Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

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

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

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

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

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

Specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

When judging a debate, I consider

- arguments and style about equally. It is easier for me to evaluate arguments presented in a structured format.

- the final focus as a chance for debaters to summarize their strongest arguments

- whether the debater extends an argument in rebuttal or summary speeches

- analytics supported by evidence over analytics.

I am Rosalind Chang (rosalind.h.chang@gmail.com) and this is third year doing PF (second year on nat circuit) for Davidson Academy Online. I use all pronouns (they/them preferred), and I prefer to be called "you" or "judge."

TLDR: flow judge. be respectful, compare contentions, write my ballot for me.

General:

• Speed: I will lose a few words at 250+ wpm, so spread at your own risk. Feel free to send a script.

• Time yourself, keep track of your own prep. If you run over 10 seconds on a speech, I will not flow over time and your speaks will be affected.

• If I look confused, I probably am. Please feel free to use this info to collapse or elaborate.

• Ask me for clarifications before round if needed!

How I judge:

• Tech >= truth, but I won't be happy voting on a blippy link chain and won't vote on a morally repugnant argument (e.g. don't run death / racism / patriarchy good).

• Neutral to frameworks, will default to negative preference utilitarianism if none is presented.

• Will listen to (but not flow) cross, but you have to point out conceded points in the next speech and explain why it is important. Open to skipping grand cross. Flex prep okay.

• Extend in summary if you want me to weigh something. A 10 second summary of your most important cards + impact is fine. Defense isn’t sticky.

• Comparative + link weighing > impact weighing -- tell me why their responses to you don't work.

Etiquette:

• Read content warnings before the round starts. Mentioning the name of something without going into graphic detail is fine.

• Please try to be respectful during cross. Sexism / racism / homophobia / transphobia will result in a severe deduction in speaker points. Theory / IVIs will bring it to my ballot.

• Send cards promptly and don’t prep steal. Please don’t delay the round by more than 90 seconds. Exceptions: bad wifi / tech issues.

• I will call for evidence if you explicitly tell me to, but I'd really prefer not to intervene. Stop the round for an ev challenge if it's egregious, but if you lose the challenge it's an L20.

• If you clip, send a marked doc after the speech -- and your opponents can use the time before they receive the email as free prep. Paraphrasing evidence is permissible but only if you send a script of exactly what you said.

Speaker Points:

• If I think you should break, you'll probably be around 29.
• +0.3 for sending a fully carded doc AND disclosed OS (unless identity-based)
• +0.2 if you use Fontdiner Swanky OR if you format your case in a way to increase accessibility (e.g. dyslexia friendly font, colorblind friendly highlighting), add a note about it to the email chain so I know!
• Block 30s if the round is over in less than 45 minutes
• Open to 30 speaks theory <3

Prog:

** PLEASE DO NOT RUN PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS IF YOU ARE A NOVICE **

Really not a fan when people run prog because their opponents won't know how to respond in order to get a free win.

Theory is fine, Ks are iffy, explain them well but run at your own risk. I am uncomfortable with my ability to evaluate these fairly 100% of the time, but I've ran a few before- imperialism/militarism, cap, security, and queer Ks are most familiar to me. Please don't run phil, but make it very lay if you do.

• Defaults: DTD > DTA, counterinterps > reasonability, spirit > text, no RVIs

The following has my thresholds for arguments to be evaluated, with a higher threshold you'll have to do more work for me to buy an arg but I won't auto vote up/down. If you're hitting friends and want a fun round, the sky's the limit.

• truth > tech, it'll be harder for me to vote on friv.

• low threshold: disclosure good (OS > full text), round reports good, paraphrasing is usually bad

• high threshold: TKOs, tricks, presumption, plans (in PF), pomo Ks

Hi Folks!
I am a (mostly) public forum debater for Davidson Academy Online, and I'm so excited to be judging your rounds!

Debate Paradigm:

The path to my ballot is weighing your argument, signposting clearly, being responsive to what your opponents say, and having solid evidence. If you do all of those things, it is a pretty sure bet that I'm voting for you.

With that said, there are a few ways to lose my ballot.

1.) Running theory in a novice/rising star round: Debate the substantive resolution to help everyone learn. I'm totally comfortable evaluating theory, Ks, and really any progressive arguments, but if you run it in a novice round, I will drop you. If I'm judging you in an open round, run anything your heart desires- I promise I love a good theory round.

2.) Spreading in a novice round: we're here to learn, so please speak at a reasonable pace (a good max is about 230 words per minute). Don't outspread in novice rounds. With that said, I'm fine with speed (especially if you send me a doc) in any other round.

3.) Being rude: this is my personal ick in debate. If you say anything overly snarky, rude, profane, discriminatory, ect. you will lose the round. Some humor is appreciated, but please ensure you're always being respectful.

4.) Egregiously shady evidence ethics: if your opponents call you out for misusing your cards (and the card doesn't match what you said it did), I will probably drop your contention. If this happens more than twice, I will find reasons to vote against you. In other words, know your evidence and please be ethical about how you present your arguments. Represent your evidence accurately.

Some smaller things:

Please include me on the evidence exchange! glassford.elle@gmail.com. I will not look at it unless there's something your opponent calls out and I need to figure out which side I believe.

If it is a round where I'm comfortable with disclosing, I will. I promise you'll get super detailed feedback even if I orally disclose.

Speech Paradigm

I really value clear signposting in speeches! Everything you can do to make sure I'm following your argument is appreciated. I'll leave lots of detailed notes.

Hi, I am a parent lay judge and high school debater for DAO. Speed is preferred. I judge tech > truth and Friv > Theory > K > Tricks > Topicality. If you don't extend, I won't consider the argument. This goes for offense and defense. The more friv the theory, the higher I will evaluate it.

This goes without saying, but no bigotry and be nice.

Include me on email chain at nklapach@gmail.com

Speaker incentives:

+0.05 for each pushup you do during prep time

+2 if you win a friv theory argument with no jargon

+1 if you give your speech in a British accent

+0.5 if you roast Nir in your summary's off time roadmap

+0.5 if you weigh without jargon

-0.5 for each time you say the words "OMG," "bae," or "agree" Don't do it. Please don't.

-2 if you run RVIs

-0.5 if you run stock contentions

-0.5 if you say you negate the resolved on the affirmative or vice versa.

Logistics: Before diving into the debate round, let's establish some ground rules to ensure a smooth and productive discussion. Debate is not just a competitive activity; it's also an educational and inclusive endeavor. Therefore, I expect all participants to engage in respectful discourse, focusing on critiquing arguments rather than individuals. Ad hominem attacks have no place here. Regarding logistics, let's address any procedural matters upfront to minimize disruptions and maximize our time for substantive discussion.

Preferences: In a debate round, I value clarity, depth of analysis, and effective argumentation. While I appreciate the strategic use of speed, I also recognize the importance of accessibility for all participants. Given my background in high school debate, I understand the transition from moderate to faster-paced delivery. As a teacher, I'm accustomed to facilitating discussions and engaging with diverse perspectives daily, which informs my approach to judging debates.

When it comes to theory arguments, I maintain a moderate threshold. While I welcome strategic innovation, I also expect theory arguments to be well-reasoned and relevant to the debate topic. Signposting is crucial for maintaining clarity and coherence in the debate. Clear organization helps both debaters and judges navigate the flow of arguments more effectively, enhancing the overall quality of the round.

Judging Approach: As a judge, I approach each debate round with an open mind, assessing the arguments presented by the debaters based on their merit. My role is to provide constructive feedback and render a decision impartially. While I draw upon my past experience in debate and my current role as a teacher, I refrain from inserting personal biases into the evaluation process. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the debaters to persuade me of the validity of their positions through logical reasoning and evidence.

Experience and Fun Fact: Outside of the debate realm, I have a background in high school debate and a passion for watching political debates. As a teacher, I engage in debating daily through my job, fostering critical thinking skills and facilitating discussions among students. An interesting tidbit about me is [share a fun fact unrelated to debates]. Whether it's a hobby or an unusual talent, let's keep the atmosphere lively and engaging, even outside of the debate round!

Feel free to reach out at apascual@davidsononline.org if you have any questions or if there's anything else you'd like to know. Let's make this debate round a rewarding experience for everyone involved!

hey! I'm Nir, a junior at Davidson Academy Online and a PF national circuit debater.

add me to the email chain: (npechuk@gmail.com)and (daodebate@gmail.com)

tldr; run anything you want, if you tell me why to vote for it I will

also, feel free to ask any clarifying questions about my paradigm/preferences pre-round :)

︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵୨˚̣̣̣୧ - - - - - ୨˚̣̣̣୧ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵୨˚̣̣̣୧ - - - - - ୨˚̣̣̣୧ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵୨˚̣̣̣୧ - - - - - ୨˚̣̣̣୧ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵ ︵

general preferences:

• speed: send speech docs if you're going >225 wpm. If I can't understand you and I don't have a speech doc, I won't penalize you for it but I also won't be able to flow what you're saying
• signposting and off-time road maps: yes pls!
• extensions: feel free to make them short unless you're running something super complex
• evidence: don't misconstrue it, or speaks will plummet. I won't intervene on evidence so you have to call it out when your opponent misconstrues something in order for me to strike it from my flow.
• collapse on key pieces of defense and offense so that you have time to weigh the debate in the back half
• you'll be dropped for any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or other discrimination

speaks:

• I'll add speaks for every (good) lana del rey reference you make
• other than that, these will be based on everything that my ballot won't reflect: strategy, charisma, humor, crossfire, how cool your contention names are, etc.
• I understand that speaks are a flawed system. I will range between a 28.5-30 to make sure that my implicit biases don't cost you a break

substance:

• the order I evaluate substance debates is as follows:
  metaweighing/framework (default util + magnitude) -> metaweighed weighing -> weighed offense -> remaining offense -> presume
• read literally anything you want :D

k:

• I'm open to any K as long as you explain it. Do not assume I'm familiar with your literature, but do assume that I am open to learning about it :)
• signposting is even more important here; please tell me what your link, impact, alt/method, framing, and underview are
• i'll evaluate pre and post fiat ks, but just let me know which your k is
• send speech docs if you read a k

theory:

• my default paradigm issues (all open for debate): no RVIs, yes OCIs, CIs > R, DTD > DTA
• I will vote on any type of theory if you win it
• send speech docs if you read theory

Debater for Davidson Academy Online, anything flows! Have fun

· I am a parent judge, but I've been judging for the past three years. If you need to reach me, please do so using: kastencik@gmail.com

· Please speak clear and concise.

. You can spread but keep in mind. I can only write as fast as I can hear. If you’re spreading way too fast there is a chance I can miss something important.

. Please signpost during your speeches. It helps me flow.

· Clearly frame your case, watch the time, and show enthusiasm.

· I would appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus.

. Do not show disrespect for your competitors.

Hi! My name is Ben, I debated for Half Hollow Hills for four years. I am an experienced judge and debater. Open to anything.