal conversation about its topic, or is it just comedy? For POI: Does the program's narrative make sense? Are the characters adequately distinguished from each other, and do the transitions make sense?

Hey! My name is Anish and I am probably your judge if you are reading this so I will get to the point.

*if you read SV or anything related to marginalized groups, I will evaluate with a higher standard of proof and criticism. I read arguments very similar to this as a high schooler and would hate it when people would read them without properly researching and/or using them just to win rounds.*

Important Info:

1. Main Events:

1. Public Forum, World Schools Debate, Congressional Debate

2. Pace

1. Don’t spread preferably (I can handle some speed but I don’t want to miss anything that you read so I wouldn’t go the spreading route)

3. Theory

1. I am a very traditional debater that largely debated locals so I have almost no experience in this department. Run at your own risk.

4. Docs

1. Send all docs to 4n15h1904@gmail.com (ik its weird, its an old email), especially evidence. I prefer a PDF format with cards similar to this format. Docx is fine but may have wonky formatting.

2. Format like this: *Tournament* *Round* *PRO team v CON team*

1. Ex. NCFL Octas Rock Bridge GS v Delbarton CE

5. Evidence

1. Evidence Ethics

1. Every piece of evidence you read needs to be cut and easily accessible for when evidence challenges come up

2. If I want a piece of evidence, I will ask for it. If you want me to look at a piece of evidence, ask for it and tell me what’s wrong with the evidence specifically (ex. No part of their evidence actually says *insert statement that the other team asserted*.)

2. Norms

1. I am fine with paraphrase, just keep cards ready and if you are clearly lying about your evidence then you will get downed especially if the other team goes for that

6. Signpost please for god’s sake

1. Signpost not just for which case you are on but contentions and bonus points if you tell me where in the argument, it makes my flowing a lot easier and allows me to keep all of your arguments on track

7. Weighing

1. I am a very big proponent of weighing (Who isn’t). Don’t do some magnitude or probability BS though. I want prereq analysis, link in analysis, timeframe, etc. I want you to genuinely think about how your arguments interact and take your opponents at their highest ground when weighing. I don’t care if you are only winning one issue in your entire debate, if you weigh and show me why it matters the most then you have my ballot if you win both the weighing level and the argument level.

8. Crossfire

1. I pay attention to cross but will not vote for anything in it unless brought into speeches.

2. You can be a little aggressive just make sure to not cross any line (especially ad hominems and stuff)

9. Norms (I emphasize this, I expect you to know these)

1. Extend any argument you go for (ex. Now onto our C1 where we told you that right now India’s investment in Space has reached its cap, fortunately the Artemis Accords provides new connections with world partners, providing billions of dollars investment which can boost space based climate infrastructure and help millions of Indians threatened by climate change)

2. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, warranted defense (if the 1R simply says this won’t happen because “____ (insert entity) won’t let it” without warranting then you don’t need to frontline and I will just strike the response)

3. Defense isn't sticky pls extend responses you want me to evaluate or else the debate becomes just muddled.

4. Flex Prep is fine w me

Last but not least: Tell me how to vote

I want your final focus to write the ballot for me basically

I want you to highlight a few things:

1. The argument(s) you won

1. Don't pick more than 2 args or points to go for (your case, a turn, etc.)

2. Why they matter the most in the round

1. Weigh hard

3. Extending why your opponents lost the arguments that they go for

1. Extend and implicate responses that kills their case basically (don't just say they dropped this response but tie back why their argument can’t function with that)

Fun Stuff

1. Work a Batman Reference in for +1.5 Speaker points

2. Stupid analogy for +1 Speaker point

3. comic sans in ur docs for +1 speaker point

*idrc abt speaks tbh, like I know they are tiebreakers and there for speaker positions, so like I keep mine generally pretty high cuz I don't want to mess with y'all's speaker award performances.

My Experience

Congratulations for making it down here! I figure I would show my debate experience so you all have an idea of what kind of debate I am experienced in

I competed for 4 years on the Eastern Missouri circuit (Super lay circuit) and occasionally nationally

Some of my achievements:

• NCFL Grand Nationals 2023 3rd Place in Public Forum Debate

• NSDA Nationals 2022 12th Place in Extemp Debate

• Greenhill Fall Classic Quarterfinalist in World Schools Debate

• Greenhill Fall Classic Top Speaker in World Schools Debate

• Millard North 2023 Octafinalist in Public Forum

• Millard North 2023 6th Speaker in Public Forum

I like clarity over speed. Speak clearly and confidently so I do not miss important details that you are mentioning.

You got this!

Hello! My name is Zev Ginsberg, I am a current undergraduate at Florida State University. I have judged PF and Parli both in person and remotely, but I am still relatively new to judging. As such, I ask that you please speak clearly and signpost effectively so I may most faithfully adjudicate your round.

State what your contentions will be, then say your contentions, then summarize your contentions. It is your job to prove to me which contentions and points I should be voting on. Ultimately, I will choose the winner based on which team has more successfully proven their position to be valid and true.

Finally, please be respectful of your teammates, opponents, and, most importantly, have fun!

Thank you!

Zev

Lay judge, this is the first tournament I'm judging. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I am a lay judge.

1) Speak slowly enough that I can understand you. If I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot vote for you.

2) I like off time roadmaps and make sure to frontline arguments in your responses

3) Be sure to weigh your arguments' impacts against your opponents as I will be voting on which collapsed argument is the best.

4) Be kind to your opponents during crossfire

5) Good luck and have fun!

Email- deepna.abhishek@gmail.com

I am a mother of 3, and for my profession- I sell Enterprise Technology to corporations. I am a dancer and I enjoy traveling. I have a freshman this year who loves Policy Debate, so I decided to help as a judge. I am looking forward to a great debate today, with talented young minds who will show utmost professionalism and collaboration! Here are some of my Judging preferences:

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. Less is more!

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards.

I look forward to a great Debate and getting to know you!

Lay judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.

Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).

I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.

Parent Judge

Speaking speed as long as its understandable

keep crossx substantial and don't get sidetracked

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

No cutting off to intimidate the opponent too frequently

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

I am a new judge and I expect debaters to be concise about their points. I like candidate to be comfortable when speaking out and when in doubt avoid making any arguments. Confidence and clear articulation is what I am looking for. The message should be clear and each argument should support your side. Don't talk too fast. Truth > tech.

BACKGROUND:

BRMHS 23' Reed 27'

Did policy debate in high school, some congress. Attended 2021 Dartmouth and 2022 RKS labs for policy. I ran almost nothing but kritiques the whole time I debated. Some authors I enjoy are Deleuze, Guattari, Fanon, Bataille, and Said.

HOW I JUDGE:

Any questions email me at prrsh004@gmail.com

Tech vs. Truth is meaningless

T is not a voter

I decide the outcome of the round off the flow, but so does almost everyone else (if you want me to analyze the round in some other manner I'm totally open to that, argue it).

If there is a framework sheet, that's what I'm going to look at first.

I mostly look for offense when going over my flow at the end of the round, even your defensive arguments should not only seek to defend your case but undermine your opponent's. Impact calculus is important here. You should always connect back to the hermeneutical lens you're arguing the round should be viewed through and why when viewed through such a lens, that argument matters. I should also note I find myself less and less persuaded by nuclear war impacts, I find most of their link chains to be pretty weak.

Signpost clearly, especially when virtual. I would also like to be on the email chain so I can refer to evidence and (ideally) speech docs.

Logistics: suyanglisusie@gmail.com if you'd like to start an email chain or doc for evidence checking.

Preferences:

1. Signposting > roadmaps
2. I appreciate well-reasoned empirical evidence, extra points if you can explain the mechanism/reasoning behind the facts.
3. I appreciate impact calculus and world comparison, even better if you have a framework that you reference consistently throughout the round.
4. I appreciate assertiveness and confidence but please do not be rude to your opponents at any point in the round.
5. I'm okay with spreading as long as you're strategic about what to drop vs extend in the second half ie. summary & FF. In the end I'm voting on your impact/weighing/frameworks, not solely on whether an argument was dropped without a good explanation of its significance.
6. Please keep your own time in speeches and crossfires. Repeatedly going over time will result in a lower speaker point.

I am a novice parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly; this will help me better understand your arguments. Also, please be polite to your opponents.

I am new to debate. I will appreciate debaters to speak clearly and not to speak too fast.

Had experience judging couple of tournaments in last few years.

Don't talk too fast. Explain technical terms.

tldr:

trad pf judge

he/him

if you are going fast please signpost and send a speech doc, clarity is important

Weigh otherwise I'll intervene, pre-reqs and link ins are great. I presume squo then first.

Flex prep is good

Let's read warrants!

Please do not be rude or mean- your speaks will likely be lower if you do. This also means if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will stop the round and down you.

IF A TEAM CANNOT DISCLOSE BY SCHOOL POLICY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR DISCLOSURE

Read non substance at ur own discretion I was never a prog debater

paradigm

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I'm a parent judge and I have a son who has done debate for some time. I know the basics but would not like any advanced jargon. Please speak clearly and not too fast so that I will be able to follow your arguments. I look for logical arguments with clear reasoning.

Hey guys!

kalinagayle21@gmail.com

For pf: I want to do as little intervention as possible. That means weigh your arguments explicitly. I'll vote for anything, as long as you win why it matters (evidence is always a good thing but smart, logical arguments can win if you win why what you're saying matters). I debated policy in high school, so do whatever you want and I'll listen. Spreading is fine, I will be flowing. Email me if you have any questions! Also, debaters should keep track of their own time and prep.

I am a lay judge, and have not debated public forum before.

However, I do understand the format of public forum debate and will be flowing the round. As for speaking, a conversational speed is preferred and the speech should be clear and concise.

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

Here are some things you can do to win my ballot:

• Main Point: I look for a few main arguments that are stuck with throughout the round, and I value quality over quantity when it comes to this speech. Please do not run theory or kritiks as I do not have experience with them and will most likely not vote off of them.

• Rebuttal: Attack your opponent's case as much as possible, and stick to a few clear points. Frontlining is recommended in 2nd rebuttal, but not necessary.
• Summary: Make sure the impact weighing is laid out well in this speech. A neat comparative analysis of the arguments presented is the easiest way to win the round
• FF: New arguments/responses can't be brought up in this round. Make a clear analysis of the round and weigh impacts.

CX:

I will not vote off of CX but it will affect your speaks. Having a good knowledge of your case and the topic will result in higher speaks.

Evidence Sharing:

If any cards are called for, they should be shared ASAP, since this tournament is online I understand if there are delays, but an email chain should be set up before the round starts and if the debate truly comes down to a clash of evidence then I will evaluate the cards as well.

Speaks:

I will give speaker points based on your in depth knowledge of the topic and your ability to speak clearly and to the point during rounds.

Most importantly, debate is all about learning and improving, not winning or losing. At the end of the day I want you to have a good round, and have fun!

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Debate Experience:

High School Policy - 3 Years

College Policy (City University of New York)- 4 Years

Cumulative Judging/Coaching (CUNY, NYU, NYCUDL, Bronx Science, Rutgers University) - ~ 5 years

GSU 2017 Edition

I'm coming out from a 2 year debate hiatus and an intensive video production/broadcasting program. I haven't been up to date with the latest literature on the debate circuit so don't assume I know your Jackson evidence is hot fire without any warrants. I also may not be your top pick for your fast and clever Consult CP debate because my hands are not fast enough to send that message to my brain. This might change with more judging throughout the season but I'll let you know.

On to the general stuff...

I evaluate the debate based on who did the best debating. That's usually done through my flow unless you create a framework for me to do otherwise. Run what argument fits your style and do it to the best of your ability. Args of the meme variety are on the table but you would have to do a lot, and I mean a lot of work, for me to vote on them. Please also note that I won't be down for your oppression good, rights Malthus type of args.

Make sure you can jump / e-mail chain files in less than 5 minutes (not for me but for the tournament staff).I will do my best to keep my rhetoric gender neutral. As a generalrule, I tend to stick to gender-neutral pronouns however I will do my due diligence to be familiar with your preferred pronouns and you have every right to correct me on the spot if I fail to do so.

Case Debate

Solid. I'm not the best public policy analyst on the circuit to know some of the nuances of your args so this would require some explanation of what these abbreviations mean and what do they look like in the context of the debate.

Politics/Disads

I'll listen/flow them. I vote on them every now and then.

CPs

As I mentioned above I'm not the best when it comes to CP theory. My general opinions on CPs, in general, is neutral so if you need someone with a firm stance on whether a consult CP is legit or not then you should defer to a different critic.

The K

They're ok.

Framework/T

Debatable.

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

Interp Events-

- I focus on solid storytelling. The most important piece of the puzzle is the script, please don't forget to hold true the story as a whole even though we are only seeing ten minutes of it.Connecting to the audience, it's about telling the story to us, so a solid connection to the audience is important. We want to laugh and cry with you. Cleanliness does impact my ranking, Dont forget you are not speaking FOR them, you are speaking AS them. It is an ownership that you should take seriously. If you don't tell the story, how will they continue to live?

SPEAKING EVENTS/Debate

• Be specific with the topic at hand
• Not a fan pf spreading
• please be respectfull
• I pay the most attention during cross, like a lot. So please keep that in mind

Make sure your speech flows and each point connects to the last and the next.

• - We may not know anything about the topic at hand, think of yourself as a professor sharing knowledge, teach us.
• If you stumble over your words, keep going forward, don't go back unless that information was so important you need to recover it.

- Strong supporting material is key, like any good research paper the more recent the source the better. And with that strong source material is also important to the strength and legitimacy of your speech.

- Solid confident delivery style

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

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

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

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

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

All:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm an experienced policy debate judge with some PF experience. Open to any argument as long it's properly explained.

Also, very technical and will go based on my flow.

I don't flow cross-fire unless given some theory that explains why I should. Speed reading and spreading is fine. Impact analysis and voters are a must. Organized and clean debates is a faster way to earn my vote on the ballot.

Overall I don't intervene in debates as I feel it's an educational activity for the debaters. Most importantly I wanted everyone to have fun

In Public Forum Debate. I will prioritize the students capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Letting people know the step-by-step process on how your claim is happening. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited.

Hello,

my email is liamcryals@gmail.com

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

I am a parent judge. Speak slow and clearly, explain your arguments well

Dear Debaters,

As a parent lay judge, my focus is on the combination of content and delivery. I appreciate clear and logically structured arguments, delivered at an understandable pace, and supported by quality evidence. I expect you to maintain a respectful tone, engage with the audience, and manage their time effectively. Please articulate your points clearly and remember that I may not be familiar with complex debate terminology.

I am here to appreciate your efforts and evaluate your performance based on the strength of your content and the quality of your delivery.

Good luck!

Hey guys! My name is Vaishali Shivpuriya, and I am a lay judge. My son is helping me write this paradigm

• I do not understand debate jargon; terms like warrant, link, turn, etc should all be avoided. If they are necessary, please try to explain them to me before or mid speech. I understand certain terms are necessary to use.
• Try to speak slowly, otherwise I will most likely not be able to hear your points and argument
• I will take brief notes but will not be completely flowing. Make important notes heard for them to be jot down
• Please point out when you are collapsing arguments
• Please give off time roadmaps! It will help me follow along the debate easily
• Time yourself and tell me how much prep you have left
• Be diplomatic! Debate is a fun club and don't get angry at your opponents to ruin the fun!

Thank you for reading!

My background consists of doing PF debate for a year and LD debate for 3 years. I am a traditional LD debate judge, as I am from West Texas where that is the primary type of debate. I was apart of the NSDA, TFA, and UIL circuits, where I competed in a variety of tournaments at the local, regional, and national level. I currently attend Texas Tech University where I am active within the Student Government Association and various other student organizations.

As a judge in a traditional LD debate, my primary role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine which side made the more compelling case. I will base my decision on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence presented, and the persuasiveness of the speakers.

I believe that the most important aspect of any debate is the clash between the two sides. I want to see both sides engage with each other's arguments and respond to each other's points in a way that advances the debate. I appreciate when debaters demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and the issues at stake, and can articulate their ideas clearly and concisely.

In terms of argumentation, I expect debaters to provide well-reasoned and logically coherent arguments, supported by relevant evidence. I am not swayed by emotional appeals or unsupported claims. I prefer to see debaters engage with the complexity of the issues, rather than relying on simplistic or reductionist arguments.

I also value effective communication skills, such as clear enunciation, good pacing, and appropriate use of body language. I appreciate when debaters are respectful and professional towards each other, and towards me as the judge.

In terms of the format of the debate, I expect both sides to follow the standard LD structure, with clear and coherent introductions, contentions, and rebuttals. I expect both sides to stay within their allotted time limits and to respect the rules of the debate.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to fairly evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine the winner based on the strength of their arguments and their overall performance in the debate.

I debated PF for three years in high school as VDA MS. IIRC, had four career TOC bids, broke first at NSDA Nationals, and champed some small to mid-size tournaments before. I also did a bit of CNDF, BP, and Worlds. I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Toronto so I'm probably not too much older than a lot of you. Add me to the email chain rinasong699@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth (to a reasonable extent, ex. I won't buy racism good). The more frivolous the argument, the lower my threshold for responses.

Assertive is good :) Aggressive is no good :(

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you think you're going to go super fast then send a speech doc. Also, don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Enunciate.

Time yourselves. I don't want to have to intervene during a round. I will be timing, however, and if you go over time I'm probably not going to cut you off (unless it’s egregious) but I WILL stop flowing.

In-Round:

Front Half:

A few well warranted arguments are a lot better than a bunch of blippy ones. I'll take a well warranted response with no evidence over a blippy warantless piece of evidence any day.

Don't disad dump in second rebuttal.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded (so yes, you need to frontline in second rebuttal).

Back Half:

Please signpost. Please. Also, off-time road maps are cool but doing an off-time road map is not a replacement for signposting.

Weigh.

Don't go for too much.

Anything you want to win on in FF must also be in summary. That includes responses, frontlines, and preferably weighing (absolutely no new weighing in second FF).

Cross:

I will be paying attention but I won't be flowing cross, so if any concessions are made, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

If you're rude it will affect your speaks. Be nice.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not too familiar with theory/K’s/etc. When I did debate in high school, my partner basically wrote all my responses to any progressive arguments for me lol so I think that tells you all you need to know. Run at your own risk.

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask!

follow @sirhowell.affirms and like your favorite post for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

Hello debaters,

My name is Winnie, and I am a parent judge. While I have judged rounds before, I am a lay judge, so please be clear and speak slowly so that I can understand you. Do not spread; I will not follow or consider the arguments you make. No Prog, no Ks, and no Theory.

I will be voting both based on logic and also your delivery of your arguments. Be assertive but don't be rude. Inappropriate behavior and comments will not be tolerated. I understand simple terms like case, contention, cards, and blocks. Please explain if you are going to use more debate jargon.

Please do the following:

Signpost so I can follow your speech.

Weigh and extend your case, especially in Summary and Final Focus. My ballot will be determined by the weighing of impacts.

Speak at a conversational pace and enunciate.

Lastly, I wish you all the best! Good luck!

I'm a new parent lay judge and I'm not familiar with debate jargon

Speak at a moderate pace, repeat key points on your case and theirs

Signpost as much as possible

A parent judge who has participated a few debate events previously.

I prefer solid logic and clear presentation, please speak clearly.

To me the structure and quality of the arguments/evidence are more important than the quantity and density.

Be respectful to each other.

Do your best, try to understand the other sides with sympathy.

Be grateful!

In Public Forum Debate, I will prioritize the students' capability in creating further analysis in regards to the facts and materials that they deliver during their speeches. Giving away facts is cool but letting people know the step-by-step process as to how the facts are materialized is even cooler. Rebuttals and responses are better to not be one-liner or "they say-we say" debate, a deeper reason to prove why your opponents are wrong will be more credited. I expect a debate where students are able to cite factual and scientific resources such as journals and papers which has gone through scientific methods and researches rather than newspaper or website, although I wouldn't penalize you just because you cite them because they may also provide important facts and information. The team that wins, would be a team that can provide more tangible examples and facts that may be impactful to us in the future.

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school (first in Oregon, second in the nation baybee). I remember being in high school and almost crying because college judges were too mean, busy power tripping on memories of their glory days, and I strive to... not be like that. If you want oral feedback stay after round.

In public address I am looking for speaker fluency, engaging/unique topics, and cohesion of logic. In interps I look for strong characterization, cohesive emotional arc, cleanliness of cut, topicality and strength of introduction.

General Debate:

I will flow the round. Speed is fine, but if you are so incomprehensible that I am unable to flow what you're saying and I miss your points, that's on you. I generally vote on a combination of the flow, strength of argumentative logic, impact calculus, accessibility, organization and speaker comprehension. I value framing and persuasion just as much as the flow, and it is your job to tell me which matters more. If your opponent drops a contention, call it out in voters, or I will not use it as a deciding factor. If your opponent says something ignorant (racist/sexist/heteronormative/ableist etc.) call it out by critiquing the argument. I'm an ethnic studies major with a specialty in intersectional politics, if I determine something problematic has been perpetuated I will drop accordingly. Be civil to your opponents. carashamrock@gmail.com for the email chain

Signposting clearly will do wonders for making sure I'm flowing your arguments how you want them to be flown. Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1

Parli:

I believe that parli is meant to be accessible above all else. This means that your judges and opponents should be able to understand the meaning and importance of everything you say in your arguments with no previous experience in debate. If you're going to perm or run theory you should do so in a way that makes sense to the most layest of judges.

Since it is unlikely you are experts on any given topic I'd much rather see a debate centered around values with a weighing mechanism of "net benefits", "utilitarianism" or "cost benefit analysis". PICs are abusive and I will probably drop you.

Use questions to your advantage. I generally believe each team should take at least 1 question per speech, but you don't have to take more than 1. Don't let your opponents get away with more than 3.

Also? I hate policy rounds, and I specifically hate plans. Like you do you. But I don't like them. You can advocate for something but leave the budget, timeframe, and likelihood of it getting passed out of it. I would rather you debate the merits of specific ideas than hear a plan written with all of 15 minutes of consideration. Plans limit aff ground, if neg perms... well I'll be inclined to vote with that. I won't drop you for having a plan or anything extreme, but I will be annoyed and sad. God I hate plans, spare me. (I EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA hate it when neg provides a "counterplan" when the aff didn't give a plan. I don't vote on "counter"plans.)

LD:

For the love of all that is holy please no personal attacks on your opponent. Please please please pleaseeee be civil. Please.

Use cross to your advantage. How you use and respond to questions has a lot of power to affect my perception of you as an authority on the subject and as a confident speaker. In close rounds, strength of cross can be a tiebreaker.

PF:

PICs are still abusive. Signpost clearly, use questions to your advantage. See Parli and LD Paradigms and infer accordingly. Cross is for shady questions, not statements with a question mark. *I'm not going to listen to or consider anything you're saying if you are saying it by interrupting and yelling at your opponents.*

Policy:

How about you treat me like a lay judge and keep things excruciatingly simple :)

If you use the phrase "yee haw" to end one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)

1 credit: preston bushnell

I have learned debate in school but I have not done competitive debate. I have judged practice rounds and helped assist debate classes, but I have limited judge experience at national competitive debate tournaments. I have directed debate tournaments and watched many debate rounds.

I am open to anything and I try to be as tab as possible. Just use warrants in your argumentation, even if it is theory. If an argument has absolutely no warrant and is just a claim, there is a chance I still won't vote on it even if it is 100% conceded. That is to say, if you just say conditionality is bad because of fairness and education, that is a series of claims without warrants, and thus is unpersuasive even if the other team doesn't address it. However, if a poorly warranted claim goes conceded, then I will not necessarily adjudicate the strength of the warrant as it is the other team's obligation to defeat this warrant, and as such I will take the warrant as true unless it is unintelligible or utterly absurd. I will default as a policymaker if you don't put me in a competing paradigm.

When adjudicating competing claims, it is my hope that debaters will engage in evidence comparison. However, if two contradictory claims are made, and no one weighs the strength of the internal warrants of the evidence, then I will likely call for the evidence to adjudicate which claim is more strongly warranted (assuming the argument may be part of my reason for decision). Same goes with topicality. I am 50/50 in voting for topicality, and I default competing interpretations.

Finally, you should tell me explicitly how the reason for decision should be written if you win so I can understand your vision of the round. If you do not have ballot directing language, I will use my own judgment to write the RFD, so it is in your interest to write the RFD for me.

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

In my preferred paradigm for debate, emphasis is placed on robust arguments rather than on speed of speech. The key lies in logical reasoning, with a focus on clear premises, a well-structured argument, and an adherence to facts and logical consistency throughout discussions.

This approach values thoughtful analysis and a thorough understanding of complex issues, prioritizing substance over mere eloquence.

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)

My name is Shan Yang, and I am honored to be your judge for this Public Forum debate. As someone passionate about the art of debate and critical thinking, I am excited to witness the intellectual exchange that will unfold before us.

In my role as a judge, my goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to both teams, fostering an environment of growth and learning. I value clarity, coherence, and well-supported arguments. Each debater's perspective and approach are respected, and I encourage you to not only present compelling cases but also engage in a thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas during the crossfire and rebuttal segments.

As we delve into the debate, I ask for your commitment to the principles of sportsmanship, adherence to debate rules, and a demonstration of your best analytical skills.

I look forward to an exciting and insightful debate.

mediocre Policy/LD debater at Canyon Crest --email chain: saihanyiruo.sd@gmail.com.

I try to be a normal person and NOT think about this activity as much as I used to...

reach out to me if you had any concerns about my ballot, issues before and after round, and at the tournament.

UPDATE for MS States: I have never judged Congress in my life lol take that how you will. I do not know the topic whatsoever except for the things that CHSSA provided me in the live doc. pretend that I am a parent judge.

GENERAL

• i'll yell clear once -- if i can't flow you i will stop paying attention
• i wont vote on something that happened outside of the round
• good analytics > good cards > bad cards > bad analytics
• tech > truthy tech > techy truth > truth. the more mishandled the arguments get, the more judge intervention i have to do. please don't make me do that or your speaks will suffer greatly.
• i write my ballot during the last two/four speeches -- tell me how to vote and feel free to overexplain things

Policy/LD

• assume no topic knowledge
• CP/DA -- yes.
• K/K Aff -- SCROLL DOWN
• not good for high level theory, trix, or phil
• tag team ok, spreading good
• condo 3 or more is bad

PF

• assume no topic knowledge
• pref me at your own risk
• PF is a speech focused event
• skip offtime roadmaps of "my case their case weighing"

Things that can get you a speaks bump:

• bring me food
• email me a list of 5 songs that i should listen to
• be funny

ABOUT KRITIKS

if ur reading philosophers please break it down for me. However, I'm good with most common K positions like cap, set col, queer pess, necroptx, etc. please feel free to ask because i wouldnt want you to realize i have no idea what your k aff is until the 2ac

***K RANT

I am sick and tired of seeing and debating against k debaters that run k affs that have nothing to do with the resolution. you HAVE to use the resolution as a point of stasis, otherwise u are wasting other ppls time.

"being of a specific identity is not a standalone reason for anyone to get the ballot. if your only response to any argument read against you is to call it racist, i am not a good judge for you. for some reason, the disease of anti-intellectualism is rampant in k debate nowadays. arguments are ridiculously disingenuous with little to no academic validity. quite a few authors would disagree with the arguments being produced in their name and it’s disappointing. make actual warranted arguments and interact with competing thesis claims." - sim low

***PF PROGRESSIVE DEBATE RANT

pf isnt the place for prog, so don't run it. believe me that when a parent judge walks into a pf round, they do not expect nor want to hear your 200 wpm lecture on the beliefs of some old dead guy. when i as a circuit judge walk into a pf round i am not expecting u to talk at 200 wpm, and i dont want to hear it. just bc i know prog doesnt mean that i want to judge it in PF. no theory unless its actually legitimate either. if u wanna run prog it might be worth asking me for my preferences first or striking me.

As a new parent PF debate judge, I treat each round with commitment to fairness, clarity, and critical thinking. I am new to the field, so please speak slowly with clarity.

add me to the email chain: ruyizhang07@gmail.com

PUBLIC FORUM:

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky. Please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence", "no warrant", or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

Speed is okay but send a speech doc.

Please time yourself and your opponents.

DO NOT RUN NEW ARGUMENTS IN SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS.

I won't flow cross but I'll listen. Don't do anything shady.

I only look at evidence if it's highly contested. Please follow proper evidence guidelines and ethics. I'm open to evidence challenges.

Please weigh and metaweigh.

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If no one weighs and/or no one wins case I'll presume neg.

Prog

1. Any theory is okay. I don't care if it's friv. For anything that's not disclosure speak slower because I may not be familiar with it. IVIs are okay but I prefer you read a shell.
2. I've never been in or judged a K debate before.
3. If you run a framework please meet your framework.

Speaks

Here are some things you can do to get a speaks bump:

1. Bring me food
2. Make a Minecraft analogy
3. Message my public forum partner and tell him I'm the better debater. It's on you guys to stalk him. He's probably competing at this tournament.
4. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument

Hi! I'm a fourth-year university student studying international relations and business admin. I debated for 6 years in CNDF, BP, WSDC, and PF so jargon is mostly fine. If you run theory or K's I'll try my best to follow, but I wasn't a progressive debater so you might want to play it safe by just being traditional.

Public Forum

Content

Tech > Truth

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you.

Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus. You must extend responses in summary if you don't intend on me dropping the argument. I also expect extending on defense too, or I will assume it to be dropped. (If you're in varsity you can extend authors)

Weigh the round so I don’t have to. You don’t want to be in the position where I'm weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands. I love impact calc :))

Literally run me through how I should vote, this is the easiest way for you to win.

Cross ends as soon as the timer goes off. To pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer. Please be polite to each other.

The Second Rebuttal MUST frontline. The First Summary MUST frontline. Please frontline. Thank you :))

Please collapse in summary or final focus, makes the debate way cleaner to evaluate and trying to win on everything is going to make everything a wash.

If you go over time I will not cut you off, I will simply stop flowing. Please don't make me intervene.

Style

If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and signpost properly. I’ll give extra speaks if you make a joke. This is NOT an invitation to be rude.

Please do not pause for a long time between speeches, if you're taking prep time let me know. If you pause, I will start prep time :))

I'm generally pretty lenient with speaks, so unless you were rude or the debate was extremely messy, I usually won't give lower than a 27.

I will give a 30 if (only have to fulfill one):
- You and your partner each give 3 Taylor Swift references

- You and your partner can guess ONE of my favorite kpop groups + my bias in that group

I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback. Feel free to ask me for my email or other contact info!