I am a traditional judge, that goes for all formats, and if you are in LD and you are going to super spread, please remember I prefer quality over quantity. So slow down, this is not one person policy ! Remember what LD was meant to be as a format.

I am a parent judge and I mostly judge PF but am familiar with debate structure and have been judging for a while. Please keep your own time.

I will flow everything in round except cross, so if something significant happens bring it up in the round and I will add it to my flow. Off time roadmaps are helpful, but please keep it brief.

I sometimes think the evidence read is weak or unrelated but if your opponent doesn’t challenge it, I likely won’t either. If evidence conflicts I will typically believe whichever one is more more convincing to a reasonable individual.

Two of the most important things to me as a judge are dropped arguments and impacts.

Please be nice, everyone is doing their best, if you are rude you will lose points. I appreciate kindness to your competitors especially in novice. It doesn’t matter to me if you sit or stand, nor does it matter how you dress. Be comfortable and have fun.

Good luck :)

Hi! My name's Karen Akins, and I'm excited to be judging you today.

• I prefer to see debaters stick to the given topic.
• If I can't understand what you're saying (i.e. too fast), I won't be able to understand your argument. (In other words, spread at your own peril.)
• Be respectful! In my opinion, this is the greatest benefit of competitive debate--learning to craft a compelling argument while still showing civility to your opponent.
• Have fun!

Good luck!

As an attorney, I will inevitably think about your argument as a judge or jury may hear it. In that vein, I do not like debate spreading. It does not comport to the real world. Nobody talks that fast; certainly nobody persuades anybody to their side of an argument talking that fast. If you must do so because you have only prepared a spreading format at a tournament, please send me the text or at least an outline of your speech ahead of time (jp@stuartalbanlaw.com). I prefer natural language flow to excessive use of technical words/debate lingo. More of the traditional style of Lincoln-Douglas.

I do not take offense at any line of argument so long as you argue it respectfully. I strive to start from a neutral position even if I already have a strong personal position on any particular topic.

I look closely for logical reasoning and chains; and answering to each of your opponent’s contentions and sub-points, even if some are addressed quickly. An exception is that I understand focusing on just the most important arguments, as you judge those to be, if your opponent chooses to spread with too many arguments to address given the time you have.

Although I track time, I expect you to track your own time and to signal to me if your opponent runs over. I also expect you to have backup evidence for each of your factual statements. However, if your opponent does not challenge an un-cited factual statement, I may give you credit for it if it is otherwise a logical point consistent with your line of argument and I do not know it to be false.

Hiya!

I'm Ryan, and if you're reading this I'm probably going to be one of your judges. I'm happy to meet you and glad that you're taking this opportunity; kudos! Here are a few things you might want to know about me before you get into the round.

* I do have some experience competing in PF and judging practice rounds, so I do know how to flow and understand Public Forum debate! I was a PF debater for a couple of years, so I do know my way around a debate. I'm comfortable with basic terminology like framework, cards, weighing terms (ex. timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc.).

* That said, go easy on me! Try not to go too fast, because when I can't keep up with you, things get missed on my flow, and that sucks for everyone; go on the slower side when you can.

* Avoid K's and theory. In my personal opinion and experience, PF is meant to be a debate format that's more accessible to a lay-person than LD, and I quite frankly never had the head for them! I don't enjoy running them or judging them, so please avoid them when possible.

* Repetition repetition repetition. Confession time: I have an attention span and short-term memory roughly equivalent to that of Dory the blue tang, so make sure all of your points are lined out for me. Roadmaps are appreciated, as are quick 1-2 sentence recaps of a speech's core points when you can fit them in.

* Please don't try to pressure me into voting for you by saying that if I don't vote for your arg, I'm ableist, sexist, racist, insert brand of bigotry here. I won't drop you as a debater for it, but speaks will suffer...

* I don't flow cross-examination. Some folks do, I don't. If you access a really good point during cross, bring it up in the following speech, or it will not be reflected in my decision.

* Please don't make me vote based on identity. Occasionally, in more circuit rounds, judges can be forced to vote for the "minority." Having to vote based on identity is not a great situation to be in, so please please try not to put me in that situation.

* Be NICE! It goes without saying: be courteous with your opponent. I don't enjoy watching rougher debates (ex. where one team monopolizes cross-ex through excessive interruption, etc.), so even as you rip their logic to shreds, be polite to your opponent! It will make me happy :)

*Note: Sorry for the weird formatting! Tried messing around in the text-editor to fix it but seems to be a software bug.

Lay judge, no spreading. I have judged Congress to oi to policy. I will always write long form notes on in round speeches, but I may not set up my flow like conventional debaters.

sai.ankireddi@gmail.com

I am a first time parent judge and I value clarity of thought and expression, clear communication and the quality of arguments being made. It would help if you could emphasize your main contentions before you start talking about them. Also whether your are going to talk about your contention or about addressing the contention of the other side. It would also help if you could maintain a logical flow of arguments. I value conciseness / less words to express an argument rather than more.

I'm a parent judge, put me on the chain if you want to spread.

speaks are based on posture and clarity.

K, T, theory, and Phil still go over my head, but if you can connect the dots, I'll vote on it.

LC Anderson22

UT26

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of an ld/cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round

• for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

ie: do what you need to do, all topics can be super interesting, but make sure to always be aware of your surroundings and give proper trigger warnings

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

I'm a new parent judge and am looking forward to your argument!

Since this is my first debate, please:

• Avoid speaking too fast
• No theory
• Avoid debate jargon I may not understand

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

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

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

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

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

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

I look for Impacts, Framework, Flow

Also, how you present: Are you confident, prepared, good at convincing me and defending your case?

Add me to the email chain and send round docs rahul.bindlish71@gmail.com
Occupation: IT Services

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged PF for 3 years

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Fluency of speech, arguments made supporting your position, data provided supporting your arguments, how did you defend the other teams objections, how did you challenge the other teams position.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Logical reasoning, supporting data, clarity of thought and clear articulation.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take notes by speaker and team. I tend to keep tab of main arguments made for and against the topic and try to decide which ones I finally believed in based on the arguments and data presented during the debate.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 1; Use of Evidence: 10; Real World Impacts: 8; Cross Examination: 10; Debate skill over truthful arguments: 3

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

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

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

Some general things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prog args

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

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

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

I prefer concise arguments with well-supported by evidence. I value the quality of the arguments rather than the quantity, and would like debaters to speak at a moderate pace. Please remember to have fun, and I am excited to hear your arguments!

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

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

I flow each speech.

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 look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

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

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

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?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

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?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

I'm a parent judge with minimal experience. Clarity in communciation/articulating the info will help me digest the info better.

1st year lay parent judge: I am a practicing attorney with a background in moot court. I have judged numerous tournaments this year and can keep up with your flow. I do judge cross.

truth>tech

While I understand the temptation to pack in as many arguments as possible, avoid speaking so quickly as to be unintelligible.

If you believe the other side has dropped a contention, I encourage you to point that out.

Be respectful. One note of caution -- I am familiar with NSDA rules. Please be certain of the rules before you decide to cite the rules as an objection.

I will award high speaker points to both sides, if such are earned.

Most importantly have fun!

Experience: competed in PF, Policy, and OO during high school and college. Currently coach and run the NWFL Civics and Debate League as an ambassador coach with 10+ years of coaching experience.

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. I don't mind aggressive clash debate, but it must remain professional and nonpersonal.

Debate Policies:
I bring a flow pad into the room and you have to prove to me your side will create a better world than your opponent's. I am a flow judge, so be cautious of dropping points and make sure your crystallization is thorough- weigh evidence and contentions.

Speaker points come through in presentation and communication. Pay attention to hand gestures, body language, and eye contact. You CAN be the better speaker and the worse debater, they are two different scores for a reason.

Cross-examination will not be flowed or scored in judging, points must be brought up again in a speech to make the ballot. Does impact speaking points.
I lean slightly tech over truth, but extremes of that are a hard sell.

Lean tech over truth but can go either way and understand the virtues of both. In the end, you tell me why I vote, persuasion is the name of the game in debate.

More of a trad judge, but VERY good prog can win me over.

Dislikes:

Spreading is fine, but quantity does not make up for quality, analysis must be thorough. If you spread, email me your case please.

Likes:

Stand during Cross. Look at me, not the opponent.

Love an off-time roadmap. Helps clarify the flow and clean up the organization.

All debate lies in Impacts and Clash. Prove to me why your world is better than the opponents.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

I am a lay parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Lay Judge,

Please don't talk too fast. I don't think too fast.

Please be yourself and talk with a natural flow. Let your personality shine.

I want to see good reasoning in your debate and speech.

Please be respectful to all involved and respect the time.

I will flow the debate, make sure you cover case and why I should vote for you.

I will judge the round on how it is debated, not outside bias or preference.

Thank you, and good luck!

· Speak confidently and clearly

· Respect other team while they are speaking

· Don’t stress & have fun

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - 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/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
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. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong 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.

I'm a two time national semifinalist from high school and in my 8th year coaching. I try to be tabula rasa, but I have a vast knowledge base and don't like being talked down to as a judge. I also have a pretty strong RBF and will visually react to what you are saying, so be aware that if you think I'm mad at you; chances are its just my face.

Call Africa a country and you will automatically get low speaker points. It's a continent and offensive to misidentify it. If you are going to refer to regions within the continent, label them appropriately. I understand if you can't pronounce the country/city correctly, but YouTube and Google exist. Please try your best to utilize these resources to improve proper pronunciation. If you're intentionally misrepresenting a demographic/word/culture for the purpose of humor, be mindful of offensive stereotypes. IF I'm bothered by it, you will see it reflected in your ballot; IF it's egregious enough to warrant a report to the tournament officials, I will allow the tournament officials to contact you/your coach directly.

If it appears that you don't fully understand the topic, I will do my best to give you resources to help you develop your understanding on your ballots (links, concepts, places to bolster research) but I won't allow it to impact my decision on the round unless it's blatantly false or has no evidence to support the claim.

Decorum matters. In digital format, this means being mindful of what you post in chat/what you put onto your onscreen camera. I don't downvote on dress/appearance; however I appreciate professional dress and being able to see a student's face when possible.

Speech

I love seeing animated and engaging speech pieces. I have a few areas I get nit picky about, but it's because I want to give you as much feedback as I can to help you improve.

IE's should have some popping/characterization if there are multiple characters being portrayed. If the digital format does NOT allow me (the judge/viewer) to see your whole body, it's makes the speech harder to judge.

Be mindful when presenting/filming of how your technology allows you to give the best speech possible. If your voice echoes in your video, consider resubmitting and/or moving to a different space for better audio quality.

Info/Oratory - Speeches with structure are favored. If your speech sounds like a stream of consciousness, it's really hard to follow the topic at hand and very hard to judge. If your visual aids have any sort of writing on them, either plan on reading/explaining the writing or don't have it at all. As a judge, if I'm trying to squint to read what's on your visual aids, then I'm probably missing some of your speech because I'm trying to read your boards.

If you/your coach feels that my advice does not work for you, please don't take it. You know your own circuit and if the advice would work for your local league. If there are specific questions, my email address is attached below for further clarification. Generally, I want to help you become a better competitor and if the advice I offer is something that will harm you, you shouldn't consider it.

Debate

Email clingern13@gmail.com to add me to the email chain.

Slippery slope arguments or ELEs are only realistic within the confines of a topical debate. This trend relies heavily on scare tactics I don't subscribe to as a debate coach or judge. I will downvote/give low speaks if your impacts lead to improbable outcomes. Ex: "You should vote for our plan to change the wording of this immigration reform bill because it will lead to global extinction if you do not..."

I like progressive debate, but if it gets too meta or narrows the debate to a specific thread, I will base the debate on what is relevant to the argument and topic at hand, especially if your opponent is presenting a more viable option.

I'm a PF/LD traditionalist. I dislike framework in LD; that is what the v/vc debate is. I love framework in PF, but if your framework is unnecessarily or unfairly limiting (abusive), it will work against you and your speaker points will correlate. I tend to vote on stock issues in CX.

If your very narrow interpretation is the only way to interpret the topic, therefore, you're right and win, I will not vote in your favor. It feels like you've found the one loophole to win and have ignored the spirit of the debate or the topic at hand. I like debate to address the topic's core, rather than a narrow and specific element. "A just government allows for civil disobedience" should not be debated on what a just government is; rather it should debate the merits of civil disobedience within a society.

Debate needs clash. If there is no clash between the two presented sides, I'm going to vote whichever side is better presented/is more viable under the topic. I will write down on my ballots if the debate held no clash in the RFD.

I don't flow any Cross Examination time, so if you want it to be on the flow, PLEASE bring it up during rebuttal speeches.

Signpost, go straight down the flow and TRY to minimize flow hopping. If you have a direct argument on your case that attacks/answers your opponent's case, state it at each interval where the argument would apply. Ex: "My c1 directly addresses their c2 sub a..." should be stated twice when you talk about BOTH your c1 AND their c2 sub a.

Extend your arguments and impacts, not your cards. Ex: "Extend Oxford here..."; tell me why "Oxford" is relevant, why it refutes the opposition's point and WHY IT MATTERS. My job as a judge is to base my decision on what you present and how you link it, not if my brain linked it for you. As a judge, I'm not going to make inference between your impacts and cards, you need to explicitly state them for them to be considered.

I can handle spreading, but try to avoid it because it's a bad habit. Be mindful of speed if you choose to not add me to the email chain. (TOC Specific)

If it appears you did not write your cases yourself (it's a team case, you bought the evidence or someone else gave you the information just prior to the round) I will assume you bought the case and don't know what you're talking about. I strongly dislike students that use prewritten cases and don't show mastery of the topic because looks like plagiarism. If you don't know what you're talking about and misunderstand the arguments, it will be obvious.

pronouns: she/her/hers

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

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

Experience:

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

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

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

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

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

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

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

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

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

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

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

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.

As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only, where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.

Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in other debate rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.

Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

I am a PF lay judge. My daughter competes in PF debate. [Beware ;-)].

I judge based on the rules, not on my personal views or opinion, (which is probably lucky for you). If you say it, I will believe it unless your opponent strikes it down. Crossfire discussions will not be considered in my final decision, so be sure to say what you want to say during the constructive portions of the debate.

I do not respond well to spreading. The quality of your key points is more important than the quantity of words you use. The faster you speak, the harder it is for judges (including me) to keep track of all your points and ensure we can accurately track the flow. You have worked hard building your case so make sure we judges can hear all the important points (i.e., talking like a squirrel who has consumed 200 pots of coffee will not enable judges to hear and comprehend your arguments).

Finally, I worked for many, many years in corporate America. Advice that served me well - and which will serve you well too is - Tell me what you're going to tell me, tell me, and then tell me what you told me. In other words, make the arc of your case crystal clear (extend your case).

Pronouns: She/they/theirs

Please add both emails to the email chain: Naomidavis2023@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com

Experience:

• Debated in PF for Lakeville North High School, 2019-2023
• Currently attend UC San Diego

Updated on 4/24/24 for Last Chance Quals:

(I was coached by Maddie Cook so my paradigm and preferences will be very similar to hers)

I would normally consider myself a tech/flow judge but I know nothing about your resolution and I haven't judged in a while so please treat me more like a lay judge, thanks.

If you want me to vote for you the bare minimum is that you have to extend a warrant, a link, and an impact that's comparatively weighed against the other teams. Whatever you want me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. I think evidence ethics are also pretty important, so reading a card that's fake or horribly miscut will not work in your favor. If you're in round and notice something is weird with the other side's evidence, call it out in your next speech. If I think it's bad enough, I'll strike it from the flow during my decision or possibly drop the team if it's fake evidence.

I'm okay with some speed, but I'm an old woman with arthritis so no spreading. I'll clear or slow you if I'm having issues. With this in mind, I really do prefer slower debates that emphasize well-warranted arguments over fast and blippy debates (especially when I don't have a lot of experience judging the topic).

Tech>truth

Online debate:

• Go slower then normal, your internet or someone else's internet could cut out
• Don't be late to an online round (contact tab if you're having internet issues), I personally think you should be there at least 10 minutes before the round starts so you can send out an email chain to everyone.

General stuff:

• I'll tank your speaks and actively find ways to drop you if you're being a bigot, some sass/competition is good in debate but don't be downright rude. I've been the rude debater and I've been the one who has been talked over/interrupted, neither feels good in the end.
• I will also lower your speaks if you post-round me (this is not the same as asking questions, please always feel free to ask questions) because I don't want to spend my weekends getting yelled at by teenagers.
• Read a trigger warning. If you're reading content that's particularly triggering or graphic, you should probably send an opt-out form. However, reading a TW for simply mentioning feminism, war on drugs, AIDS, etc isn't necessary.
• I'm not super knowledgeable on theory, but I know the basics. If you want to read theory with me judging (I wouldn't if I were you unless there was a particular violation) I recommend you slow down and see the section at the bottom of my paradigm.
• I'm begging you, no spreading.

Evidence:

• Use cut cards. If you can't do that, at least read direct quotes. I've been the victim of terrible paraphrasing, it sucks. Don't do it.
• I'm always going to prefer cut-card evidence over everything.
• When evidence is read it must be read with the author's last name and the year it was published. If you read something without this I will assume it's an analytic.
• Additionally, don't read something as an analytic and then add evidence to it later, just read the evidence outright.
• Please send out an email chain, I hate teams using a shared live Google doc to put evidence in because it gets messy and it lags. Just download your cases and attach the document to the email or copy-paste it directly into the email if you must. Please remember to hit "Reply All" so everyone can see it. I prefer whole speech docs being sent out to save time.
• If the other side calls for a card and it takes you more than three minutes to find it, I'll strike it from the flow. Evidence exchanges should be quick and easy, with the exception of wifi issues.
• Compare the quality of evidence in your arguments, especially if your arguments are similar.

Speech stuff:

• I don't flow anything during cross-examination. Anything important from cross-ex should be in your next speech.
• Frontline in second rebuttal, anything dropped in second rebuttal will be conceded on my flow. Cover everything you want to go for in this speech.
• Defense has to be brought up in summary and final focus
• Anything you want to matter in the round must be in summary and final focus
• Collapse by the second half of the round. In summary, you should only be going for a few arguments that are well weighed. Having a big, messy, and blippy round will make my ballot frustrating for everyone.
• WEIGH. Doing comparative weighing (You prefer *our argument* over theirs because ___) makes my decision so much easier. Meta-weighing is even better. Make my decision to vote for you as easy as possible.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates a lot. I'd say I average at like 27 to 28. Speaker points are not based on performance but on strategy. If you get a 30 you're probably the best debater I've seen in a while.

My debate icks:

• Paraphrasing.
• Not weighing.
• Not timing yourselves and your opponents. (this includes speeches and prep time)
• Not signposting where you are on the flow.
• Being blippy and unorganized in your speech.
• Taking too long to find evidence when someone requests it. You should have this stuff on hand.
• I don't flow anything after 5 seconds over time, you should only use those 5 seconds to finish your sentence not start a new argument.
• Being late or not prepared, the round start time is the round start time.
• "small schools" - arguing this rarely has a point.
• Roadmaps should just be "aff then neg" or "our side, their side" unless you're doing something funky but you should be signposting anyway

Theory:

My knowledge and experience with theory is very limited so I wouldn't run it unless you believe you have to.

I'm not a fan of friv theory and I don't like judging bad theory rounds. Theory in general is okay and can even be good, but I don't like judging it.

• Please over-explain everything, I have limited experience with this part of debate.
• Theory should be used to recognize abuse and set good norms. aka no friv theory.
• I inherently believe disclosure good and paraphrasing bad, but I'll listen to answers against them and evaluate the round based on the arguments. You'll have to be prepared if you're arguing "paraphrasing good" though, I find that very few of those arguments hold up.
• If you aren't reading one of the theories I have already mentioned, assume I know nothing about what you're arguing about and over-explain things. Even if you are reading something I mentioned, I would still over-explain since it's been a while.
• If you get hit with theory and don't know how to respond, do your best anyway. It's a learning moment, ask questions. I've been there, I get the confusion you're feeling but debate is all about learning as you go.
• "Our coach didn't teach us to respond to theory" - while I will feel a little bad for you, this isn't an argument and its not something I'll vote for. Theory in its essence is just another argument with a fancy name, do your best. Same with "our coach doesn't let us disclose" and in my opinion, if your coach doesn't let you disclose, they should probably familiarize you with how to respond to disclosure theory.
• I don't like RVI's and they confuse me, I wouldn't do this with me as a judge

Kriticks:

I have even less experience with K's than theory so I seriously wouldn't read this in front of me.

K's are written so poorly in PF debate and PF's structure isn't built for Kriticks. If you still choose to read one (don't know why you would do this) here is my opinion on the arguments:

• Over-explain everything, like I said earlier I have very little experience with this part of debate. Assume I know nothing.
• You have to actually solve or do something. Reading a K means you still have to read an organized argument. While I was a fan of structural violence weighing as a debater "creating discourse about structural violence" is not solving anything, you're just talking about it.
• I'll feel better voting for a K that's topical, but you have to explain exactly how you link in. If it's about the debate space, explain your problem and how you solve it.
• Don't extend the K by reading it again, that's not how you extend an argument.
• If your argument is just "You must vote for me because I am x Identity" or "vote for me because I talk about x issue" or "If you don't vote for me you don't care about x oppression" or anything along those lines, you'll probably lose. Refer to the second bullet point in this section. I wouldn't read any of these arguments in front of me.

I am a new judge in 2022 and excited to be a part of debate!

Similar to other judges, I believe that quality, well-structured and supported arguments are much better than quantity. It is better to have 1 or 2 strong arguments, supported by both evidence and logic, than 4 or 5 weak points.

I greatly appreciate good speaking skills and professional presentation. Please enunciate, make periodic eye contact and speak slowly and clearly. If I do not hear it and cannot note it for consideration, unfortunately I cannot refer to it when making my final decision. Demonstrate that you know your material well enough to not read directly off of the page.

If it comes down to your evidence says "x" and their evidence says "not x" and I have no way to know who is right, you will lose. What do I mean? Explain why your evidence is more relevant, accurate, and credible...and/or why theirs is not. I prefer clarity of evidence and impacts, with valid reference to resources.

Be sure to advance arguments, clearly respond to your opponents arguments and attempt to discredit your opposition. Unaddressed arguments will carry more weight. Please make sure that you and your partner are cohesive.

Other points:

Please sign post - this will ensure that I properly note ideas and contentions.

Please avoid use of complex debate jargon.

Be respectful of your opponents, do not interrupt, and be polite through the competition.

Please no observers.

This is high school debate. It's a fun, learning experience. I don't expect anyone to be perfect and would hope that you take every opportunity to learn, whether you win or not.

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

I have experience judging Debate, including Public Forum, at numerous local competitions. This is my first circuit competition, therefore, if you're running any theory or complex arguments, explain it thoroughly.

I vote on what I can hear, so don't talk too fast. I prefer brevity and clarity, so no reason to re-state previous points simply to fill time.

I want a clean round, respecting your opponents and the debate structure (times, etc.)

Best of luck!

I don't introduce my bias in judgements. I am looking for logical arguments, flow and impact and how they are responded. I would appreciate if you speak at a normal pace.

I competed for 4 years in LD debate during high school at both a lay and circuit level, but predominantly in lay debate. I also competed in 2 years of collegiate NPDA parli, predominantly at a circuit level. I generally prefer a lay style of debate but can accommodate circuit type arguments and some speed. I am generally not fluent in many critical positions, though I understand how kritik structures work. You are welcome to run them but clarity is important as I won't necessarily understand the author's arguments unless well-explained.

Hello, this is Shen.

I prefer to see that the debaters back their opinions/arguments with evidence and civility. Speaking clearly to the point is more important than speaking fast.

Have fun.

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

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Coached and judged since 2020. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science.

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

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

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES. Send a speech doc if you are above 225 wpm or have bad clarity.

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

- Just because you CAN read fast with me, doesn't mean you SHOULD. Read at whatever pace you debate best at, don't try and rush just because I'm techy.

Evidence

- You may paraphrase, BUT I expect you to send a cut card with a citation. DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad behavior in this department.

- After the round I will call for some key cards from case/rebuttal, even if they weren't relevant to my decision. This is my way of checking power tagging/bad cuts. If a card sounds too good to be true, I will call it. Even if the card isn't relevant to the round, I will drop your speaks if it is miscut.

Rebuttal

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

- Collapse in 2nd rebuttal (it's strategic in winning my ballot). you MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

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

Summary & Final Focus

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

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

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

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

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive). Disclosure, paraphrasing, content warning, misgendering theory, etc. are all fair game.

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

- Very pro-content warning shells, but ONLY when they aren't friv (i.e., I think reading one on a poverty impact is too much, but reading like a gendered violence content warning shell is definitely not friv). However, I'm non-interventionist so I'll vote on anything. I do believe that content warnings aren't a race to the bottom and that there is some reasonable threshold for me to buy them, but also this is one of the places I kind of default to a reasonability stance-- I think there is some gray area I want people to hash out in rounds though.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two rich private schools bashing each other over the head with theory, go ahead.

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

Ks

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

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

Progressive weighing

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

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

Assorted things

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

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

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently biased towards privileged groups-- I will try and evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

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

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

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

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

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

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

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

- Tricks: Nope.

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

Hi! Nice to meet you!

I'm MK! I competed in almost all types of speech and debate events in high school, but mainly Congressional debate. With that being said, my standards for Congress are much higher than other events. To me, Congress is not just a debate event, it's role-playing a real senator or representative. Tell stories to empathize with your constituents. Formulate defensible arguments that are backed up with strong impact and analysis... Why should I care? Are you making me care? I reward and love varied sources(articles, books, research papers, etc.), I hate rehash( please don't let me get bored), and cookie-cutter speeches(I can tell if you didn't write the words you speak). Stand out to me, in a positive light, and you will be rewarded.

* you will be judged the moment you walk into the room*

Debate: I'm looking for clarity and strong arguments. Please be clear about what you're trying to convey. Speak slowly, and stay engaged throughout the debate. Never forget your claim, warrant, and impact! I want to see a strong value and criterion. Warning: I will keep a rigorous flow.

Speech: Love good storytelling. Project your voice, I have bad hearing. Stay engaged with your audience. Speak slowly. Show your personality through your piece.

Hello!! My name is Chans (she/her). (John Paul Stevens HS ‘23 & UT ‘27)

You don't have to call me Judge or anything overly professional like that, Chans (pronounced chance) is fine!

I did speech and debate for two years in high school, with competition and (limited) coaching experience in Congress, competition experience in trad LD, PF, and Extemp, and judging experience in all of the above plus OO and World Schools Debate. I try to make my ballots as helpful and detailed as possible for the sake of your growth as a debater. If you have any questions about my decision or ballot, I'm more than happy to discuss and provide more insight so don't be afraid to shoot me an email! chansfrench.cf@gmail.com

If I'm your judge for an event that isn't detailed below, you're welcome to ask if I have any preferences!

Congress

This is by far my favorite event and the event I have the most experience in. I mainly use argumentation and how much you advance the debate as the way I will evaluate you as a speaker, and delivery is the last thing I consider. Next to each section, there's a rough percentage breakdown of how I will evaluate your performance.

argumentation (50%): Please don't rehash arguments, that might be obvious but to me, this looks like giving the exact same claim, warrant and/or impact as another speaker. There is a big difference between rehashing and building upon other's arguments by bringing in new warrants, impacts, or analyses. Please don't try to pawn off rehashing as building off others without adding anything fresh to the debate. If you plan on going late, make sure you’re weighing and debating, not reading a constructive without adding anything substantial to the debate. I will give you the 9 immediately if you give a constructive as the 10th speaker in a debate. Now that all the technical stuff is out of the way, I want to hear ARGUMENTS. I've been in my fair share of local congress rounds where every speaker is reading a different, independent, 100% prewritten speech that contributes nothing new/substantial to the flow of the round. Even I have been guilty of this. Be adaptable, it is the easiest way to stand out in a room full of 3-minute infos.

advancing the debate (40%): Whoever is doing the best job at proving that their side is winning the debate the best will generally get my top 6. This means analysis, comparatives, and weighing!!!! I also want to hear the implications that the points in your speech make to the overall flow of the round. Why is what you're saying so important to your side, how is it changing what we know about the round thus far, and why should I care as a judge (or non-congressperson if you're a true LARPer). This should seem pretty intuitive, but you would be surprised by how many people don't actually do this.

delivery (10%): I'm insanely lenient with how you choose to deliver your speech (legal pad, clipboard, laptop, iPad, sheet of paper, nothing at all), as long as YOU feel comfortable, that's all I care about. I understand being in the position of having not padded my speech and feeling like my performance will suffer because of it. Not many judges are like this, so please feel free to do whatever with your delivery. Fluency breaks are normal and are not that big of a deal, so show confidence in what you’re saying and the rest will follow.

misc/personal preferences:

1. Be respectful, yelling at each other or being aggressive during cross is one of the easiest ways to get ranked pretty low, and be mindful of each other’s pronouns, especially if they are visible on placards.
   
   

2. If you're going to give a humorous/stylized intro, please make sure the topic is appropriate, but otherwise, I love to hear some of your personality shine through!! Be warned though, I've watched an ungodly amount of congress rounds, and was in at least one every weekend for two years, so if you give a canned intro, I will most likely know and call you out on it.
   
   

3. POs will typically rank in my 3-8 depending on your performance and the performance of others in the round. You either have to be doing a really bad job as PO or it be a really good room of speakers for you to get dropped. I will generally try to make sure that PO's will always have a chance of breaking out of prelim.

Content warnings are super important and you should ALWAYS provide them if necessary, but also remember if you have content in your speech that requires a CW, your judges and PO cannot leave the room during your speech.

LD

an email chain is fine, speech drop is better though.

tech > truth, but in a trad way!

be respectful and clear and you'll get high speaks, be rude, passive-aggressive, or mean, i'm dropping your speaks. if you're experienced and hitting a novice, and way overdoing beating them, i'm dropping your speaks.

I mainly competed in trad/UIL LD, but I will evaluate any argument, as long as I can follow the argument link chain. Theory is okay, as long as it's clear what I'm supposed to be voting on. I am going to be honest, still not sure how to evaluate a K so I'd recommend not running one if I am your judge for the sake of fairness in my decision. Speed is okay as long as you have a doc that I can follow. Keep in mind though that following along to a doc while you're speaking and I'm trying to flow can become difficult for me, especially if I'm trying to catch every link.

If you can't explain your argument without relying on your evidence during cross or as a “warrant", you’ll have a hard time convincing me why you should get my ballot. Cards ≠ warrants.

PF

PLEASE don't read a K or theory (unless it is ACTUALLY conducive to a better debate space). There's not enough time and I will not know what to do with it on my flow. I prefer a good traditional PF round, with all your typical things. Weighing is one of the most important things to me in PF, as long as you're doing it, thats all I care about.

Extemp

I only competed in Extemp as a supplement to Congress, so my preferences are a lot more surface-level. Evidence is important, but I care way more that you can explain the points you are making in detail with good use of analysis. It's a snooze fest if all you're doing is telling me claims and cards. Substructure is cool, try to have fun with it. Fluency breaks happen, it's normal. Just shake it off and keep going. You won't auto 6 if you break fluency or pause for a second.

Remember to have fun and take care of yourself & good luck to all competitors!!

PF: I still think Public Forum should hold to the intended purpose when it was first introduced. Persuasion is key. Speaking fast with lots of arguments and debate jargon is not persuasive and will probably cost you the round. Sound reasoning and logic should be a significant part of the round. Evidence should be used as support but not the only the thing to vote on. Referring to the “Smith 16 card" will not tell me anything. Refer to the argument or contention and the evidence used there.

Background: Debated LD in Colorado during high school; coach since graduation also in Colorado, MA in International Studies (Governance, Human Rights, and Civil Society). 2023 - 2024 season: I've watched mostly LD > PF > only a few CX rounds.

I have judged at Stanford and Berkeley tournaments for several years, plus numerous out rounds in LD and CX at NSDA Nationals.

Apparently I haven't updated this in a while...since that last update I've come to believe that paradigms are even more useless. I write it. You read it. We probably both ignore it.

General:

• Please impact your extensions. I won't simply flow through a card author.
• Give me voters! Probably with some weighing and clash...
• I dislike it when individuals run arguments that they don't understand: 1) quality over quantity; 2) don't waste my time. (I am seeing SO much power tagging. I can pull up your evidence very quickly and do a keyword search.)
• I think the best debate rounds are those in which the debaters agree what is being debated and don't try to play games--don't try to confuse your opponent, don't try to tell me you addressed something when you didn't, etc. Just be clear and engage with the issues of the round.
• If you want to ask me additional questions before a round, please be specific. Otherwise you prepped for a round and my paradigm is just some words on a screen.

PF Paradigm

I've never really thought about having a PF specific paradigm... My overall thought is that PF is meant to focus on the topic. I want substantive debate and not theory. I'm normally pretty tab at debate, but I find it so uninspiring to hear a whole round on theory.

LD Paradigm

Nothing special for LD. Be smart on time use.

CX Paradigm

My debaters have called me out and said I seem anti-CX here. Truth is, I think really good CX debate is better than anything else, and I've come to really appreciate CX. The problem is that it is rare to see a good round of CX. There's never clash. People read arguments they don't understand. People ignore evidence at a whim. There's a tension between just reading a bunch of cards and wanting the judge to do the work of analysis and then complaining about judges not understanding arguments. And more. And it's not unique to CX.

So, long-story short: I try to be pretty tab in CX -- because I wasn't a competitor I have very few preconceived ideas of what I want to see in a round. Take some extra time and explain any CX theory to me. I'm not going to love a lot of "education is better" or "truthiness is better" either. Do some work if it comes down to theory.

Speed: I have no preference and a pretty high threshold for an LD judge from backwards Colorado. I try to keep a rigorous flow so if you get too fast I will clearly stop typing or writing. If you also don't slow down a bit on taglines, arguments and cards probably won't get flowed where you want them.

Arguments: I tend to be more interested in philosophical debates and "traditional" LD (for CX this means I probably enjoy a good K debate, but I also appreciate a clear policy framework), but I will listen to, and flow anything. Start with a clear framework, provide clash, and make it clear for me where I vote. I have a pretty solid background in political theory and an interest in German philosophy broadly (Kant to Habermas).

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

I was the Asst. Coach for Wm. S. Hart High School in Newhall, CA from 2015 to 2023. I have recently moved to Nevada.

I have judged IEs for 26 years.

I have judged Congress for 23 years.

I have been judging LD, Parlie and PoFo for 20 years. I do NOT do Policy or Big Questions.

I ask that speakers avoid spreading and/or reading/speaking at an excessive rate of speed. Communication is paramount.

Respectfulness and courtesy are required at all times.

As a competitor, please do not tell me what decision I have to make. I'll decide that for myself.

I do not disclose. Nor do I give any oral critiques prior to the tournaments ending, although once it's all over, I'm happy to discuss. My comments will be on the individual ballots and RFD.

Lay parent judge. Not my first time judging, but I appreciate clarity. I will weigh the arguments based on what was said in round.

I am a parent debate judge. No spreading. Be kind to your opponents.

I am a lay parent judge.

I would like to assure you that I have studied the resolution - however, I will judge entirely based on your arguments. There will be less emphasis on impact since I believe the impact is often subject to bias.

Please do not spread because if I don’t understand what you are saying, you will hurt your chances of winning.

I like concise arguments with proper evidence that is cited well. Paraphrasing is good with proper citation of author, article etc. However, please do not misinterpret your evidence when you paraphrase to suit your argument. I encourage teams to request the cards as necessary- I may also ask for the cards myself. If I am convinced that you are talking very fast just to include as many quotes as possible- that may go against you—your arguments should be concise with the correct interpretation of your evidence, and hence you may need to paraphrase.

I encourage you to send me your cases before the round starts. My email address is uguha47@gmail.com Be polite and respectful during crossfire. Good Luck.

Lisa Haddock

TLDR: Please send a copy of your speech to: lisahaddock68@gmail.com

Speed is fine-just be sure to speak clearly.

Tech over truth

Rounds will be evaluated and final decisions made based on flow so don’t drop your arguments.

I’m good with any argument but discrimination of any type will not be tolerated and could result in an automatic loss.

THINGS EXPECTED IN A ROUND:

Please time yourselves as this is for your benefit more than the judge

Off-clock roadmaps are recommended for your benefit; however, please let your opponent and judge know so there is no confusion

When you take prep time, please make sure you are ready to begin once prep time is over

Make sure that cross-ex is used appropriately

PUBLIC FORUM:

Arguments will be evaluated based on how strong they are presented along with the weight of their impacts-this is very important.

Make sure to number and emphasize your arguments

Remember to extend your arguments

Keep rebuttals in a clear line-by-line format

Second rebuttal should focus on responses in rebuttal

During summary, remember to extend defenses and offenses or whatever you feel is most important in the round.

Do not try to take over in crossfire and try to ensure that grand cross is not one-person dominated

Final focus should provide clear weighing ground for judges to determine why either team should win the debate.

Hi, my name is Naga, and I'll be your judge today!

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know most debate or topic terminologies. You can use certain obvious debate jargon like turn, probability, or non-unique, but do not use terms that non-debaters will not be able understand. Please explain the points you are making, such as why it is a non-unique or why it is a turn, so I can understand the point you are trying to make. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision.

The way I will judge will be thoughtful and analytical. I value tech over truth and follow the sky is red theory, meaning if an argument may be inherently flawed, but it is warranted and front-lined well and has a clear and quantifiable impact, I will buy it. The way I judge a round is first looking at who won the main arguments or clashes of the round, and I "award" these contentions or arguments to each of the teams based on who wins them. Then, I vote the contentions based on the quantified impacts and the relevance towards the round (aka the weighing debate). I expect you to do the heavy lifting for me, meaning you need to weigh these impacts and explain why you win the clashes of the round yourself.

In summary, to win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis. Most likely, I will not vote for a contention that does not quantify the impact because I need to see the impact put into perspective.There are exceptions, but majority of the time, I expect clear link chains, evidence, and a quantifiable impact.

In crossfire, I expect to see that you allow your opponents air time to express their points and answer your questions. I will penalize you for being abusive towards your opponents, so remember to be respectful towards your opponents and towards me as a judge. I will not tolerate any statement that is extremely racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.

In this debate, I hope not only to be a fair judge, but also learn a lot about these topics. Good luck!

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

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

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

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

Thanks

-Sandy Hou

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.

important: please do not read arguments pertaining to human trafficking/sexual violence in front of me. by that, i mean don't dehighlight the cards and replace sexual violence with gendered violence. i cannot hear these arguments. read an alternate.

add me to the email chain - 19sabrina.huang@gmail.com

i debated under cps hp. currently i coach/judge for american heritage broward. i don't think i'm super picky but heres some basic stuff:

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc. you must delete the cards you did not read and visibly mark cards that you did not complete reading.

postrounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u shoulda is not. just try to keep it short - i will cut you off at a certain point

william and i were really techy so that's the kind of debate i'm best at judging. but if both teams wanna have a lay round, that's fine too. i'll give feedback based off of how convincing you sound or sum

in general don't be a jerk, esp in cx/crossfire. it's fine to be witty, but if you're being rude your speaks will get tanked. my bar for being a jerk is pretty high tho. either way, cross isn't binding.

generally please dont yell that much, calm down it aint that deep ????

first and foremost, i prioritize the safety of debaters. that means: don't trigger people, use correct pronouns, etc.

that also means i wont evaluate any arguments rooted in bigotry. i will also not evaluate death good. be mature, and good people. also idt u can run pess if both of u arent black. i cannot believe i have to say this, but dont

to quote miguel harvey: "DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it." i don't think i can word it better.

send all cards before speeches so we reduce prep steal. i do not want evidence sharing to take up 16 minutes of a round (i have seen this happen irl) please spare me

i always presume neg on cx and almost always on pf - but if it's on balance res, i'll presume first bc first summary is hard

we can skip grand if both teams want to idrc about it tbh

if both teams want a lay round thats fine j lmk

on evidence:

i wont drop u if i notice an egregious evidence ethics violation myself but i will do smth if other team points it out/asks me to call for the card at the end of the rd. i will point it out and tank speaks if it is not against official rules usually (unless its rly bad, case by case basis) but if it is against NSDA rules i will auto drop

generally - i dont like para bc i have to comb through ALL ur ev. if you do not know what para means, ask.

i think bracketing can be a slippery slope - id rather u read something that sounds grammatically weird out loud than bracket, bc if you bracket a lot i have to check all ur ev for misconstruction and i dont want to do that.

if you notice clipping and u want to pursue it dont just read a shell - again, it's against nsda rules and needs to be evaluated per the handbook. just stop the round. it would be helpful if you have a recording of the clipping too.

speaks

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc and i'm gonna call tab

25 = minimum baseline for explicit, egregious evidence ethics violations or u were a big jerk

27-27.5 = you did smth horrible (debate wise)

27.6-27.9 = decent amount of stuff to work on

28-28.2 = you're getting there

28.3-28.5 = avg

28.6-28.9 = nice

29-29.3 = good. you might break to elims

29.4-29.7 = i think you should be top speaker

29.8-30 = ur better than me congrats

you start at a 25 if i notice ev that is explicitly against nsda rules - this is not just creative highlighting, this is stuff like added ellipses

+.3 for OS disclo

+.1 round reports

-0.5 for improperly cut cards (no context, no citation, no highlighting, etc)

-1 para or bracketing (-2 if u have both bc addition)

-1 if u have no cards and u j send me a link

also,

defense is not sticky

frontline everything in second rebuttal. do not be blippy and say "group responses 2-5 no warrant" and then move on. ACTUALLY WARRANT EVERYTHING OUT. if you are blippy, i will be very lenient towards the other teams responses.

analytics r cool if u have warrants.

i dont think theres an inherent problem with theory, but theres this trend where teams make hella responses and nobody collapses and it makes the round super messy so that makes me pissed like i dont think we have time to cover every single possible voting issue in 2 mins yk what i mean

anyways if it's frivolous i'll probably give u the stink eye. u can read friv if u reallyyyyy want but depending on how funny/boring it is ill get upset/be less upset. RVIs are silly, i prob won't vote on no RVIs. i don't think you should lose for trying to be fair.

call me interventionist but i think disclo is good and para is bad and i dont see myself voting on the opposite. sorry

i think ks are generally educational and i know how to judge them but i genuinely believe they don't belong in pf j bc the timings weird. if you read one, i won't immediately vote you down. either way aff gets to perm the k. also read an alt. and actual fw. do this well and u wont make me upset

CPs are fine on fiat resolutions (usfg should __) but idrk how this would work on an on balance res. but since these are technically not allowed per nsda rules i will also evaluate CP bad theory or whatever arg u can come up with

no tricks please i dont think i can evaluate them well and ill probs drop you bc idk how they work - run them in front of someone else

go as fast as u want as long as you enunciate. i will yell clear 3x before i stop flowing, dont make me do this

signpost. if you want to spread, you must slow down on tags/cites and then you may speed up on the body of the card. then, when you move onto another contention/card, let me know in some way. pause. say and. i dont care as long as u do smth

stop extending everything through ink, makes the debate really hard to eval and leads to intervention

no new weighing in 2ff. new 1ff weighing will make me upset but idt its the end of the world.

also, time yourselves. if u go too overtime in a speech/start new sentences i will straight up stop flowing

in general, i would rather have a slower round with more warrants than a faster paced round where everything is blippy and messy. make my job easy. do not make me sigh when i am making a decision bc i have to choose between a bunch of unwarranted weighing mechanisms extended through ink. most of you all are trying to be too techy because you think that gives you clout. in order to be techy, you need to know how to debate, otherwise a fast and unwarranted round just leaves me unimpressed, frustrated, and you will not get much out of the round. if u are techy and u do it well thats fine - there is most certainly a difference between a messy good tech round and a messy bad one.

Hello!

My paradigm is rather simple. I tend to be an impacts judge and go for whichever side can impact calc. their arguments out. Students should debate the way they want to, just please make sure I can hear you. I can follow speed, just make sure that you enunciate clearly so that I can still follow. If you have any additional, specific, questions please feel free to ask me about them before the round. For the purpose of setting up email chains, my email is hubbchri@gmail.com

Crossfire is important to me. I want to see competitors having equal speaking time with interaction between each other. Competitors should provide insightful and relevant questions and be respectful. In cross-fire I also want it to flow as well, i.e. the cross and responses have to be related and not orthogonal. In delivery, I want to see eye contact and deliberate clear speech (no rushing or spreading). Please address the judge clearly and confidently. I want to see flow of thought, not disjoint ideas and talking points strung together. For content, I value well-researched content with clear links and subpoints. Concise is always better. For the effort put in I take and send out detailed notes on all aspects of the debate: content, depth and quality, delivery, and crossfire.

Hi everyone!

I am judging for Dougherty Valley.

Here is how I judge:

Number 1: Don't talk fast and do not spread. Be loud and clear so I can make proper notes.

Number 2: Please be polite, don't scream at your opponent.

Number 3: Please provide a definition and make sure to explain everything you say clearly.

Number 4: Make sure to give an off time road map.

Number 5: Quality over quantity

Number 6: Offense over defense

Number 7: Weigh properly, impact is critical

Number 8: Probability of your argument is also key for my ballot

Number 9: Look professional

Number 10: Have fun

I'm a parent judge, and I have been judging PF, LD, and INTERP for more than 2 years.

I lived in United States since late 1990s, so you can consider me as a native English speaker.

I usually judge the debates based on 3 aspects, the content and logic, the presentation skill, and the techniques during the cross.

Hi! I'm a parent judge with little experience.

Some important stuff to note:

1. Tech over truth
2. Please speak SLOWLY, quality over quantity
3. The less debate jargon the better, however "contention," "warrant," "impact," and anything to do with weighing is fine
4. WEIGH- give me a reason to vote for you.
5. Please make clear what point you're on-- in 1st speech that would mean noting which contention you're on, also make clear when you transition to impact. In all other speeches- signpost!
6. I value debaters who show a clear understanding of the topic
7. I don't flow cross, mention important points later
8. In 1st and 2nd cross please try to split time evenly, allow your opponent to ask questions
9. Grand cross make sure everyone gets equal chances to speak
10. Please be respectful during the round
11. GLHF

I am a parent judge.

In debate, my main focus is on how well you present your argument and defend them. I prefer you do not spread. My basic philosophy is that if I can not understand what you are saying , I do not understand your argument and therefore your score will reflect that . Please remember be respectful and do not cut your opponent off during crosses.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

First time parent judge.

Please be articulate.

Please don't speak too fast.

I want to follow along.

I am fine with any arguments as long as you can convince me they are true. This is a debate. If you can properly convince me during the debate that the earth is flat, I will believe you.

I am generous with speaker points, but if you are rude, your points will drop like a falling brick.

Treat me as a flay judge, I'll be flowing but I'll also be noting your presentation of arguments, confidence, and assertiveness. 

1. Clarity of thought and how you make your point.
2. Eye-contact: maintain good contact with all involved and not talk to one person.
3. Tone- should be assertive and not aggressive.
4. Overall body language/ gestures when in debate- avoid being dismissive about your opponent.
5. Time management.

Hello! I have judged several PF rounds and know the general layout of the round, and have some preferences.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If you are going to spread, do it mindfully. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your argument, and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

But most importantly, don't forget to have fun!

I did debate for 4 years in high school, mostly LD with a splash of PF. I also did extemp and OO. I'm now studying economics and political science and compete in British Parli with my university.

A few general basics for debate...

Be civil and kind, and please be aware of what power dynamics exist in the room. You will not win the round by bullying your opponent into submission, and if I think you're being a jerk you will probably be unhappy with your speaks.

Speed: don't spread, but talking fast is fine. I'm not going to refer to a document that you send unless I need to review specific evidence, so while I can listen and type fast if it doesn't make it onto my flow it doesn't count.

Signpost please - if you don't tell me where something goes on the flow, there is a good chance it does not make it onto my flow, which will be sad for you.

In general tech >> truth, however, if you read me something that is very blatantly false I'm going to have a very hard time voting on it. The more outlandish your argument is the more well-substantiated it needs to be through solid evidence.

Evidence ethics matter. If you are not able to provide exactly what you are citing in a quick and efficient manner, it will be bad for you. Additionally, if you read me something that sounds super sketchy, if the argument is going to impact my vote then I will call for your card at the end. If I don't feel like your card backs you up I won't consider the argument.

Don't be abusive. I'm flowing and listening to your arguments and your opponent's arguments. If you tell me your opponent dropped something they didn't, misconstrue your opponent, or more generally lie about what has been happening in the round I will get very very annoyed with you. If you want to win the round, me being annoyed with you is not a good thing. Additionally, if you refuse to interact with the arguments your opponent is making, you probably won't win.

Finally, the more you impact and weigh, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Ultimately, you should be presenting an easy-to-follow narrative that convinces me you're right. If I have to weigh arguments myself you might not like how I do it.

LD Specifics:

I love Framework debate, and I think that it can be really important to the round... but only if you do it well. The winning framework is what I'm going to use to evaluate the impacts, so if you're going to spend time on the framework debate, your framework should matter in evaluating your impacts. If your framework is functionally the same as your opponents, save everyone's time and tell me that instead of trying to explain why the word you chose is better than the word they chose.

PF Specifics:

Not much that is specific to PF and isn't covered above. The only thing that I would say is please make sure that you and your partner are presenting the same narrative. The more you and your partner are on the same page the better it is for you. Additionally, I think a lot of circuit debate turns into a card dumping competition which I think is a mindless waste of time. Quality of cards and argumentation matter way more to me than quantity.

Speech/Interp:

I don't have strong preferences or thoughts... just speak well and try to be engaging.

As a lay judge, I come to the debate without extensive experience or expertise in the specific subject matter being discussed. This means that I will be evaluating the debate from a perspective of common sense and general knowledge, rather than technical or specialized knowledge.

While I will be looking for clear and convincing arguments, I will also be paying close attention to how effectively the debaters communicate their ideas to a general audience. I want to see debaters who can explain complex concepts in simple terms and make their arguments accessible and understandable to someone without specialized knowledge of the topic.

Overall, my goal as a lay judge is to provide a fair and objective evaluation of the debate that reflects the values of clarity, simplicity, and persuasion. I am excited to see the creativity and ingenuity of the high school students as they present their arguments and engage in a thoughtful and respectful debate.

Pine View KP; NSD Instructor; Lake Highland Prep Coach

Tabula Rasa

The funnier you make the round, the better it will go for you

TLDR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and DO NOT SPREAD(honestly i prefer if you heir on the side of slower; if your opponents can’t understand you I probably cannot either). Defense is sticky but I only grant you marginal defense(if the ; first FF may read some type of new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well.

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can make new implications on weighing but not brand new weighing or new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

Add me to email chain Rafehk21@gmail.com; I prefer if you send a speech doc beforehand with all evidence unless it's analytics

Speed:

Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (250+ wpm) there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast or not clear and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Time:

You are not a baby, time yourself

Postrounding:

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

––––––PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

Theory:

I enjoy theory debate (ONLY IF NOT ABUSIVE). Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells. I think abuse in rounds is bad but if you read other shells it may not go well for you. I EVALUATE THEORY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN OTHER TECH JUDGES (model of debate > than a small random squirrlley turn)

Kritiks: I read a couple K's in my time but I am extremely bad at evaluating them SO if you run one, please WIN the argument sufficiently. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY WITH A MEGAMIND BRAIN.

Tricks: These genuinely create a stupid model of debate but go for them if you want to.

TKO:If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks, if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

I am looking for a strong argument that uses persuasive and communication skills. Please speak in a conversational tone and speed. Also, clearly refute points in cross-ex. Be kind and courteous to your opponent while debating, no personal attacks.

I'm a former policy debater, with a few years experience judging PF. I expect all competitors to be respectful and professional and to adhere to the structure and standards of debate.

I am a lay parent judge who has judged PF, LD, and various speech events in the past two years. Please do not spread or speak at very fast speeds, speak clearly and slowly so I can catch everything. I can't evaluate any advanced argumentation/theory/Ks, so please avoid it.

Be respectful and have fun!

Hello! I am a parent judge with local circuit judging experience. I judge based on what I understand, so it is in your best interest to avoid spreading. Additionally, I will not immediately understand all the debate terminology, so be sure to be clear in explaining it. Please avoid complicated theory and try to keep the debate limited to the topic rather than rules (unless there is a serious instance of abuse). I take cross examination into account, but I recommend bringing up important points in speeches. I try to weigh dropped arguments, even if they are not extended. However, if an argument is important, it is best to extend it so that I do not forget it. Overall, I am not a perfect judge, but as long as you prove your points and impacts while maintaining respect, you should be fine!

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my for the fist time.I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

Add me to the email chain: mails.narendra@gmail.com

I'm a lay judge, here are my preferences:

• Contentions: I prefer clarity above all else. Explicitly reason out your argument. Run reasonable things, don't link random things to extinction.
• Crossfire: Always be respectful. Give the opposing team a chance to speak; speaks will be docked if this isn't followed.
• Speak clearly, do not spread.
• Having credible evidence is always best, this has weightage in my ballot.
• Time yourselves and let me know if your opponents go over time.

I'm parent of a passionate debate student, also new to judging. So it will be helpful if you do not speak too fast or use a lot of slangs in your speech.

I am keen on witnessing well-prepared debates where students not only provide compelling examples and statistics to support their positions but also delve deeply into the topic to impart valuable knowledge to the audience. Additionally, a well-organized speech is crucial for ensuring that their points are clearly understood and effectively supported.

In essence, my hope is that students embrace a holistic approach to debating – one that encompasses in-depth research, thoughtful incorporation of examples and statistics, and a focus on delivering well-organized and articulate speeches. This not only benefits their performance but also contributes to a more enriching experience for all participants and spectators alike.

I am a new parent judge. Please go slow and use numbers to tell me how your arguments weigh against each other.

Volunteering for judging Public Forum debate with limited experience.

I'll be looking for balance, balance between well established arguments and well organized refutes, balance between team members on the contribution and how each would compliment each other over the rounds.

Bold is important

Lay Flay judge

tech>truth

Tldr tabula rosa whatever

Judging is a boring job, do something fun either in speech or cross or I might actually fall asleep

send speech docs, non-negotiable, if you use technology for a speech, send the speech doc carded not sending speech docs may result in an automatic L, this includes rebuttal

arguments must be well warranted and don't use jargons specific to the topic, I won't know what they mean

Talk at a moderate speed, will not flow if you're spreading unclearly, spread at your own risk

Collapse is preferable

Will allow you to go a couple seconds over time but if you talk for more than 7 seconds or so you're getting speaks off.

Defense is not sticky you have to extend everything

if your frontline is not clear, I will not flow it

weighing has to be comparative

Run metaweighing so the ballot is easier.

frameworks are cool as long as u extend and warrant them.

Prog:

Please do not run any progressive arguments because I don't know how to evaluate them and I'll probably screw you, if you have to run something prog I'd prefer K's

don't be racist sexist or any type of -ist, will result in an automatic L

Feel free to ask any questions before or after round especially after RFD

David Levin (he/him/his)

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

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

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

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

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

General:

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

Housekeeping:

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

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

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

Speaking:

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

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

How I flow:

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

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

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

How I evaluate:

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

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

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

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

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

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

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

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

Topical "critical" Cases:

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

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

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

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

Non-topical criticisms:

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

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

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

"Off-case" Criticisms:

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

Policy:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

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

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

I am a parent judge. I have judged Public Forum debate for two years.

Please keep in mind a few things while debating:

• In Construction, I like well stated Contentions.
• In Rebuttal, I want you to highlight the weakness in the Contentions of the opposite side.
• In Summary, I judge how well you defend your own positions and how well you debate the opposite positions.
• In Focus, I want you to convince me why you win. Please do not bring in new evidence at this stage.
• Please talk slowly. I try to take notes, but if you talk too fast, I am not be able to keep up. No jargons please.
• I look for clear logic and reasoning, less on emotional appeals.
• Statistics is good as long as it is concrete to support your positions but not hard to follow.
• Any discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in automatic minimum speaker points.
• I believe debate should be a fun and educational experience!

My name is Xinhui Lin, but I prefer to be called Vicky or V. I have debated for around 5 years in different formats of debate including Public Forum, Policy, World Schools, and British Parliamentary. I have also competed in various tournaments ranging from regional to global scales.

Style preference: I do not have any preference in terms of the structure of debate cases, but all debate cases should be structured in a way that is easy to follow, and lines between lines should make logical sense.

Speed preference: Speaking fast does not mean you are ultimately better at debate. I usually prefer a clear, slow-paced delivery of debate speeches in which points and arguments are getting across clearly.

Email: linxinhui117@gmail.com

hi! i debated pf and parli for princeton high school (2018-22). i now coach for flintridge and compete in british parli for usc

lmk if you have any questions on facebook or email me at liuanna@usc.edu

tldr normal flow judge who is lazy and doesn't like intervening

my preferences:

honestly, analytics/logic > evidence. i'm super disinclined to vote off an arg if i don't understand it even if you throw a billion stats at me. i'll probably believe anything if it's warranted enough though. this also means i have a really high threshold for extensions in summary & ff so always overexplain please

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range or send a speech doc (but this will make me really sad i hate flowing off speech docs just read a shorter case pleaseee). i can flow faster if im forced but then i might miss things which will make us both sad. also i don't flow author/source names so when u extend don't just say "extend amadeo" tell me what amadeo said

bare minimum for second rebuttal is responding to turns, you also should frontline anything you want to go for (yay sticky defense)

i don't listen to cross, i won't look at cards unless you tell me i have to, i'm not gonna time anything so y'all keep track, idc what you wear to round

if you have questions about my decision please ask me! i'm always down to help clear anything up

don't be any of the -ists, if you do i drop you with the lowest speaks possible

progressive args:

disclaimer: i was an east coast pf debater 2 years ago who only ran trad, run at your own risk

i am willing to buy anything but ONLY IF

1- you warrant everything (i mean literally everything, from your links or standards to especially rotb!!) and you warrant it well, i have a very high threshold for this

2- you speak slow because if i have to flow off of a speech doc because you want to read 14 tricks instead of 7 i will actually start sobbing right there on the spot and then not be able to flow due to the tears blurring my vision

basically explain it to me like i'm a lay judge

I am Parent lay judge. English is not my first language so please speak at a slower pace. Make sure to have good logic and reasoning with lots of data and evidence.

I prefer debaters presenting, reinforcing their arguments and rebutting their opponents’ arguments with solid logic and reasoning as well as authorized evidences.

I value respectful and strong discourse in crossfire, but not rude or overpowering.

Thanks and good luck,

Lanyun Liu

lay

I am a new parent judge. I will try my best to judge base on your argument, reasoning and logic. Delivery is also very important. Please speak clearly with confidence. Thank you!

I am a previous PF debater so the structure and language is all familiar to me. HOWEVER, prior to this weekend I have not competed in PF since 2017 so please talk to me like someone who knows nothing about the topic. Please do not spread, you must enunciate so I can keep up with you and if you want me to flow well.

1. The most important thing in a round is being respectful, please make the debate enjoyable for everyone!

2. I don't flow cross, but I am listening. I want to hear impactful questions but I also need you to carry that in your speeches.

3. Good weighing is something I really look for. If you tell me why I should vote for you instead of your opponent with a decent line of reasoning, there's a very good chance that I will listen to you. Especially in PF, use summary for this. In LD, all rebuttals should have weighing analysis.

4. Always have clear sources and links for all of your evidence. It will reflect poorly on you if your opponent calls for a card and you can't pull it up. I will also call for cards if I didn't fully understand the point, so be ready for it.

7. I love a clean flow so signposting is very important and that's generally what I consider most when giving out speaker points. I will also give speaker points based on the level of respect you treat your peers.

8. If your framework is important to your case, don't just tell me what it is, tell me why I should prefer it compared to your opponent's. Especially in LD, frame the debate well and I will follow your lead. It should also connect seamlessly with the remainder of your case.

9. Comparative analysis is important when clash occurs. Don't continue to extend evidence without telling me why it should remain on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before or after debating! I want you all to learn from every round so please do not be afraid to ask me any questions after I give my comments. I truly enjoy judging so I hope we can all have a good round :)

Hi! I am the parent of 2 PF debaters. Please speak clearly and treat me as a lay judge, but don't be condescending. I have a good understanding of current events. If you say anything -phobic or otherwise deemed as offensive I will rank you last/down you. Good luck! :-)

Lay judge, please speak slowly, focus on narrative building, and clearly explain all terms. Try to keep this round simple and concise, and focus on telling me why I should vote for your side.

For the April 2024 PF topic, please avoid discussing Israel as it is uncomfortable for me as someone who knows people impacted by the Israel Hamas conflict.

I am currently a freshman at Emory University. In high school I mainly competed in Extemp, Impromptu, and Public Forum, though I have experience in over a dozen events. I was TOC Champion and Illinois State Runner Up in Extemp, State 3rd Place and 2nd at the Barkley Forum in Impromptu, and State Quarterfinalist and two time State Octafinalist in Public Forum.

I have little experience participating in and judging nats circuit pf. Because of this, I will not be able to evaluate any theory, Ks, etc.

Other than that, I view myself as a pretty standard PF judge:

First and foremost, follow standard PF procedure. You can time yourself, but please don't take advantage of it. Please be respectful during cross and at all times during the debate - I will dock speaker points for disrespectful behavior. Please make sure all evidence read is easily accessible, but if you ask for a card, please stop working until you get it.

Make sure you cite card names throughout the debate, and don't be afraid to ask for opponents cards, as long as it doesn't adversely slow down the debate. Failure to present evidence you've read will severely impact your credibility in my eyes and weigh in my decision.

I will listen to cross, but only weigh it if it's brought up in speeches. That being said, if you can't answer questions during cross, that will harm your credibility and speaker points. Additionally, don't go down a rabbit hole in cross that really doesn't matter.

Don't be afraid to collapse things! You should prioritize clash and your most impactful arguments. Don't try to keep everything up, an effective response is saying "we grant your argument, but our other argument is more important because...".

Good luck to both teams, and I look forward to a productive debate!

I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have two seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas once. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be very helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.

I am a parent judge who has judged PF over the last 5 years.

I am a parent volunteer judge for Dougherty Valley High School.

I have no experience with judging and I do not know anything about the different events.

I will award speaker points to the debaters based on how courteous, well-spoken, and confident you are. Do not be rude to your opponents or anyone else in the debate, or else you will definitely lose points. Try to avoid jargon and speak slowly so that I can understand your points.

Try to outline exactly why I should be voting for you. I want to know what your main points are and why they are more important than your opponents.

I will try to note down the important points, but I will not carefully follow every part of the debate.

Try to use as much evidence as you need to get your point across, but I want to hear your reasoning as well. Do not only use evidence.

Make the impacts of your arguments clear. I want to understand how your arguments will affect the world around us.

I prefer aggression in cross-examination, but be polite.

I value the quality of your persuasion over the truth behind your arguments, but that does not mean that you can make anything up. As long as the reasoning is logical enough, then I will consider your argument.

Most importantly, I want to see you have fun in the round.

That everyone is respectful and is a good sportsperson.

I'am a parent judge. I vote based on what I see on my flow, therefore please extend all your main args all the way through final focus. I want you to do the weighing for me and tell me why your impacts outweigh. I value evidence ethics and fairness, so I will dock speaker points if you're caught misconstruing/abusing evidence. Please do not spread or run framework.

Please add me to the email chain: melamlakshmi@gmail.com

I am a lay judge, no spreading. I prefer to judge Lincoln Douglas debates, but am fine with judging speech as well. In debate I look for clear arguments and strong supporting points. I am fine with controlled spreading but you must be clear. For speech I judge based how you approach character or position, and you must be presentable.

I competed in circuit policy in high school all four years. I did NFA-LD in college all four years.

I am open to any and all styles of debating (as long as you aren't hateful), but probably prefer a straight-up, disad/CP + case debate at this point in my career.

It's been a minute, so please don't go lightning fast. I can handle a little speed but it shouldn't be exclusionary to your opponent.

If you are going for a procedural or theory, the abuse should be clear. Do the work to make the links to your kritiks clear and reasonable. Give me that great impact calculus and tell me clearly where to vote. I do my best to be tabula rosa.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I am a lay judge but I do flow all speeches.

If you wish to share your evidence cards, add me to the email chain: jagadish594@gmail.com

Just some specifics (for PF):

Constructive: Present the arguments clearly. Be specific on the links and impact. Provide valid evidence to support the argument. I don't prefer spreading. However, if you must read a case which is 1200+ words - please create a speech doc and share it with me (and the other team)

Cross: Clarify the arguments clearly. Be respectful while questioning the opponents and keep the interruptions to a minimum.

Summary & Final Focus: Please weigh and provide framing. It should be extremely clear why I should vote for your side.

-----

If this is a league tournament - I will NOT give RFDs.

Good Luck!

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

K:

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

• What gets you good speaks:
  • Making it easier for me to flow
  • Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
  • Making things interesting
  • Clear spreading
  • Productive CX

• What hurts your speaks:
  • Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
  • Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
  • Being really boring
  • Being rude

PF Specific

• I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
• If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
• Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
• In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
• Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

• 2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
• Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
• Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Lay Judge - 1st tournament Judging. I am an engineer by education and profession. I value logic, facts, data evidence and clarity in thoughts and arguments. I lean more towards probability so make sure to back your arguments up with logical reasoning and data. This goes for all speeches and not just the case.

Some Do's and Don't

Be respectful of time - I trust you will time yourself

Be respectful of the other team

No Theory

No Spreading - Preferably speak in a good pace, not fast but understandable. Feel free to send your case and speech docs tosharanmudgal@duck.com

Dont use too much debate Jargon - weighing is good but dont complicate it too much - (impact, mag, scope, severity are fine)

she/her

No Spreading.

Please be clear and explain your argument and importance in the round. Clarity is more important than responding to all the arguments. I would rather have you explain lesser arguments clearly than skim over all the arguments.

Explain why I have to vote for you.

I would prefer you to share your cases with me so that it is easier for me to follow.

Be respectful towards your opponent and follow the rules.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Hello,

I am a 2nd year parent judge and am looking forward to meeting you. I would say that I tend to lean towards the argument that has the most impact.

Best wishes!

Tristan

Hi! I am a first time parent judge with no previous experience judging. I have a background in technology and am interested in many different current event topics. Treat me as an extremely lay judge. Please: no spreading, theory, K's, or anything fast. I look for polite and civil debates in which debaters are well informed and respectful to each other. I will not keep a time check.

Good luck and have fun!

This is my fifth year as a parent speech and debate judge, most of which has been spent judging public forum and lincoln douglas debate.

Please be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please follow the rules and treat everyone fairly.

I appreciate speaking that is reasonably paced so that I can follow your arguments, so a little quicker than conversation-paced speaking works best for me. You will have enough time to make your arguments without rushing through them. I will listen carefully to your evidence, and to me, a few pieces of strong evidence are far superior to a lot of weak evidence.

I have little knowledge of your topic and have not prepped so do not assume that I know the literature, arguments, or acronyms.

Please convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

parkert@ltisdschools.org

Background: I'm a first year debate coach at Lake Travis (Austin, TX). I'm also a lawyer and teacher. I debated mostly LD but graduated HS in 2004.

ALL Debate: I'm a mostly tech judge, with some exceptions below. I will generally not vote on frivolous theory. If you want to make an argument about abuse or norm violations, I am open to it, just make sure you're telling a clear story here.

I will usually drop speaks for repeatedly telling me that your opponent dropped or conceded an argument that was clearly addressed. Point out drops, but don't lie to me. (this is not about a mistake or accidental statement, this is for the people who compulsively say that every argument was "clean conceded" when they weren't)

For docs, please use speechdrop if at all possible. My stupid school email has a ridiculous filter and it will often take a few hours for your email chain to get to me.

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

CX: I'm not generally a policy judge so I am not going to be fluent in the deeper jargon (if you're abbreviating everything in particular). Explain your arguments if you want me to vote on them, don't just blip through them.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

LD: My LD experience is a bit outdated from the current circuit standard. I am very open to new innovations and outgrowths since I debated, but my fluency in modern off-case argumentation is a bit limited. I'm open to voting on those, but you'll need to explain them well and be clear with your voters. I don't have any strong feelings on policy vs philosophical approaches. Tricks suck. If I don't understand the argument, I won't be voting on it.

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

PF: The above information applies to PF rounds as well, with the added provision that I will reduce speaks for being cruel/disrespectful of opponents (and I don't like that I have to put that here for PF)

Speed is fine, so long as you're clear. If you're planning on really spreading, I find it very helpful to have the doc.

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

Congress: I am looking for both strong content and speaking for my Congress ranks. One without the other is not a recipe for a good score. Speakers that use the bulk of their speech rehashing earlier points usually get scored down. Clash is good, just make sure you're not mischaracterizing the opposition's argument when you do so.

Particularly incisive points (especially as clash points) are likely to draw my attention. I do pay attention during questioning - strong lines of questioning (or defenses to your own position) are likely to result in a higher rank.

You should be cognizant of the speech you're giving in a round. For example, if you're giving a sponsorship, you should be explaining how this bill solves the problem you're trying to address.

For POs: Generally the best POs are the POs where I barely notice them as the round runs smoothly. I typically rank good POs well, but rarely will they get the 1 unless it's a particularly weak round.

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

Extemp: Similar to Congress, I'm looking for both Strong content and strong speaking skill. One without the other will rarely receive top ranks on my ballot. I'm not looking for a specific number of sources, but good/varied sourcing is important.

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

Interp: Interp events are where I definitely have the least experience. Generally, though, I'm pretty standard as an interp judge - i'm looking mostly for strong characterization and (in the relevant events) narrative structure.

If you speak fast I’ll be very mad
So don’t be bad
Or else you won’t be rad
And I'll get sad

Don’t run theory
Or else I’ll get teary
and I won’t be cheery
And the round will be very dreary

I’m lay
So don’t be flay
And let’s have a good day
In may
If you are lay
I’ll believe what you say
and your arguments won’t decay
when you stay
with the lay

If you have good refs I’ll be glad
But if you have bad contentions I’ll be mad
At you lad
And speaker points I won’t add

Please don’t spread
Or else I’ll hit you with my bread
And you’ll be sick in bed

So don’t be a tin
And have a lot of din
And you will get the win

or in other words

Hello!

I'm a lay judge and I'm a new judge, so please be concise and make your arguments very clear and understandable

No spreading or theory, I will not understand it

Please explain your arguments and refutations clearly: I will vote on what makes sense to me based on what I hear in the debate

Hello, I am Aditi Patel and I am a parent Judge.

Please explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace.

Please time yourself.

Please be respectful to me and I will do my best to take notes and be fair.

Please add me to the email chain @pateladiti@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge with a law degree. This is my first year judging debate.

Some things to consider during the round:

1. Please don’t spread. I won’t know what you're saying, and if I can’t understand you, I can’t vote for you.

2. Weighing is very important. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s do.

3. Keep track of your time.

4. If this is PF, in crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles. Just ask a direct question.

5. As I’ve mentioned, I’m a lay judge, so I don’t understand most debate jargon. I think debate is about persuading normal people with a decent education, so please approach the debate so that a typical audience can understand and vote for you.

I look forward to hearing your debate.

Hi, I am a first-time parent judge. Please talk slowly and make sure to provide numerical values when weighing.

I prefer bullet points with strong supporting data.

When speaking to the points, please speak in reasonable normal pace instead of rushing so that I can understand your points clearly and judge around it.

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery. Quality, not quantity, for arguments.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

Hello debaters,

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

email for email chains and/or questions: paulqueija@icloud.com

I am an NSDA Alum who competed in all Interpretation, Speech, and Debate events for eight years. Additionally, I am a multi-year National Qualifier, and I enjoy identifying individuals with potential for success at Nationals. Currently, I dedicate most of my time to coaching and judging, a role I've held for three years.

Unlike many coaches and judges you'll encounter in your Speech and Debate journey, I maintain a politically neutral stance. Just as personal biases have no sway, my neutrality will not influence my assessment of your performance. I approach each round with impartiality, objectively evaluating the arguments presented.

I understand that in events like Public Forum, time is limited despite the abundance of content. Thus, I am accommodating of speed. However, clarity and enunciation remain crucial. While I will strive to keep pace with you, excessive speed may hinder both your persuasion and my ability to follow your arguments and rebuttals.

I prefer listening to evidence over reading it through an email chain. I place equal value on argumentation and delivery style, but I emphasize the necessity for arguments to resonate in the real world. Your value should be substantiated by issue contentions, not merely appended to fulfill a requirement.

Persuasive arguments, particularly those that underscore real-world impacts, resonate most with me. However, I recognize the allure of debating hypotheticals and theories. Rest assured, I will provide fair treatment to all participants, irrespective of their style, background, or reputation.

I always favor debates reminiscent of a courtroom: professional, lucid, and well-structured.

While some competitors and coaches offer verbal feedback post-round, I am more than willing to provide it upon request. Regardless of your preference for immediate feedback, expect transparent criteria and a reasoned decision on my ballot, along with constructive criticism and positive reinforcement.

Currently the Congressional Coach at the Lakeville Debate Team

Congress-Specific Paradigm: I rank based on how well each student utilizes the 3 main canons of rhetoric (ethos, logos, pathos). Ethos is measured by how much you successfully engage in congressional role-playing. Logos is measured by how successfully you structure and present a logic-based argument. Pathos is measured by your overall speaking ability. I prioritize in the following order: argumentation > speaking skills > congressional role-playing.

Please note that strong speaking will never outweigh a poor or incoherent argument. This is a debate category, not speech.

To improve your ranking, I want to see extemporaneous speeches with well-warranted and linked arguments (CWI), regardless if it's a construction, rebuttal, or crystallization speech. Asking well-thought-out questions and responding successfully to questions will improve your rank. Showcasing a well-developed understanding of each bill will improve your rank, even if you don't speak on every bill. I am open to progressive debate, so bend/break the rules IF AND ONLY IF you have a legitimate reason to do so. I want to see clash in round, so don't just repeat what others have argued; instead, give me new information, ideas, whatever. Giving a speech to avoid breaking cycle will also raise your rank even if your speech is less prepped.

POs: Major mistakes WILL cost you. Small mistakes can be forgiven, especially if caught immediately and corrected, but continuous errors will lower your rank. The round relies on you, and judges will catch your precedence mistakes even if the chamber doesn't. I will only provide a high ranking to a successful and accurate PO.

PF/LD/Policy Paradigm

Experience: 4 years of PF in high school in Minnesota (2012-2016), 4 years of intercollegiate Ethics Bowl (2016-2020). I have a B.S. in communication arts (concentration in political rhetoric) and computer science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've judged PF every year since 2016 and have experience judging Congress, Public Forum, Policy, and Ethics Bowl. I currently work in tech.

Speaking: I prefer clean, concise, and persuasive speech. This will affect the speaker points, but my preference will not interfere with who wins each round. I will do my best to keep up with spreading, but I am not as experienced. Any excessively rude remarks will seriously hurt your speaker points score. Be polite.

Argumentation: I will follow any theory or progressive-level argumentation presented to me, but again I am not as experienced with this so be as clear as possible. Be consistent, use warrants as needed, and provide strong links into impacts. I will not intervene on a weak link chain. I will intervene on poor/inaccurate evidence.

Judging: I attempt to come in with an open mind to the best of my ability. My choice depends on everything said during the round and nothing more. The winner of each round will be determined based on the framework provided to me, the best-substantiated framework if there is conflict, any progressive framework if argued, or a broad act utilitarian cost-benefit analysis as default. I will weigh the impacts of each side based on that framework and pick up the side that provides the best world. I advise extending your arguments consistently, engaging directly with your opponent's responses, and explaining why your arguments ultimately outweigh your opponent's.

I am happy to answer any questions or concerns and provide feedback as needed. Feel free to contact me at sarakrabon@gmail.com

PF Paradigm: I did policy debate in high school and college, which has definitely shaped how I view debate. That being said, I have judged a lot of PF debates the past few years. I am familiar with the norms of PF and will judge accordingly. I will vote for the team that best accesses an impact under the framing I am told to vote for. If your “impact” is economic decline and nothing more, why should I care? Be sure to tell me what will result from voting for your side (stopping structural violence, preventing war, saving how many lives, etc.) I will default to consequentialist framing unless given something else. You need to extend an argument in the summary in order to extend it in the final focus. Unless it is against the norms/rules of the tournament, speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear!

I think that debates are better when more evidence is sent out. Obviously it is up to the debaters, but clash is better when both sides have access to as much evidence as possible. When you send out a card please make sure it is cut, and please do not send a link to an article and ask the judges/other team to "control F" to find your quote. Also, if you mention/extend a card in the summary/final focus, please make sure it is sent out.

If an advocacy like a K with an alternative is read in PF, I will not automatically reject it. However, I am open to "framework" type arguments that tell me to vote down the team for reading an advocacy in PF. If you think it is unfair for advocacies to be in PF, tell me how it harms you as a debater to have to debate it (say you are unprepared which harms the quality of debates, education, etc). I will treat this like any other argument, meaning that the pros and cons of allowing advocacies in PF should be debated and weighed.

Note: A lot of teams in PF have been taking time after the start time of the round to pre-flow or prep. Please don't do this when I am judging—prep ends at start time

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

Note: For events other than policy, scroll to the bottom

Email: Please put me on the email chain — jramrocks17@gmail.com

About me:

· 2 years of NDT-CEDA debate at Liberty University (2020 and 2021 seasons)

· 2x NDT participant and 2x CEDA Double-Octa finalist

· 1 year of coaching policy at Liberty

· 4 years of policy and 3 years of extemp at Prosper High School in Texas

· I was a K debater most of my career but switched to policy for my last year of college debate. I've been on both the K and policy sides of the library and want to see you do what you do best

TLDR: You do you. Tab/flex judges don’t exist as we all have our biases, but I’ll try my best to be “Tab”. I have run and seen all types of debate and am fine in any type of round. Please don't change your strategy based off of my paradigm or what you've heard I prefer. I am tech over truth

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

Argumentative Preferences:

K: K’s are cool on the Aff and Neg. Don’t assume I understand your literature base—I’m most familiar with literature surrounding capitalism, militarism, international relations, sexuality, and to a lesser extent post modernism, blackness, and colonialism, but you should always explain your arguments in depth. I think that in order to win on a K you usually must resolve the links and impacts either through a material alternative or through framing/education/methodology. I will vote on epistemology framing, but there is some truth to "tie links to the plan" so this needs to be debated out

Framework:

· I have experience on both sides and will try my best to remove any bias

· I want to be convinced that I am voting for the best model of debate. At the end of the round, I will weigh how much each side solves for the other's offense and how each side frames their offense

· I strongly dislike stale framework debates where teams read generic blocks and arguments, and where there is no contextualization to the other team’s arguments. If you win a round just because the other team dropped some of your generic blocks, you gained almost no education out of that round and your speaks won’t be great

· I think that it is better for the Neg when they focus on TVAs/switch sides as opposed to focusing on their impacts alone

· I love it when the Neg uses clash/fairness/any impact to turn the Aff and answer their offense

· I will weigh Aff offense and want to hear it contextualized to the Neg's explanation of FW; "USFG bad" is probably not enough. I want to hear how the Aff’s counter interp solves the Neg's offense, and the Neg is better off proving that their model solves a good portion of the Aff

· I lean towards the belief that fairness is an internal link to education or whatever else the Neg is explaining, but if you explain and win why fairness is an impact, I am willing to vote on it

Theory: I think that theory can be good in certain instances, but it can also be unnecessary. Just have a clear interp and violation with voters and don’t go for a ridiculous shell that was obviously meant as a time suck unless it’s dropped or very under-covered. If you go for condo against a team with one conditional advocacy or something ridiculous like that, I will vote for you if you're winning, but you won't be happy with your speaks

Policy Affs: Do what you want, but I think that teams benefit from extending entire advantages in each speech. I like it when the Aff uses its 1AC to debate each off case and uses its advantages to frame the whole debate on each flow

Counter Plans: I can enjoy a good CP debate. I have no problem with multiple CP’s but will vote off of condo if you’re losing it (more than 3 condo is maybe a little sus, but that's up for debate). Answer perms and solvency deficits and explain your net benefit. I've gone for sus process CPs a lot, and I think I have no Aff or Neg bias on theory. I personally believe that judge kick is a good thing, as it upholds the Aff's burden to prove that it is better than the CP and the status quo. Judge kick will be my default, but I will disallow it if the Aff wins that it is bad

Disadvantages: I think strong policy teams use DA’s to turn case (although this is not required) and engage in in-depth impact analysis and framing. The truth level of the DA and quality of your cards is relevant. Be sure to extend your whole link chain in each speech

Impact Turns: I’m cool with them and think that they can be strategic—just don’t double turn yourself (ie don’t read “China war good” on case and a China war impact on a DA). I think the level of truth does matter (ie dedev is better than spark but still questionable), but at the end of the day I will vote on tech and card quality

Topicality: I'm cool with voting off of any interp that you’re winning, as I view T like I view any other argument and won't reject any interp just because I think it is false. I want a clear interp debate. The winning side will win that their model of debate is best, although proving in round abuse (like the Aff no-linking core DA's) will greatly help the Neg. Have a clear interp, violation, and standards that you extend in every speech

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I default to Competing Interpretations because nowhere else in debate is “we kinda don’t link to this argument” a good answer. Debate is about competing methods and worlds, and I believe that Affs use the reasonability argument to win ballots from judges who don't like T debates. I’ll vote on reasonability if you’re winning tho for sure

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

Random things:

· Speak as fast as you want, just slow down on tags and make sure I can tell when you're reading a tag vs evidence text. Whatever speed you are at be clear as long as you are able :)

· Flashing/emailing probably isn't prep but if you are talking to your partner, typing excessively, writing on your flows, or taking over a minute or two I will count prep

· Please feel free to time yourselves. I can time as well in case you need it for speeches/prep, but please ask

· Open CX is fine unless tournament rules say otherwise

· Please don’t be rude or mean, and don’t discriminate against others or read arguments that discriminate against others

· I refuse to judge any "death good" arguments, mostly because the burden shouldn't be on the other team to ask me to end the round

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

Scale Thing I see judges do:

Policy----------X--------------K

Condo good----X--------------------Condo Bad

Tech--X----------------------Truth

Death good is valid------------------------X No!

Ks of fiat-------------------X-----Fiat always good

Process CPs good-------X-----------------Salty 2A

Non-resolutional procedurals are bad----X--------------------Veganism/Christianity type procedurals

Perms are legitimate X------------------------The 2NR I gave in my first novice round

The above is set in stone--------------------X----I will flow the debate and vote on tech

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

Speaks:

· Speaker points are low key an arbitrary vibe check, but I try to give speaks based off of your speeches, overall strategy, and cross ex

· A 28 to 28.5 is average, and it’ll and go up/down based on your performance throughout the round

· I will adjust how I give speaks based on the tournament. I’ll probably give you higher speaks for your performance at a local than if the exact same round took place at a bid tournament

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

Other Events:

LD: LD is cool! I have some minor experience. I’ll probably judge it like a short policy round. Anything from framework debate to K debate to stock debate is cool and I’ve ran all of that in LD. I’ve heard that alts aren’t that important in LD K debates, but I value them so please explain it. I’ll probably vote based on which side better accesses the winning framework in the round. I hear that LD likes RVIs for some reason, so I'll vote on those if I'm told why

Congress: I did congress a few times in HS and was first alt to Nats my senior year. I want good content but will also value your speaking skills

Speech: I competed in extemp in high school and broke at NSDA in FX, and I enjoy good speeches. I will weigh the content of your speech vs your performance/tone differently based on the specific event

Traditional parent "lay" judge.

Introduce yourself with name, school, and speaking order before you start your constructive/rebuttal speech.

No theory/Ks/prog debate, etc.

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

I judge on a 5-point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said, or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, and very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Hello (If you don't read this, just remember IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS and I will give a large verbal RFD at the end)!

My name is Alex Redell, I both coach and judge for University High School's Debate Team.

In high school, I did 3 years of public forum debate. After high school I've judged a multitude of tournaments in both PF and LD. I'm only a sophomore in university, so I'd like to think that all my debate knowledge is still fresh within my mind.

Since I help coach University, I'll be pretty well up to date on all the cards, evidence, lingo, and other stuff for each topic, so if you run something that is a stretch, misinterpretation, or misrepresentation, I will most likely be aware. HOWEVER, I judge debates on the flow. If something flows through every speech and your opponent doesn't call you out on it, even if the argument itself is flawed, I will still vote it through if the opponent never calls it out and you weigh it properly. The only exception to that is if you blatantly lie about evidence and I catch it (then I won't flow it through).

Other than that, I should be a normal Illinois circuit judge. For opening constructive, I'm fine with speed up to a certain point. I won't welcome all out spreading, but reading fast but legibly has never been an issue for my flowing skill. I'm rather standoffish regarding your rebuttal, summary, and final focus style. Whatever format you are comfortable with is the format I will be comfortable with, the only necessities of these speeches are to: A. Flow through your points from speech to speech (if you don't flow an argument through, I won't weigh it). B. weigh your impacts big time in summary (this means quantify it if possible, compare/contrast your impacts with your opponents, and emphasize its importance). and C. cover the spread of information (if you slip up and forget to respond to something in a speech and your opponent flows this through all of their speeches, I have to prefer your opponent since they flowed your lack of response through). I also have no issue with collapsing onto a specific argument/point in summary, but if you do this make sure it was necessary. Too many times recently I've seen teams collapse either on the wrong argument or collapse when they didn't need to and it has hurt their chances of winning, so be wary of that. I also don't flow anything from cross, so if you wish something from cross to be flowed through, you must bring it up in your next speech.

Lastly, just please have fun. PF debate can be tons of fun, and I don't want any competitors to ever forget that. This means be nice to each other, ask questions after the round to me if you have them, and stay positive! If there is anything you take away from this paradigm it is the previous statement. After every round I will always give feedback to all four speakers and to all arguments in the round. I like to do this so I can explain to you any decision I made so you don't walk away confused, and if you need to make changes before future rounds, you will be able to. If I am allowed to disclose, I 100% will, so I can explain how in a future debate the loser can capture the ballot next time (I won't disclose for novices though).

Hi! My name is Brenda Reiter and I’m a graduate student at the George Washington University. I competed in Public Forum for 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I will be open to all arguments.

I hate evidence debates. I know evidence is essential to a debate but it’s somewhat pointless to be throwing out cards that aren't being explained logically or have a sound warrant.

I don’t have a problem with terminal defense (extension from 1st rebuttal to 1st FF) but if you must bring it up in summary.

Summary and FF should tell a similar story (voters, warrants, evidence)

I hate off-time road maps!! I prefer you tell me where you’re going and signpost throughout your speech.

Please use voters!! Tell me why you’re winning not your contentions again!

I will probably ask to see evidence that is conflicting and or evidence that is winning you the round. If your evidence is incredibly complex and I a senior in college cannot understand it, your opponents probably won’t and I won’t evaluate it.

Don't get lost in the technicality of the debate, but rather focus on the bigger picture. Also, remember you are debating the resolution.

Theory shells/debate:

My last debate tournament was in 2019 and a lot of things have changed since then. When I competed in PF theory was not big at all and you would often lose a round if you ran it. No longer the case so as I continue to judge I have to adapt. I don’t know theories so if you run something please explain it to me!! I will vote for any argument that stands through the round but EXPLAIN!!

In terms of disclosing cases and evidence in Wiki, I don’t care if it happens. I don’t think it’s abusive if a team doesn’t post their case. The thing about PF is being able to take down arguments with logic which is more compelling for me than evidence that is not properly understood.

Don’t be afraid to ask me any questions!!

This will be my first time judging national rounds, but I have judged Public Forum debate for 5 years. I will only be judging on Saturday so I will be new to the problem on Saturday morning.

I flow the round. If the argument is well structured and flows logically, then I can handle a fairly fast pace. However, if the argument is not clear or well organized, then there is a risk that I will miss something if you are too fast. I value logical arguments that are supported by evidence. It helps if I know the date and source of the publication, as more recent evidence from reputable sources is often more persuasive than old sources, particularly on timely issues.

Impacts are important, but I always weigh them against how probable or speculative those impacts are.

It's good to have clear key-voting points and to note what arguments you think flow through the round to your side. Note, however, that I will not necessarily agree with you. You should be somewhat careful not to overstate your case by making unsupported claims or by misrepresenting your opponent's arguments or lack thereof.

I am a former PF debater, who debated for all four years of high school.

Generally, as long as I can understand what you're saying, I don't care too much about speaking speed, but I'm more preferential to slower speakers. I'll flow but make sure to really emphasize and explain why I should vote for you, especially in summary and final focus. Basically, make sure to weigh and don't get too stuck on minute details as we get to the end of the round. As long as your evidence and points make sense, I'll take them at face value.

Congress:

Part of being a professional speaker requires that you are eloquent while representing your state and issue. Eloquence is something I watch out for, but more importantly is evidence. If you are not able to support your claims with evidence, then you will place lower than everyone else - even if you are more eloquent. I'm really, really tired of watching people speak on issues without claims. Granted, if you are coming from a philosophical or pathos appeal, that is different. But if you are trying to introduce new concepts or claims - don't just make wild assumptions to prove your point (Which a lot of congress kids seem to do)

With that said, the speaker that is also professional, polite, and respectful to their fellow representatives is also something I would like to see. This, however, does not mean I don't want to see some clash. I love clash. If you are able to bring new information to the debate then you will peak my interest. (don't just speak to give a speech, speak because you have important things to say. If you are speaking just to give a speech, make sure you bring something new to the floor that hasn't yet been considered).

Ask meaningful questions in CX that force your fellow representative to think about what they are saying, or a question that helps plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the rest of the audience. Carefully crafted questions (again, don't just ask a question to ask a question) should have a purpose that proves your point.

LD:

LD is a debate that should be focused on the morality of whatever issue you are arguing for. I am all for what ever arguments you want to run here, theory, kritiks, or whatever they may be - but they MUST have links. Ask about this if you ever have me in round. Do what you do best.

If it comes down to an evidence or value contestation, it is your responsibility to give me reasons to prefer and tell me why yours are more important. If it comes down to a value contestation in which both sides can win under either value, please don't waste time trying to convince me that your value is better when they are really the same value. Just agree to the value and move on.

I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

Be respectful at all times, especially during cx - and don't ask questions just to ask a question. Use the information that you get from your opponent in cx in your speech if you can, and make sure to ask the difficult questions. If you need to ask clarifying questions, that is fine.

CX:

I love judging policy. I am fine with speed, and use the flow quite frequently to make my final decisions. I don't have any argument I am biased against, unless of course it is an argument that promotes hate speech, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other form of discrimination.

If you are trying to gain access to extinction impacts, your story better be good. Links, internal links, warrants, and evidence better be top notch in order to really 'wow' me. If your opponent finds any holes in your argumentation or links, then you probably wont win your impacts.

I am ok with tag teaming.

I do not count prep time for flashing evidence, but if it becomes excessive then it will probably become a problem.

Be an ethical debater.

Be respectful, but aggressive if and when you need to be.

When it comes to an evidence contestation, you need to give me reasons to prefer your evidence over your opponents while explaing why the opponents evidence fails.

A clear road map. Is super important. Just because I say I am fine with speed doesn't mean I will always be able to follow you. If you lose me I will drop my pen and then it is your job to help catch me up.

PF:

A lot about what I have said about LD and CX applies here. I want to see clear argumentation and analysis and roadmapping. Speed is fine.

If the debate gets messy, having voters is really important.

Give reasons to prefer your evidence or framework if it is contested.

Ask me any questions you have about how I judge PF that were not covered.

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

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

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

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

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

For Last Chance Qualifiers:

• Start the chain as soon as possible. My email is further down
• I'm tired. It's the end of the year. Please don't just blip through your prewritten extensions in summary without contextualizing anything, that would make me sad. This is also my first tournament judging this topic so don't expect me to understand everything if you speed read through complex arguments. You do yourself a favor by slowing down on the arguments that take our your opponents
• Rebuttal is the time to go silly with your 500 turns case args, but I will not be happy if you extend all into the Summary. Just go for the one that was undercovered and impact it out
• Pet peeve: While I've been helping my team prep, I don't know all the acronyms and won't be looking up any that I don't understand. If it's never clarified what an acryonym stands for, sorry but I can't vote for it
• Go crazy with the impacts but don't expect me to vote for you just because you mentioned nuke war. If I can't follow the link chain then I won't vote for it
• Please don't prep steal. Keep your camera on when your opponent is sending over evidence and keep your hands in view. This was one of the most frustrating things for me when I was debating, and Iwill penalize teams who don't adhere to this. Send speech docs before every speech so that this doesn't happen
• I'm cool with Ks but I'm not super familiar with the literature - so go slow and explain it. If I don't understand it I won't vote for it
• Theory is good and creates good norms. If people didn't lose on disclosure theory then they wouldn't disclose. If people didn't lose on paraphrasing theory they would paraphrase. While I'll do my best to be tab on these topics, just know that I strongly believe in disclosure and am very against paraphrasing. That being said, I won't be happy if you read an OS vs first three-last three disclosure shell, good is good enough

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tech > Truth. Win on the flow, that's all. Debate is a game, make crazy choices and you'll be rewarded if done well. I don't care much about cross, it won't play a role in my decision unless brought up in a speech. Anything you say after your timer runs out, even if it's a second over, will not be on my flow

Making the round unique/interesting will be rewarded with speaks

You can assume I'm ready, you don't need to ask

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap - just signpost

I'll disclose if both teams want to hear it

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hey! I debated in PF for five years, and now I coach for Eagan High School and go to Macalester College

Add me to any evidence exchanges: lsalonga@macalester.edu

I'm currently debating in collegiate policy and I am pretty bad at it lol- but at least I have a sense of the more technical args

If you ask me if I want to be on the email chain I'm docking a speak because it told me you didn't look at my paradigm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is how I used to judge a couple years ago, most of it still stands

This is how my partner judges, he's more in-depth than me

I'll disclose if I'm allowed to. Post-Round me if you feel like it, because I'm definitely not a perfect judge

For Novices/JVers:

- Please don't be mean to each other! It's just a local tournament, you don't need to act like this round defines you. Y'all should have fun :)

(Trust me when I say that I understand if the team is being frustrating. If they're being frustrating, it'll factor in their speaks)

- I don't need you to extend card names in Summary/FF, but the entirety of your argument (uniqueness, links, impact, etc.) needs to be in Summary and Final Focus for me to consider it. If you can walk me through how affirming or negating leads to something good/bad, I will be very very happy

(P.S. : Please ask me questions about any part of my paradigm if you're confused)

For Varsity:

I just want to make it clear that "our coach didn't teach us" isn't really a valid excuse when you're hit with progressive arguments. There's an abundance amount of online resources on learning progressive debate. Like this!!

- Tech > Truth (I don't care about how good you persuade me or how much I believe your argument is true)

- Cut Cards > Paraphrasing (If you paraphrase and your opponents call you out on it and tell me why that's unfair, I'm going to vote on that unless you can defend paraphrasing)

- Anything dropped in second rebuttal is conceded

- Idc about speed, go fast if you want, but send out speech docs if you're gonna go fast

- If you take more than 30 seconds to pull up a card, I'm running your prep. I'll also be timing every speech, and even if you're a second over I'm not flowing anything you say

- Substance > theory (I'll hack for disclosure and paraphrasing theory)

- CI > Reasonability (but willing to be convinced otherwise)

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Hello!

I am a local debate judge excited to judge in the circuit for the first time. Because all of my experience is in local tournaments, if you're running any theory or complex arguments you must explain it thoroughly.

I vote on what I can hear and write down. If you talk too fast, I cannot hear you and I will not write it down.

I have absolutely 0 tolerance for disrespect, lying, abusing speech times, etc. I want a clean round, not a roast battle.

Best of luck to all.

In judging debates, I prioritize the effective use of facts and elaboration to construct clear and compelling arguments. Presenting well-supported points with detailed explanations demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic and enhances credibility. Strong arguments are built on a foundation of evidence, and logically structured to persuade and engage the audience. Clarity and coherence in argumentation are key factors I consider when evaluating debate performances, as they showcase the ability to communicate complex ideas persuasively.

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

I am a parent judge who has judged for about two years. I won't understand super fast talking of any kind, so I advise you to speak at a normal pace.

I will only vote based off what is said in the round, and will not make any assumptions myself. This means that you should assume that I know nothing about the topic, which is probably true. If you want me to consider an argument, I suggest you bring it up in the final speeches of the debate. This is mainly where I will make my decision, so I think clearly stating your reasons on why you won here is important.

Other than that, have fun.

DO NOT SPEAK FAST, AND DO NOT SPREAD

I am a lay judge, so try to explain everything well, and clearly. No debate jargon.

Don't be disrespectful.

I'm a parent judge and both of my kids have done PF debate. I am an engineer by profession and worked for 15 years in large corporations in executive role, now I have been an entrepreneur for the past 10 years. My main thing is that if I can't hear you clearly, I can't evaluate your arguments. Speak clearly and be respectful to other team.

Hello, my name is Suzanna Sinapyan. I graduated from Woodbury University with a Masters in Business Administration.

I've judged several PF rounds and have some preferences when it comes to rounds.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If I cannot understand you, speaker points might be docked. If you choose to spread, keep it at an understandable pace and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

I am a Lay judge. In case you wish to share evidence then add me to your email chain and here is my email mrugendra.singhai@gmail.com

Specifics:

Emphasize impact and link (logic).

Please try not to spread. if you must spread share the case document with me.

During crossfire questioning, please clarify arguments clearly. Be respectful to your opponents.

If this is the league tournament, I will not give RFDs.

Hi, I’m Will Soper. He/him/his. Wsoper03@gmail.com.

I did NDT/CEDA debate for four years at the University of Kansas. I'm currently coaching for Blue Valley North. I worked with a lab at Michigan for a little while this summer and judged a lot of practice debates.

Grumpy stuff. Do not ask for a marked document. If the number of cards marked in a speech is excessive, I will ask for a marked document. Asking what cards were read is either CX time or prep time. Prompting needs to stop. Past the first time, I will not flow the things your partner prompts you to say. Send the email before you stop prep.

I dislike bad arguments. I think most debaters understand what these are: hidden aspec in the 1NC, reading paradoxes as solvency arguments, counterplans which assassinate anyone, etc. If your ideal negative strategy involves more nonsense than specific discussions of the affirmative, we probably don't think about debate the same way.

Presumption/Vagueness. I am willing to (and have) voted negative on vagueness and that the affirmative has not met its stock issues burdens. Similarly, if the negative is reading a CP with an internal net benefit and doesn't have evidence demonstrating that the inclusion of the plan prevents the net benefit, I am willing to vote on "perm do both" even if the aff doesn't have a deficit to the CP. I am willing to dismiss advantage CP planks which are overly vague or not describing a policy.

Evidence matters a lot. Debaters should strive to connect the claims and warrants they make to pieces of qualified evidence. If one team is reading qualified evidence on an issue and the other team is not, I'll almost certainly conclude the team reading evidence is correct. I care about author qualifications/funding/bias more than most judges and I'm willing to disregard evidence if a team raises valid criticisms of it.

Kritiks. The links are the most important part of the kritik. If I have a hard time explaining back exactly what bad thing the 1AC did or assumed, I will have a hard time voting for you. Here are some things to increase your win percentage in front of me if you're extending a kritik. 1. Make link arguments that are specific to the affirmative. If debaters spent even 5 minutes before the debate reading through the 1AC, identifying themes or premises that are kritik-able, and made those into link arguments, their win percentage in front of me would skyrocket. 2. Rehighlight aff evidence to make these arguments. 3. Tell me how your link arguments disprove the case or make affirmative advantages irrelevant. I cannot remember the last time an "ontology" argument was relevant to my decision.

Planless affs. I basically always vote for the team that slows down and starts comparing their impact to the other team's first. The more a team reads blocks into their computer, the less likely I am to vote for them. I am a poor judge for fairness/clash/debate bad.

Topicality against plans. I am more willing than other judges to take a "you know it when you see it" approach to topicality. Overly limiting interpretations that most affs at the tournament would violate are not very persuasive to me. For example, I have voted that adopting medicare for all is not Social Security. I have not, however, heard a compelling reason aff's can't deficit spend. I'm not immovable on either issue, but your debating should be as aff-specific as possible.

Things which will make your speaker points higher: exceptional clarity, numbering your arguments, good cross-x moments which make it into a speech, specific and well-researched strategies, developing and improving arguments over the course of a season, slowing down and making a connection with me to emphasize an important argument, not being a jerk to a team with much less skill/experience than you. I decide speaker points.

You're welcome to post-round or email me if you have questions or concerns about my decision.

Arguments I am a very good judge for (this is a continuously growing list):
The security K
Vagueness
Stock issues
"Permutation do both" against process CPs

Arguments I am a poor judge for:
Disclosure Theory
Speed Bad
Counterplans which compete off of certainty or immediacy
Trolling

Jeremy Starkweather

Penn High School

Northwest Indiana District

Judging Paradigm

I am a previous Policy debater and Head Speech and Debate coach at Penn High School in Northwest Indiana. I have been coaching since 2017, and just earned my first diamond this year (woot woot). I also teach debate/dual credit speech at the high school, and I have experience coaching each event with some success, so I will be able to follow pretty much anything you throw my way in round.

General Philosophy: I appreciate high energy debates and direct clash. I want to emphasize in this paradigm that I am a teacher/coach. I train judges at my high school, and I pride myself on giving each team/debater a fair opportunity to win the round. I am open to all arguments, however those that are on the squirrelly side are tough for me to vote on. I appreciate unique approaches to the topic, but as I mentioned in the previous line, I don't want the debate to turn into chaos or a technical bore. Take this activity for what it should be, and engage in creative/realistic/competitive discourse. Arguments that make me think in new ways are always a plus, but again, they need merit.

In all honesty, I am most likely to give the ballot to the team that is the most organized on the flow. I'm ok with speed SO LONG AS YOU SIGN POST. However, I do highly value communication in this game we play, so please keep that in mind. I will always be thinking in the back of my mind, "which of these two teams do I want to see in the final, and use as an example in my speech and debate class next year?". Be respectful, be professional, but also be competitive.

World Schools Debate: Though my background (and one true love) will always be policy debate, in recent years I have really enjoyed my time coaching and judging world schools debate. The knocking always brings the hype, but don't let it become obnoxious (same with POI's). Just remember that the goal of this activity should always be grounded in professionalism and good sportsmanship.

Policy: I consider myself a policymaker and I like to vote on the impacts of advantages vs. disadvantages, but I also like to give control of the debate to all of the debaters, so I am comfortable voting for any type of argument presented/speed just as long as it's done well. When it comes to theory and Kritiks, I will be hesitant to vote on this unless it has realistic impacts and is genuine. (I will have a hard time voting for random theory cards that don't have real world impacts).

PF: Please reference some of my comments to other types of debate/my general philosophy, as these will help you as well. In PF, I need some organized clash to vote in your favor. I also appreciate weighing/impact calc in the final focus, so that will be a make or break.

LD: The framework debate should be your highest priority in the round. The Value and Value Criterion need to be supported by your case, and in the final rebuttals, factor these into your voting issues. I've noticed an on and off trend of LD debate looking more like policy. I want this debate to focus on the ethical/philosophic implications rather than the solvency of a "plan".

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round gets started. My email is jstarkweather@phm.k12.in.us

P.S. This is my real/natural hair. It's not a wig..

Email: cherellestevens86@gmail.com

My name is Cherelle and I am a paralegal, with 12 years of experience in my field- my practice areas being, personal injury, criminal law, tax law, wrongful death and slip and falls. I intend to go to law school next Fall.

I have competed in Speech for 4 years and Debate for 3 years during high school (2004-2008). I am also a national competitor, placing sixth in the nation, at Bradley University.

My judging experience includes Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Duo/Dramatic Interpretation, Oratory and Prose/Poetry.

I take a lot of notes during rounds. Don't worry, I can keep up.

Your arguments should be clear, convincing, and evidence based. I am not a fan of spreading.

Please maintain respect for everyone in the round. With that said, please note, I appreciate "spirited" debates. Convince your opponent and myself that you have WON, hands down!

I will be paying attention to the quality of the arguments and the competitor's ability to use their knowledge to think on their feet quickly, respond to the opposing side's points effectively, and use clear and convincing evidence to support their side.

Good luck! Let's debate!

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

e-mail chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Eli! Binghamton University (Bing TC)

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is legit a business. To debate is work. Like yes, enjoy the activity, but after a certain point what is the plan for how you interact with this space (and especially your arguments)?

That said, I do not have the capacity to busy myself with argumentation that is a waste (meaning it lacks intention, a goal, and/or a purpose). I'm deeply intuitive and clock things with ease.

Let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about meeting Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

-

For PF: you can read this paradigm to understand the framework I will evaluate arguments, but the threshold is lower (except for everything I wrote after the Theory section). Do you, have fun. I don't particularly care.

-

Top of the line: I like ethos. I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond technicalities and jargon.

-

Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.

-

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I also require a clear link story to the impact(s), and how the plan actualizes a politic to secure a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

In many words, block out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' weakness when Affirmative.

T/Framework: I think procedurals can be a proper way to contest the aff's methodology and solvency mechanism. That depends on nuance and the way it is read. So, T-USFG: that’s fine, but you're not gonna go far if the block is just surface level on questions of YOUR wants.

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA as a takeout to Aff solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...

-----

The K-

Aff: Let the aff be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden of rejoinder. Meaning y'all have to win an actual DA to the Aff and/or an outweigh claim.

POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts. Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": to win my ballot, you have to win your Theory of Power and that your method best alleviates the violence that incurs from power (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many. Black Fem args have my heart tho

~~

Performance: Your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Be strategic and use your 1AC/1NC to leverage offense throughout the round.

-----

Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only reading unspecified shells. Apply it to the actual performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

/

Any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care. Auto-loss.

//

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down (iykyk).

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

Add on to previous: I do not flow from the doc, but from speech. Clarity benefits you.

//////

I vote fast because I am actively thinking about the round. My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

///////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. That said, with Novs/JV I'll watch my mouth but varsity? I view y'all as growing academic peers and therefore will speak to you as such. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is.

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I went to American University. Now I'm going to Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Debate in a way that will make you feel most comfortable and confident within the round! I will be able to adapt to you and your style. My paradigm below is just some specifics about my preferences, but you should feel free to compete in your own style.

I definitely look at the flow to decide who wins the round, but if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really under-covered argumentation in response to major points in the round), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why an argument matters more than another. Comparing worlds to each other will make the round more wholistic. If I have to decide which argument matters more than another, it is technically intervening and I would prefer if I didn't have to do that.

If you want me to vote for an argument it has to be extended from Summary to FF. Please extend the warrants for your arguments from case that you want to go for. Please frontline in second rebuttal and collapse on the argument you want to win on!

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your train of thought if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please just assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! I would prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would much rather prefer you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, but I strongly prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so all responses must be on the flow. If you run theory please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

Hello! My name is Sunila and I am a novice parent judge. I have judged debates before, but they have been few and far between.

I value clear, easy-to-follow speeches. Please do not spread or speak fast where it becomes incomprehensive. I vote for the team that the convinces me the best using strong arguements, evidence, examples, and refutations.

Good luck and enjoy the debate!

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I'm Mark Timko (he/him) - an assistant coach in Indiana, and a previous competitor from 2014-2017. While I primarily performed in speech, I worked significantly with other debate students at the time, and am constantly working with the debate students I have today as a coach.

I prefer an email chain - marktimko423@gmail.com

I will nearly always disclose a decision as the tournament allows. Speaker points will not be disclosed. I will discuss my decision making process in written critiques after the conclusion of the round, so expect to see my thoughts there.

I'm usually very open to all styles of speaking, though my one MAJOR pet peeve is speaking FAR too quickly without enunciation. In debate especially, there are a lot of words to get out in a short amount of time. If I'm unable to understand you because you speak so quickly that the words are running together, then it's almost as if you're not speaking at all. You can speak quickly! Just speak CLEARLY.

Don't be hateful towards others, in any form. It will not be tolerated, and is not in the spirit of the events held at a tournament. There's a clear distinction between 'spirited debate' and spiteful remarks. Arguments between each other are the nature of the event, but be civil and understanding.

If you have referenced cards that are not clearly explained in my eyes, I will ask to see the card. Incorrect/falsified information based on a card reference is... not cool.

Don't intentionally stall out a round in between to give others free prep time to do things like create an email chain or pull up materials that should have been prepped beforehand. Take a reasonable amount of time, create the email chain before the round begins, and if you're pushing it, I won't hesitate to run your prep timer and move the round along.

Warrants and impacts have the same value to me in an argument as long as they're supported by evidence and a logical thought process behind them.

Try not to re-read cards to fill out time, unless the card is being used for a different purpose the second time.

Signposting is a great tool, and I love to see it in arguments. No detriment for not having it, but I like to see where you want to take the argument, and subsequently support it.

I will most likely be taking paper notes, and will time you on my own as well. I will inform you when prep time is used up. If a new question is brought up in CX after time is complete, I will ask you to end cross and move to the next speaker.

Off time roadmaps are always okay with me.

Above all, be kind, be respectful, and have fun! It's the most fun when people can walk away smiling after a round, especially after heated arguments. If you have questions, don't be afraid to ask, and I'll gladly clarify.

As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.

My email is venkatesan.ramkumar@gmail.com

-Lay judge

-No Ks or theory

-No spreading, please don't speak too fast

-Please make your logic clear, provide evidence and reasoning to back up a claim

-Please treat each other with respect

Have fun!

Zita Wang

I am a parent judge. I judged speech and debate in different tournments in the past three years.

Take your pace, provide framework, and love to hear your summary about why you should win.

Be confident, run your flow, respect your competitors, and have fun!

Hi all :)

I am the head coach of Parkrose High School and am also assistant debate coach for Sam Barlow High School, both in the Portland, OR area. At Parkrose, I primarily coach policy for the Oregon/NAUDL/Nat Cir. but I have students who do IE's and other debate events. For Sam Barlow, I specifically coach their WSD team.

I did policy debate in high school and parli (NPDA) in college, nat cir. I have either debated, debated against or am familiar with most, if not all, arguments out there. I spent my time debating policy and k arguments pretty equally - but maybe more k heavy - both on the aff and neg. I judge on the tech and flow of the debate and will hear any argument you can justify - with some exceptions (ex: don't impact turn racism or say feminism doesn't matter (I have seen it happen, don't be that person, I will do anything from vote you down and tank your speaks to potentially, depending on the round, report you to tab). Have fun with it, I love to hear fun and interesting stuff :) I will also be happy hearing a policy aff and a DA / CP / T debate. Don't feel like you have to get fancy with it if it's not the best strategic choice for you. I want to hear whatever will make the best debate possible. Debate the topic, don't debate the topic, reject the topic, whatever you choose to do, just be prepared to do it well. I also encourage the use of alternative modalities if that's something you like to do. I want to create a space where you can say what you want and feel free to run any arguments you would like. If you have any other questions about any specific arguments or types of arguments, please ask before the round.

Speed - I am just getting back into debate after a few years off so please take it a ~little~ slower on tags and non-carded arguments than you normally would, for your sake. Feel free to still spread but on tags, analytics, and theory arguments please slow down a tiny bit, especially with theory. I was a very fast debater and I understand the need to go as quick as you can (little time, lots of args) but I am a little out-of-practice with debate speed and do not want to miss anything that could be important to you later on. This is mainly targeted at extremely fast debaters, if you don't feel like you're in the top percentiles of speed, you're probably fine.

Signposting - I feel like the vast majority of HS debaters do not know how to speak in a way that signals to the judge with clarity when they are moving to different arguments down the flow. I should, in general, be able to tell where you are based on what you're saying but HS debates can be very messy, so please, do make it as clear for me as possible. Verbally signaling, whether through just saying where you're at and what you're responding to, saying "next" in between args, or using other tone/volume/pausing indicators (more advanced skill), make sure you're letting me know in some capacity where to write an argument. If I don't have to spend time figuring out where you are on the flow, it not only looks a lot better on you but it also means I can hear more warrants / examples etc. in depth and overall makes it a lot easier for you to win the debate. Tell me when you're on the link level or the alternative or the perm debate.

Pet Peeves:

1. Being ~too~ aggressive in cross-ex. Cross-ex can get heated. I have been there, and I understand that sometimes it's just part of debate, but sometimes, there are times when it clearly goes beyond being competitive. From a judge perspective, aggression in cross-ex can come off anywhere from being passionate and competitive to being condescending, demeaning, and potentially misogynist. You are in control of how you treat others within the debate space. We all create the environment that is "the debate space", make sure you are acting in alignment with what you think it should look like.
2. Running things you don't know. I understand that it can be difficult to know all in the ins and outs of an argument when breaking it for the first time. I also get wanting to try new things that you may not know all that much about. But, it's very easy to tell when someone is reading an argument they know next to nothing about and are betting that they know just enough to beat someone knows nothing about it. I don't think it produces very good debates and is often a strategy used to avoid meaningful clash. (this is mainly about k's - if you're going to read a k, please AT LEAST be able to explain the link and alternative in your own words as well as how it relates to the topic/aff).
3. Extending arguments without actually explaining the argument. If you're extending an argument / author, I need at the very least the claim + warrant and how this argument functions in the debate. You can extend a card that says "x" but if I don't have an extension of x bc y and this is important bc a + b, then it makes the debate hallow and very circular. I find that high school policy debaters have the biggest problem doing this well because of the reliance on cards and evidence. For example, do not just say "extend the link" say "extend (insert author) who says (insert claim + warrant). the aff is doing (insert plan / part of plan the offcase position links to) which relates to (what author says) in xyz way which creates ~whatever impact~". I get that everyone is pressed for time but the work done on these explanations in the constructives are important and set up the rest of the debate if done properly.

Hi, I’m Jack Williams (He/Him). I attend The Ohio State University, majoring in PPE (political science, philosophy, and economics), as well as Data Analytics. I debated PF for 4 years. A couple toc bids, 4x state qual, top 25 @ nats.

I encourage you to ask me directly before the round if you have any further questions about how I judge or clarifications on the paradigm.

I would like to be on any card exchange doc or email chain: Jackw2931@gmail.com

I will not vote for any argument that is blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Content warnings if necessary please.

Overall, the less work you do for me, the more interventionist I have to be in terms of weighing and evaluating arguments, which I don't want to do. Do the warranting, the weighing, and the analysis for me so that I don't have to do it in my head at the end of the round. Essentially, give me the why's - why is your argument true, why is your argument the most important, and why that offense that wins the round. If you do that, you're making the ballot a lot easier for both of us.

Also, have fun! I like when people make jokes/make me laugh. Just don't do it at your opponent's expense.

TL;DR of what I value in terms of the ballot:

1. Extend your arguments. In terms of case arguments, the rule of thumb is that I won't vote for your argument if after your extension I'm not able to, from the flow, re-articulate how you get from resolution to impact. Collapsing in the back half of the round will only help you. If you don't collapse at all, you generally are hurting the clarity of your argument and ability to win the round.

2. I’m a little more forgiving on extending turns and defense, but I still need warranting, not just “Flow the Levi evidence.” If the impact of your link turn is not the same as the impact your opponent reads, you need to implicate/weigh your turn.

3. I’ll evaluate any framework/overview if it is warranted or dropped. If there are competing frameworks I need to know why I ought to prefer your framework, otherwise, I will make the decision myself.

4. Pre-reqs will come first unless I'm told otherwise

5. PLEASE WEIGH. I think every judge says this but that’s because it's important. If you want to win my vote, you can make it very easy for yourself by leaving me no need to do my own analysis/weighing because you’ve done it yourself. Metaweigh if there is competing weighing. Otherwise, I will default to util.

6. Second speaking team needs to frontline, at bare minimum, all offense in rebuttal, however I prefer all defense to be frontlined. Turns dropped through second rebuttal are conceded.

7. Defense isn’t sticky, but again, I'll be a little more forgiving about extending defense if you have already read it in rebuttal.

8. If you tell me to call for your opponents evidence, I will look at it. I’ll also call for evidence if it’s important to my decision.

9. If there is somehow zero offense in the round, I’ll default to the side that is the status quo.

10. Speaks are a combination of how well you speak and how well you strategically debate the round in terms of collapsing and weighing.

TL;DR of my personal preferences:

• Give me a brief off time road map before summary and final focus speeches (and where you're starting if you're the second rebuttal)
• Time your own prep
• I can handle speed, but I prefer a moderate speaking pace, especially online
• Collapsing in second rebuttal will only help you on my ballot. Clearer, more in depth argumentation will always be better in terms of my ballot as opposed to sheer quantity.
• If you contradict yourself and you fail to clarify which side of the contradiction is true, I will strike both aspects off my flow. I don't think it's fair when teams seesaw on a contradiction and then go for the one that advantages them the most later in the round.
• If you're reading an off send me the text before you read it
• Theory is fine if you aren't using it in an exclusionary manner; don't abuse the privilege. If you plan on running, please read the bottom section on theory. I also won't vote off frivolous theory. Probably don't run a K.
• Call for all the evidence you want, and if you tell me to call for evidence I will. If there is a hard clash of evidence I may call for both pieces.
• If you email me your case text before the round starts I will boost your speaks by .5 (paraphrased or cut cards is fine, it doesn't make a difference to me)

Specifics:

I'm a pretty expressive person -- If you look at how I react to what you're saying in the round, you can probably get a pretty good idea of how I feel about the argument you're making

Speed - I can handle speed, but I don’t really like it, especially online. Speaking at a faster pace is fine if you're making good decisions about what you're saying, and not just putting arguments out for the sake of quantity, but overall being able to speak at a more reasonable pace tells me that you can think critically, debate smart, and decide on the most effective arguments, and that you're not just trying to spread through tons of pre-cut cards and responses. If I miss a response because you're going too fast, that's on you, sorry :(

Tech>Truth, but not all the way. I love unique and tech-y arguments. That being said, if your argument is way way out-there and absurd, I will probably have a lower threshold for response.

Moreover, I’ll go with whatever is warranted or carded, but I’m not going to pretend I’m completely tabula rasa. If you make stuff up and it is quite obviously wrong, I'm not going to give you the win because the other team doesn't have cards to counter your made-up claims. If you have the evidence or the warranting to back your statement up, I’ll flow it.

Crossfire - Cross is binding, but I won’t vote off something that is only mentioned in cross unless you bring it up in a later speech.

Evidence - I encourage you to call for as much evidence as you would like, but unless you feel it is necessary, I would try to avoid making evidence indicts your primary method of response. In addition:

1. I will not buy an indict that says “Their source is biased” unless you explain to me why the source is biased.

2. I may call for any evidence that critical to my decision.

3. If you tell me to call for evidence I will.

4. If you severely misconstrue evidence, the punishment will range from me just dropping the argument to you getting dropped entirely, depending on how severe your infraction is. Expect lower speaks regardless of what I end up doing with the argument.

5. Please don't tell me that your card explains it all, and please don't tell me that your card is superior to theirs, unless you have actual, detailed reasons why that is true.

Rebuttal - Second speaking team should frontline defense - at the bare minimum any offense, but ideally all defense. I personally think it is strategic for the second speaking team to start collapsing and weighing here because it makes the back half of the round much cleaner, but I won’t hold it against you if you decide not to. If you drop turns through second rebuttal, they are conceded. Also, Advantages/Disadvantages are fine in first rebuttal (though not a huge fan), but not second.

Summary/FF

1. I won't vote for your argument if I'm not able to re-articulate how you get from the resolution to your impact.

2. Analysis that's that's unresponded to in the next speech is functionally conceded

3. First Final is the latest I want to see new weighing. No overviews/prereq stuff new in first final

4. With 3 minute summaries, I don’t believe defense is sticky. If it is important enough to be in the round, it needs to be in summary

5. Offense must be in both speeches, or else I will not vote off of it.

Weighing - Please weigh, it will literally win you my vote if you do it and the other team doesn’t. As long as there's a link to your impact, I will literally vote off of any impact if you tell me why it is the most important one in the round. If there is competing weighing but I don’t get warranting as to why I should prefer one team’s weighing over the other’s I’ll default to my own analysis, which is almost always util. Realistically, you don’t want to have me making that decision for you, so give me the analysis yourself please.

Frameworks/overviews - If you run a framework/overview:

1. If it isn’t responded to, and you extend it all the way through the round, that is how I will evaluate the round

2. Warrant your framework

1. If you do not warrant your framework, I will only vote off of it if it is 100% dropped by the other team

3. When frameworks clash, I need to hear real, logical, statistical, or impactful reasons why one is superior to the other, not merely that yours is "better." Tell me why.

Theory - I have a fair bit of experience with theory. I think that PF, being an event designed to have a low barrier to entry, is not intended to have theory. That being said, I will absolutely vote off of a theory shell, but if you are going to run one, don't use it in an exclusionary manner -- I have a fairly high threshold for theory in PF -- the abuse you are pointing out needs to be explicitly clear.

(The following paragraph does NOT apply to theory being applied to an equity abuse -- e.g., misgendering, racism, IVIs relating to discriminatory evidence)

In addition, because I don't think that theory should be used in an exclusionary manner against teams that might not have experienced it, if you run it, 1. My threshold for response for a team that does not regularly debate circuit or have theory experience will be lower -- I will not expect them to go line by line on your standards and voters, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt on the application of their responses. 2. You need to be consistent -- I will hold it against you if you are running it for the sake of the win. If you want to change norms, it better be a norm you care about. If you do run it, it must be run in your next speech following the violation.

Kritiks - I’ve never debated or judged a round with a Kritik, so I’m not entirely sure what it is supposed to look like. If you can simplify it for me like I'm a lay judge, then maybe. But probably just stay away.

Good luck, and have fun!

Email for communication (feel free to say hello or ask about ballots) and email chains:edward.e.wilson.jr@gmail.com

Hello!

I have three great loves, Dolphins, Celine Dion, and Speech and Debate, and while a competitor I competed in in Lincoln-Douglas, Public-Forum, Congress, Policy, Informative Speaking, Extemporaneous Debate, Declamation, Poetry, Prose, Impromptu, Extemporaneous Speaking, Original Oratory, Program Oral Interpretation and Pro Con Challenge

I would say my abilities were most notable in Congress which If it interests you any I was a 2 time NCFL Finalist, A Tournament of Champions Semi-Finalist and a 2 Time NSDA Finalist culminating in being the 2nd Place National Winner in Congress-House at the 2023 NSDA Nationals.

I think debate, especially, is something exciting and thus I love to be excited by debates that I watch, not bored to death, or worse; made upset and angry.

General Debate Stuff:

1) Make sense! This is pretty simple just make sure you have an argument that can be LOGICALLY followed by me at the very least. You do not need to make it a case accessible to a ten year old, but do not talk about crazy out of this world stuff unless you can CLEARLY link it to something sensible.

2) Do not go over time. I stop flowing/listening when your time is done so it really does nothing for you-like at all.

3) This should be pretty basic. Don't be rude/racist/sexist/homophobic/elitist. That last one is there because while the others are ones most(but sadly not all) debaters have down pack, elitism seems to seep out of some debates. Don't treat your opponent or their arguments like they are beneath you. Even if an argument is not as well thought out, don't call it ridiculous or something similar. Say it is illogical or does not fall into the resolution or etc. I do not expect you to explain why 2+2 does not equal 3 but also do not expect nor want nor will I be pleased if you are rude about the audacity of the argument or worse if you relate said argument to ad hominem attacks on your opponent.

LD Specific:

1) Values above ALL! This is Lincoln Douglas debate and as much as you may want to make it single person policy IT IS NOT. I do not care if you outline an effective cure to cancer in your case, if it does appeal to the value debate I will place VERY LITTLE weight on it. A debater with a lacking case that upholds his value through the round will ALWAYS win over a debater with an excellent case that loses on the value front. I have to vote by value and value criterion first.

2) Value Criterions matter! For some reason it is the hot new thing to free style it with only a value and have your VC either non existent or irrelevant but VCs matter ALOT. Values mean different things to different people and a VC (a good and relevant one) is the only way to solve this. Jack the Ripper's value of morality did not include preserving human life. Value Criterions tell me how to evaluate your value and that is insanely important.

3) I do not care about drops that are irrelevant. What I mean by this is, if you say "My opponent drops my Contention 3 Subpoint D, therefore I win on X argument", My question will be, does it matter. If all your subpoints in your contention 3 are about the benefits to dolphins and your opponent explains why your world harms dolphins I don't care that they do not cite your specific benefit. If dolphins are going to be hurt in your world what does it matter if your Subpoint D is that Dolphins need better ocean water, it still falls without your opponent attacking it directly. That being said, at all cost do not make drops but know that I will evaluate the measure of a drop to see if flowing the drop is actually worth it or if it even matters to the overall question at hand. Speaking of that....

4) Answer the ACTUAL resolution. The NSDA gives a topic for debate and that is what the debate should be centered around. Theory and any other thing you could think of to sidestep the debate DOES NOT MATTER. If you have a problem with the way debate works, whether it be disclosures or the structure of speaking times, take it up with the NSDA, the people who make the ACTUAL rules. And even if you do not run theory, if you make the ENTIRE debate about something frivolous I will be VERY unpleasant on your ballot. Debate about the topic, and as Miranda Priestly would say, that's all!

5) Truth>tech. I'll elaborate more in round if wanted. But basically I can’t reasonably be expected to evaluate an argument simply because you explained it better even if I blatantly know it’s false I am human after all- furthermore doing that gives great advantage to those who can L.A.R.P in a debate round over those who actually are using substantive evidence and points.

Congress Specific:

Ranking the Top 3 people in congress, then milling around trying to determine the order from 4th to 8th, is fairly Hard if you have a Good round.

POs- I don't want to think about you. If I go the full 2 hour+ session without thinking about your existence, that's a good thing. It means that you kept the session running efficiently without drawing attention to yourself and I will reward you greatly.

As a person who PO'd alot including at National Finals I have GREAT respect for PO's and I know how grueling it is being on constant go mode for hours on end. As such do not be afraid to PO for fear that you won't be noticed amongst the other "talented" speakers- For the VAST majority of rounds a PO is automatically in my top 3 from the start. But don't take that as your star call to run for PO. I expect ALOT from POs.

I would highly advise against running for PO if I'm your judge and you have any one of these qualities:

A) Look at me disease. I'm not impressed by fancy charts or speech or how firm and hostile you sound keeping "order". Your Job as PO is not to show off or make it clear "who's in charge", it's to facilitate the chamber. I don't need to be reminded you're there or to rank you or the hours that have passed, Congress is a lot of people fighting for tight time slots and every second wasted by your need to speak when you don't have to is time that could better spent.

B) Non superior understanding of the rules. If you have to ask the Parli about non tournament specific info/something already included in the NSDA Manual and Congress rules, don't expect very good rankings from me. For me that's like a speaking rep in student congress not understanding speeches or questioning--a main part of your job is knowing the rules better than anyone else in the chamber so it looks very embarassing when you do not.

C) A Weak stomach for conflict. I said in the A) point I don't like PO's being a show off at being tough-which is true. But appropiate toughness is not only warranted but a part of the job. Ideally we should never be at a point where a rulling is questioned but if it is, you better be right-and calmly but firmly explain why such as: (Rep X gave the 8th speech on the prev bill while Y gave the 6th therefore I was correct in calling on them based on Recency.) If you are correct KNOW why you are.

D) Value Speed over Accuarcy. Contrary to popular belief, efficency is not doing things the fastest way possible, it's doing things the fastest way possible CORRECTLY. If you are trying to move so fast that you have to stumble over yourself 4 times in questioning because you keep realizing that someone else is actually supposed to be called on--that's a problem. Even if you end up with the correct person in the end these moments damage your legitmacy and make me think and wonder about you (remember me thinking about you is a bad thing).

Even with these things know I am merciful, as I said, I have been in your shoes as PO and know how hard it is. I recognize these are HIGH expectations for a PO and that judging POs needs appropiate weighing. For example A PO in a 2 hour session is on the clock for 120 minutes, while a REP gets to show their talent for about maybe 8 minutes a piece plus some precudural and activity stuff. Therefore the percentage time of a PO doing what they need to be doing even with some errors will almost always be higher than most REPs. As such it's hard not to be in my top 6 as a PO(unless you're in a killer chamber like a break round at Nats which if that's the case you need to be on your A-game, those people are sharks and, I won't dock good speakers because of my fondness of POs).

Also- I track precedence and recency whether I'm the Parli or not, don't let me catch a slip you don't acknowledge because the chamber trusts you, I won't be happy.

Legislators should always---

1) Refer to your fellow legislators as Senator or Representative. I do not care which one, unless its a Congress Quals or the chamber type has been preset by the tournament, but you MUST use this title. And also, refer to the Presiding Officer as Mr./Madam Presiding Officer, or if neither of those Pronouns fit, Presiding Officer or the Chair is fine.

2) Question time is a time for questioning NOT AHA MOMENTS! Teeing up something for a later speech is fine SO LONG AS you are asking a legitimate question that either relates DIRECTLY to the speaker's speech or to a SPECIFIC part of the bill. For example "Why is Section 3's enforcement of the bill any different than HR.123 introduced in 2012" is an okay and quite frankly excellent question. But "How can you defend this bill when giving money to end cancer is more important" is a very bad question. Do not get me wrong, having a NEG speech about why giving money to end cancer would be a better use of funds is fine, but you are not utilizing questioning time to do it what its purpose is, to clarify issues posed SPECIFICALLY in either the bill/res or the speaker's speech. Also, being rude in Questioning is an automatic way to drop down to 8th (MAX) on my rankings. And while I prefer PO's who act like they are not even there, I expect some interference when questioning time becomes either too rowdy or ineffectual.

3) I, like most sane people, despise Rehash with a burning passion. Any speech after the first cycle of Aff and Neg that doesn't reference a previous question or speaker or at least attempt to answer questions of the debate at hand, will automatically get no higher than a 4. And a legislator who consistently makes these types of speeches in the round can look forward to a nice 8th place or lower depending on the rest of the chamber and how they debate. I don't care what stuck up, pretentious, policy/ld/pf kids say. Congress is a DEBATE EVENT. Actual debate should be taking place as such....

4) MOVE ON!! When debate is done, it is done. Congress is incredible to me because you have such an array of topics you are allowed to debate within the different legislation. If you're the 7th AFF speaker it better be for a VERY good reason. I don't mean the "i thought of something no one has said" good reason i mean the "everyone has been debating that this bill talks about giving Money to The Vatican when it very clearly talks about Togo" good reason.. RARELY do incredibly late speeches have anything new to say. I will be very impressed by Reps who choose to move to the previous questioning even over objections because they know as I do that there is NOTHING new to say. Your laundry list
"crystal" speech does not impress me in the slightest. And reps who fight the motion down for "equity" can expect not so great marks on their ballots for me. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. EVERYONE DOES NOT NEED TO SPEAK ON EVERY BILL. If you choose to keep the "debate" on a bill going solely so everyone can speak on it I will not be kind in your rankings ESPECIALLY if you break cycle. Breaking cycle means you have not, like is expected of Policy,LD,PF and congress DEBATE competitors researched and prepared to speak on both sides.

I am a parent judge, here are what I expect from all participants:

Don't speak too fast

Deliver coherent and consistent story with consideration of depth, breath, and impact.

Emphasize points clearly with variable tone and (reasonable) body language.

Be polite and respectable

Finally, have fun and enjoy the process.

I am relatively new to debate. Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand you. Please refrain from using complicated debate jargon, as I will not know what you mean.

My judging philosophy centers on clarity, logic, and engagement. I value debaters who can clearly articulate their arguments, link evidence and claims logically, and engage directly with their opponents’ points. I believe debate is not only about making persuasive arguments but also about critical thinking and the ability to adapt and respond under pressure. Enjoy the round.

Greetings, debaters!

Since my entry into middle/high school debate in 2018, I've cultivated a profound appreciation for the art of argumentation. Here's a brief overview of my judging paradigm:

1. Debate Style:

• I am comfortable with various debate styles, including Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and Public Forum. I hold a particular regard for well-structured and organized arguments.

2. Speed and Clarity:

• I can navigate a debate at a brisk pace, but clarity is paramount. Fast speech is acceptable, provided it doesn't compromise the clarity of your arguments.

3. Framework and Resolution:

• A robust framework is crucial to guide the debate. In Parliamentary debates, I value a clear plan with well-supported advantages. In Public Forum, a sturdy value criterion and well-linked contentions are essential.

4. Evidence Quality:

• I prioritize well-researched and credible evidence. Clear citations and the ability to explain the significance of evidence are of utmost importance.

5. Creativity and Innovation:

• I actively encourage creative arguments and unique approaches to cases. Thinking outside the box can be a valuable asset in securing my ballot.

6. Cross-Examination:

• I value effective cross-examination that seeks to clarify and challenge key points. Be respectful and focused during the crossfire.

7. Adjudication Approach:

• Debates are approached with an open mind. Convince me with the strength of your arguments, clarity, and strategic thinking.

8. Topicality and Fairness:

• I expect debaters to engage with the topic and uphold fairness. Avoid strategies that compromise the integrity of the debate.

9. Speaker Points:

• Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, persuasiveness, and strategic acumen. Being well-prepared and engaging is pivotal.

10. Flexibility:

• I am open to different debate styles and arguments. Adaptability is key, and I appreciate debaters who can adjust their strategies based on the flow of the round.

Remember, my goal is to fairly evaluate the round, and I look forward to witnessing your skills in action. Best of luck!

Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.

I am a new parent judge. Please don't talk too fast and don't use jargon.

Have fun!

Please speak clearly during your speeches. Be respectful and please keep track of time.