[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors repeat the same round. If you're spreading, you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious...ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters fail to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death]; it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary; the first gets a little latitude. I dock speaks if you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't). Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. It defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so immediately. (It's not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand; thus, I'll likely understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be exceptionally in-depth. I could care less about authors. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. The less contentious an issue is in the round, the lower my threshold for an adequate extension. If you are going for a turn, YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, bring it up in a speech; it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round, too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlight the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you know won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. Don't worry if you don't understand what I mean here. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means; they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. I have never been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a critical point is made here, it must be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm okay with skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases, I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous; I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings; you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (e.g., scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, do not use "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either (1) new un-warranted defense claims or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous, is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. Don't do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an accumulation of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is essential, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where conceding to your opponents' weighing mechanism might be advantageous, you must refute their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can be fatal. Too many teams lose despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate despite winning large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time you. While I will likely do so for reference, you should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it might be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are unclear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. I'll stop flowing if you aren't even trying to be clear. Spreading is to maximize word economy, so go as fast as possible without compromising clarity. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and provide an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not consistently, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's okay. Ask as many questions as needed so you can understand my decision correctly. Feel free to email me, too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate judge of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence about whether disclosure is beneficial. I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. I'll down you if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools; just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon, make sure you explain the literature, as I am likely not familiar with it. Also, Ks MUST HAVE AN ALT. I don't care if the "alt" is just you saying at the end of the K, "Our alt is the quo," but you still need to declare an alt. By not declaring an alt, you're making it the judge's problem to define your world, and I won't do that work for you.If you lose your alt, you lose the K. You can't lose your alt and still win on the squo; the squo is an alt, and giving you both your custom alt and a backup squo alt gives you twice the ground to win the round as your opponents. I realize this outlook raises some condo questions; I'll add a condo section soon. Until then, if you need clarification, please ask before the round. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win; they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these but have a very low bar regarding a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "Nothing's the cause of anything," but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Plans/CPs. I'm still undecided on whether these are okay in PF. Please check the regulations under which the tournament is operated, as they may or may not restrict the use of plans in PF. While I make up my mind on this evolution of PF, feel free to run plans. Just don't use them to steam-roll some novices... or... wait for it...I'LL DOWN YOU.

Topicality. I'm willing to go here but keep a consistent narrative. T debates can potentially be great rounds, but they often devolve into a dumpster fire. If you're going to mess with T, be sure not to read contradictory interps. Also, if you're reading T, call it T. Don't call it a framework or weighing; call it T. A lot of the issues with T debates is when people have them without calling them T debates.

Phil. Feel free to bring in phil from LD; I would love to have it. However, because this is generally uncommon in PF, explain it well.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches, leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually unproductive, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round. Please run theory instead; see the applicable notes above.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being unethical (e.g., discriminatory), I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (e.g., racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, so I understand economic realities. Please ensure that if you're running an economic argument, like interest rates, you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run economic argumentation. Still, if your economic argumentation makes no sense, it's hard to look away from it unless it goes wholly conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges cannot vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I cannot vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in relatively progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority, if not all, of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please ensure everything is neatly on the doc or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should take at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also, if you are speaking, at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

I am a first-time parent lay judge. I was a debater in high school, but primarily in parliamentary style rather than public forum :( I am excited to be a judge. Have fun debating!

Lay Judge

Limited experience judging PF. No experience judging LD.

Speak slowly and clearly.

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com (For PFBC, you only need to include my personal email)

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

PF & Policy Coach @ The Potomac School since 2021,

W&M '24, GMU '22 (debated (policy) 4 yrs in HS & 4 yrs at GMU)

I have a masters in marine science & will be working for NOAA on Arctic policy & research come February.

Put me on your email chain marybeth.armstrong18@gmail.com

Universal hot (lukewarm) takes

--Tech > Truth. Idk who the truth is so I’ll evaluate everything in the round at face value.

--I have no issues with speed, but I do have a problem with sounding like a blender on high. Some of you aren’t speaking fast, you're just a symphony of noise. I’ll clear twice before I stop flowing (and will make it very obvious I have stopped flowing.)

--As much as I try to remember to, I almost never time prep/speeches. If you ask me how much prep you have 8/10 times I will not know. Pls time each other.

--I ask to be on the email chain, so I have access to read evidence if I am instructed to do so. I do not flow off of speech docs.

--Impact calculus is always important. If I am buying your opponent’s arguments… give me a reason to vote for you anyway.

--Evidence!!!!! Warrants!!!! Evidence standards are in the trash can. I beg you to pull them out. (Most of the time) your evidence should have more than one sentence highlighted as a ‘warrant’. So many of you neglect to do any real warranted analysis. Examples ≠ warrants. Examples can be helpful, but ultimately do not rise to the level of warranted analysis you should be doing in debate. The team doing better evidence comparison is usually the team who gets my ballot.If the way you produce evidence is not in line with the NSDA Evidence Standards…. I may not be the judge for you. See PF header for specifics.

--If something happens in cross it needs to be in the next speech… I will never vote off of anything that happens in cross unless it also makes its way into a speech.

PF

--I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. I understand that not all teams are coached in the same way. However, if I am in the back of the round… you will benefit from sending cases/rebuttal docs BEFORE each speech.If you neglect to do this & you waste my time trying to hunt down a piece of evidence mid round… at the very least your speaker points will suffer because of it. Additionally, I have yet to see a round that has warranted a team asking for a marked document… even more egregiously you should never be asking your opponents to write or send out analytics… ur sooo self reporting… I know you aren’t flowing.

--Arguments need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus.However, tagline extensions of arguments do not fly. It is helpful when you reference author names of certain piece of evidence, but you need to do be doing warranted and comparative analysis in addition to naming your evidence. Defense is not sticky.

--Theory: I hate judging theory rounds. I’d rather watch grass grow. With that being said… I do think at national circuit tournaments teams should probably be disclosing. Take that as you will… I have no problem using speaker points to express my displeasure having to judge a disclosure round.

--Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. You can read my policy paradigm for more specifics. However the biggest things to consider are 1. I am more inclined to evaluate Ks that either indict the aff or link to the topic. So many PF Ks are equivalent to links of omission… I am less inclined to vote for those. 2. I am also more inclined to vote for aff teams that actually try to engage the K.

--Tricks: Do not do this to me I will be sooooo upset.

Policy

I no longer judge many policy rounds. Potomac has one novice policy team that I work with. If I am in the back of any policy round, presume that I know little about the topic broadly. Be as specific as possible in your explanation of arguments (especially when it comes to T, CP mechs, etc).

The longer version of my paradigm is below but, TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation).

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think yourinterpis reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp isslightlybetter. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links goes alongway. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probablydo somethingto resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vein as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

LC Anderson 22

UT Austin 26 - Westlake debate consultant

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

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

My paradigm is more of a combination of Tabula Rasa and speaking skills/communication. I prefer concise arguments that are understandable over speed. However, I will not count it against a debater if they prefer to deliver their debate speech a little faster. My most important factors are that the debater believe in their argument, and present it as such (with eye contact and confidence), while being able to discount their opponent's points.

Hello, debaters!

Please add this email to the email chain: anushikaa@gmail.com

I am a flay judge with a decent debate judging experience. These are some guidelines I would prefer in this debate:

• Constructive: Clear link chains and terminal impacts are essential.

• Cross: Not flowing cross.

• Rebuttal: Signpost and refute clearly. 2nd rebuttal must frontline

• Summary: Extend, weigh, and collapse on your main points. I would prefer an offtime roadmap. If you don’t extend points + refutes, they will be dropped. 1st summary must frontline.

• Final Focus: Voter issues and extending weighing. Be extremely clear in telling me why you win. No new points.

• Speaks: I won’t be much of a points-fairy, but will be fair.

• Speed: I can take speed, but clarity is most important. Definitely no wild spreading.

• Evidence: High quality evidence. Email chain for asked cards, whether from me or opponents.

• Other: Please refrain from running counterplans, theories, or Ks. You may risk a loss.

Tech judge

Put me on the email chain pls: bhatnagartanishq@gmail.com

Quick summary,

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better

Defense is sticky.

Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.

K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

Make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)

If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * *

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.

Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.

Part I - General Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.

I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on.

I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.

"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.

Part II - Evidence:

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Part III - Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

—Weighing §1—

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

—Weighing §2—

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.

I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.

—Theory §1—

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I’m happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

—Theory §2—

I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.

Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.

Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.

Preferences:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 4

Phil - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

Postrounding:

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

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

If you want a boost:

+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS

+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)

+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo

+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting

+0.1 speaks if you have round reports

I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).

If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.

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

I am a lay judge. Quality>Quantity. Weigh the debate, and please do not spread.

I look forward to judging you!

i am lay judge

more yapping

Lay Judge. I am super unfamiliar with the topic. please go extremely slow otherwise I will not be able to understand your arguments. I value presence, confidence, and also argument quality.

I'm a lay judge.

Speak slowly and clearly. Do not spread and make sure to articulate your words

I'm not completely familiar with all debate terminology. Please explain them briefly when you use them

NO THEORY OR KS OR TOPICALITY! I WILL NOT VOTE OFF OF ANY OF THESE!!!

I will vote off of argumentation and the warranting for each of your contentions. To win you need to respond to every point brought up and Frontline your own contentions.

Do comparative weighing in summary and final focus and do not use buzzwords.

STRIKE ME if you do not share speech docs, it is mandatory. Share speech docs with mchinya@gmail.com.

Good luck!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd consider myself a lay judge. My sister Maddie Cook coaches PF for Lakeville North & Lakeville South in Minnesota, and she's roped me into judging. So, basically, this. This is my fourth year judging. Here are some thoughts I have based on the debates I've judged so far:

• I like it when link chains are explicitly clear and when you clearly state what the impact is.
• I can keep up with a little speed as long as you're signposting and guiding me on the flow
• I like to be walked through the round like I'm a child come final focus
• Won't flow cross so if you want something on my flow bring it up in speeches
• Anything over time won't be flowed
• Probably don't read theory or K's I prefer if you remain topical

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

E-mail for email chains and/or questions:Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - don't waste time on evidence sharing

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, at Dowling I voted for a Plant-ontology aff, a Counter-plan on the neg, etc. so while I prefer the classic style, I don't intervene into the round either and if you have a good RoB, then I'll listen to it and will focus the debate on that if that's what you make it.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. Meaning, I don't want to see K's, DA's, Topicality, Plans and CP's in Public Forum - nor am I a big fan of speed in PF. I love policy debate, but I also love that Public Forum is not policy and it's an option for people who don't want to do policy debate. This doesn't mean that you can't go a little faster than you would for a lay judge, but don't go crazy.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Seriously people, you should all have your evidence ready to be shared - in fact, I would prefer that people actually share their evidence before they begin their speeches if everyone is going to spend this much time asking for evidence. PF rounds are becoming 90 minute rounds because apparently trying to find evidence and asking about evidence magically doesn't come out of any prep time or crossfire time, but magic time that doesn't exist.

IF YOU WASTE THAT MUCH TIME TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER YOUR EVIDENCE PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR I AM GOING TO START DECREASING POINTS! Have your poop in a group people - this is getting old!

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

Parent judge. Looking to hear well reasoned, key, arguments...and not too fast please :)

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

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

Pursuant to tournament policies (where applicable) (glenbrooks 24) I will be happy to use https://speechdrop.net/ I think speechdrop is a good choice for elim rounds, so spectators get docs as well. In rounds with spectators, I expect the debaters will offer to put the spectators on the email chain or allow them to view the speechdrop. If debaters do not ask spectators if they would like to be on the email chain, I will.

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me.

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

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a.docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (your opponent has a right to clear your formatting and read the very small text of your cards) (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before). All forms of documents with any kind of restrictions on editing or viewing are unacceptable forms of evidence sharing.

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

he/him

----

PF Paradigm (updated for bronx 24):

Judging paradigm for PF.

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name. Also, I just simply have never judged a round where the quantifications or lack thereof have been the deciding factor, do with this info what you will but probably don't triumphantly extend "this is not quantified!!!!" as your only piece of summary defense with me judging.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be.

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure, and am troubled by the ways in which theory debates sometimes trivialize questions of 'safety' and 'accessibility' which are almost always under explained and under warranted.

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

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

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

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Guattari, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in

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

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

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

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

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

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

------

Policy Paradigm

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

email chain: Al.Deak@trojans.dsu.edu

About me:

I debated for four years in high school, first year in policy, last three in PF. I've been judging ever since and I'm currently the assistant coach for SFL. I'd consider myself tech by South Dakota standards and Light tech on national circuit. I'm open to theory and K, and I try my best to vote on the flow but I also need you to have a narrative and clear voters for me. More info on prefs below.

PF:

Please time yourself in speeches. I'll keep track of prep, but I encourage you to do so as well. If you call for a card your prep starts once you start reading the card and it stops once you finish reading.

I don't flow Crossfire, you shouldn't make any new arguments in it. That being said, it's a great time to clarify your case and poke holes in your opponent's case, use it to set up an argument. Also look at me during cross, not your opponent

Good rounds come down to the final focus, don't drop an impact before/during FF and expect me to vote on it. Make sure to weigh your impacts in sum or at least in FF (heck, why not both?) Don't just tell me why your case is good, tell me why it's better than your opponent's case.

Make sure to Signpost! Road maps are good too, but Signposting is more important to me. Slow Down for tags! If nothing else, it will give you better speaks.

I don't care for paraphrasing. I won't automatically vote you down for it, but if your opponent can explain why I should vote you down you better believe I will. Same goes for misrepresenting evidence, if your opponent asks me to call for a card and it clearly says the opposite of what you said/highlighted that's abusive and you'll likely lose the round because of it.

Lives > econ (If your GDP/job loss link chain stops before you get to poverty, death, food insecurity, etc, I won't weigh it bc there's nothing for me to weigh) Economy is not an impact! it's a link.

death > quality of life (I'm very open to frameworks that question this, or any other framework for that matter, but this is my default)

International relations: Liberalism > Realism ( I prefer moral discussions on international affairs rather than amoral)

Finally: Unless you have something akin to a structural violence framework, you need quantifiables for your impact!!!! I have, in the most literal sense of the word, nothing to weigh if you don't give me numbers for how many people you affect.

Feel free to ask me any questions you might have before the round begins!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LD: never done it, never judged it. I can probably flow a top speed of 5-6 on a 10 scale. But make tags clear/slower.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Silver Bowl tournament only: dissing Kanye in your FF will get you an automatic 30 speaks.

I am parent judge and have been judging from past one year in multiple debate competitions.

Don't speak too fast, where I loose the content and discussion. Maintain your pace, present the cards and evidences.

Manage your time properly, i do take notes.

Don't use lot of technical stuff, where i might not get the core of the argument.

I do consider how you speak, how you conduct yourself. Don't be offensive and rude.

I can flow speed, but if I can’t understand you- I won’t flow it.

QUALITY of the blocks OVER the QUANTITY of blocks you can get out.

I don’t care if you’re mean- as long as you’re not personally mean. Attack arguments, not the person themselves.

DO NOT STEAL PREP!!! Or I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team.

DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren’t going to use them in your next speech!!! It’s SO annoying and wastes my time. I will dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said: ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don’t have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don’t waste my time.

Run whatever you want.

I’m not familiar with policy strategies, but if you explained it well enough maybe I could vote off it. If you’d like a chance of winning, maybe don’t though.

I would consider myself a tech judge, so speaking pretty doesn’t matter to me. You may be the better speaker, but that doesn’t mean you’re the better debater. I vote off arguments.

Make sure your arguments are cleanly extended.

I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!!

I DO NOT FLOW arguments in the crossfire. I take that time to write feedback in tabroom or look at my flow. BUT I do try and listen!! If I think you made a good point, I hope you bring it up in your next speech so I can flow it in the round. I think the point of crossfire is to catch your opponent lacking, so ask good questions and be on point.

Tell me what to vote on in your summary and follow that same story into final focus. If you don’t tell me what to vote on, I’ll vote on what I think is most important.

The round goes however you want it to go. I’m chill with anything & I’ll try my best to adapt to whatever you guys want me to adapt to.

Speaker points should always be good unless you do something to tank them!

Don’t stress too much and do your best!

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round starts!

If you have any questions after the round, my email is vikesgirl146@gmail.com

I have been judging debate since September 2023

1. I prefer debaters to talk slowly and concisely and not to speak with anger. I give points for proven points that have been published. I like eye contact.
2. I mark positive points when arguments and claims are supported.
3. I note when key claims are supported. I give points when the opposing team hears and counters the argument with supported evidence.
4. I value argument support and flow style. It is valuable for the two teams to hear their opponent and not only reiterate their own argument but debunk the opponents with support.
5. I consider calm rational clear understanding of the argument. and presenting in a calm manner.
6. I expect respect and clarity

Anderson 21' PF 3 years and some gold bids, LD 1 year and I was a novice lol

Tabula Rasa

Debate is a game

K's, T, disads, theory, any progressive args are fair ways to play

I endorse good norms...I am happy to evaluate arguments that establish them

you're probably not winning a generalized theory bad IVI in front of me,

if you think you've encountered bad theory, read your own shell (or IVI) about friv theory or any specific shell you find abusive

default competing interps

speed is fine

feel free to post-round me until you understand my decision

If you're reading anything off a doc in the back half ( pre-written extensions, prep-outs, literally anything)...send it to me

will.erard@gmail.com

For readers:

I flow real good so follow the rules

No new offensive arguments past rebuttal; don't read new framing in final

Every part of your offense (claim, warrant, impact) must be extended in summary or it is dropped

If it's not on my flow when it should be, it's not in the round anymore

You should frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky; extend it in first summary

I don't listen to cross so bring up concessions in speech

I give speaks based on in round strategy and technical prowess

FOR LD

tech pf judge

larp: very comfortable with larp, I won't mess it up I promise

theory: debated a lot of disclosure and paraphrasing in my day, I probably wont mess it up

T: T is cool

Ks: mostly familiar with the structure but not with the lit, go easy on me, I might mess it up but I'll try my best

fine with spreading

ask specific questions if you have them

Here are the things that I value most in a debate tournament:

1) Be respectful!

2) Be clear on your reasoning!

3) I am particularly interested in how you can elaborate the impacts.

Traditional judge
Speak clearly and convince me of your side of the case

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

*For the Milo Cup

Since I am judging through a computer screen, please go slow on tag and cap speed at 7.

PF/LD

Do NOT run a paraphrased case in front of me.

AFF or NEG should be topical, the burden is on AFF or NEG to justify why that topicality is not burdened on them if they run something that is not topical.

Arguments must have links and impacts.

I’m cool with the speed at 5-9. Make sure to signpost and enunciate tags.

Slow down on the Tag.

The speech must be clear, no matter how fast or slow it may be.

You only need to convince me why there should be an affirmation or negation of the resolution.

Make sure to cover both sides in the round while also making each transition audibly between points of argument.

Case turns are underutilized in rounds. That and key impact calc are often game-winner.

Spec:

Tech over truth.

Just win the offense.

Condo & Judge Kick is fine

I’m cool with Theory, T, Disads, Counter Plans also.

Email Chain
Speechdrop.net

Steve.Haile@trojans.dsu.edu

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful. generally, judge instructions will help you and me. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or the next round is expedited.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't like to (and tend not to) evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

lay/student judge

I am excited to be judging PF event. Though i haven't judged many events in USA i participated in many while in school-ing in India.

Hey everyone!

I was a PF debater for 4 years, so I understand that style of debate well. As for policy and LD, I'm less experienced.

I consider myself to be a flow judge, so please make sure you signpost in your speeches or else I may not catch everything you say!

As for speeches, I'm really okay with whatever you want to do, just make sure that the FF includes where you are winning on the flow. Please give me reasons to vote for you!

PLEASE be respectful to those you are debating against! I love debate for the inclusivity, so just be a nice person!

Feel free to email me about any questions, or include me in any email chains: jaleigha.kambeitz@gmail.com

I was a PF debater in high school (I graduated in 2020). I'm a flow judge, tech > truth. If there is 0 offense left in the round, I will presume for the team that was more polite in crossfire. If both teams were pretty polite, I'll presume neg. However, if you want to read other presumption arguments, I am happy to listen to them.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Background: I went to Millard North from 2019-2023 and am currently a biochemistry and actuarial science double major. I'm also premed so if you have any questions about that feel free to ask.

Email chain: Teams should always be setting up an email chain before the round, as it makes evidence exchange much faster and more efficient. I also want to be on said email chain- abhi1karri@gmail.com

Experience:

Background: I did PF for 4 years at Millard North High School, from 2019-2023. Throughout my career, I got a total of 6 bids and qualified for nats 3 times.

Coaching: I'm currently a private coach, email me if you're interested.

General:

I like seeing the different strategies applied by different teams. That's why I'm open to almost anything and all the preferences I talk about are things that can be overcome with good debating. With that being said here are my thoughts and preferences:

Tech > Truth. Please go for conceded arguments because they are considered true on my flow so it makes both our lives easier by going for it. I will say tho conceding an arg is not the end of the world because I'll still be open to weighing/cross applications against it.

I can only vote on an argument if I understand what I'm voting on so explain what you are going for in a way that I can understand. That doesn't mean to give me a 30-second extension it just means to be understandable when you explain ur arguments, especially the important ones in the round.

Being blatantly rude/cheating/bad evidence ethics in round is an easy way to get your speaks tanked. Regardless of how "good at debate" you may be, there's no excuse for this. With that being said I average a 28 on the nat circuit and 28.5 on local but I do believe speaks are very subjective so I'm very easily influenced by any sort of "give us all 30s" arguments.

I'm fine with speed up to 250 wpm but anything over that and I'd need a speech doc.

Preferences:

I'd like to see weighing as soon as possible within the round. Your weighing should also be comparative, not just restating your impacts and saying you outweigh but linking it to some sort of mechanism and giving a comparison between different impacts. I also think prereqs and link-ins are underutilized in PFso remember to use those.

Probability is one of the least important weighing mechanisms to me. 99% of the time if you win your link and internal link you win near 100% prob so this won't be too persuasive of a weighing mechanism in front of me.

Please organize your speech and signpost throughout your speech. There's nothing more frustrating than flowing a speech where everything is jumping around.

Speech-by-speech notes:

Rebuttal: Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round.

Summary/Final Focus: I understand that different teams have different strategies for approaching these speeches. I’m fine with anything as long as it works, but keep a few things in mind. 1. Defense isn’t sticky 2. Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about. 3. Final Focus should roughly mirror the summary speech.

Cross: What you say in cross is binding, but I don't flow or listen too hard to it. If something happens bring it up in the next speech for it to be evaluated in the round.

Prep: You must use prep to read evidence. You should also have all your ev ready to send over or just send a speechdoc beforehand so I don't care if you prep while your opponent is looking for their evidence to send.

Progressive Args:

I debated a couple of tournaments of NFA LD and have judged a lot of progressive rounds by now so I understand most progressive args. The only thing I'd be hesitant about running in front of me is kaffs because I lowk don't know much about them. Here are my thoughts on specific progressive args/ks:

Theory: Theory has an important place in debate to recognize real abuse, but frivolous theory is bad. I know what's considered frivolous is subjective so if your shell falls in the grey zone I'll be open to arguments for why/why not something is friv. That does not mean to run smth stupid like shoe theory in front of me and expect me to buy an argument for why it's not frivolous.

CIs are not always necessary, if you don't have one I'll just assume you are defending the violation. You can still gain offense through a myriad of ways. DTA or DTD doesn't have to be explicitly said as long as there is a voter and a sufficient warrant behind it. Almost everything else (yes/no RVIs, Reasonability over CIs, etc.) can be argued in the theory debate and I try my best to take a neutral stance on them. The most important thing to understand is that regardless of whether you know all the jargon behind theory debate if you are making proper, well-warranted arguments with an impact that will most of the time be sufficient.

I generally believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. It will be very hard to convince me that paraphrasing is good but a good disclosure debate can go either way. This isn't to say that you can't win in front of me by paraphrasing it's just saying I have a high threshold for believing that it is good.

I'll evaluate IVIs if they are well warranted and impacted out. The most important IVI that all teams should look for is when teams violate their own shell. Running something like disclo without disclosing is one of the easiest ways to get dropped so make sure to point something like that out if it happens in the round.

T: I'm fine with T in PF. I think there are def instances where people stretch the resolution way too much so I wouldn't complain if T is introduced in the round. Keep in mind that interps should have definitions within them or it will be an uphill battle.

Ks: I've debated ks before so I know more than the average judge about it but I would still be cautious running one in front of me. Be very explanatory throughout the round and explain to me exactly what my ballot does. The ks I have the most experience with are cap and security so I feel like I'd be able to evaluate those to a certain extent but I have like no experience with non-topical ks so be even more careful about running those with me. I also expect you to have a fairly strong alt if you are trying to solve a massive problem.

As for responses to ks, I'm familiar with most. I think perms, T, and Fwk are all good ways to respond to ks so make sure to utilize those and I will understand what you are saying.

Tricks: I'll pray for you...

Post-Round:

I'll always disclose unless the tournament explicitly says otherwise.

Please ask questions about my decision/ask for advice. I'll always be open to explaining any part of my decision and explaining my thoughts on certain arguments. Asking questions is also the best way to improve so never be afraid to do it.

Disagreeing with my decision/being upset about losing is fine, just don't attack me for it.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school and did okay I'd probably dislike judging it because from what I've seen 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.

• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery. I guess delivery matters more to me in Congress than it does in other events, but I still think it matters significantly less than the content and strategy of the speech.

• 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.

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and occasionally LD.

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

Come learn debate from me: NDF: Public Forum – Summit Debate

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify. Every day I get closer to judging students reciprocal to how their program's judges have judged my students. (I won't, though; that wouldn't be fair to the kids.)

I judge for three reasons:

1. I love debate and enjoy judging.
2. Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
3. Fulfilling my team's obligation.

More in-depth 2024-2025 judging record for your convenience and for transparency: Parker Klyn judging record

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa (I was also a double 2[!] in the most local policy debate circuit of all time) and had no exposure to the national circuit. Since becoming head coach at Roosevelt we've had state champions and TOC qualifiers every year I've been coach.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm...

Public Forum: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive."

Lincoln-Douglas:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow line-by-line on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framing, layering, and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want. However I will not have the speech doc open other than to peruse evidence I have not heard before (usually during prep time). It's your responsibility to be clear.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards; let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience. My email is open for this purpose as well.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

People get scared when they see a primarily PF coach in their circuit LD judge pools -- I promise, I can handle what you're throwing at me as long as you do the effective work in judge instruction. In any debate event, capable judging is a must-have, and I will live up to that expectation.

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Love scouring the opencaselist for unique, creative arguments. I am not confident in evaluating performance, academic philosophy, or postmodernist arguments -- these would probably require lots of warranting and explanation, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're flowable (I will not flow off a doc; this is the one place where it's up to the debaters to adapt, not the judge).

I value the intellectual freedom that debate provides -- running arguments and justifications that exist outside the academic norm is one of the event's true benefits. The only arguments I will not vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad."

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Speech

Just like debate, speech is very hard. Because I value your long hours of preparation, I promise I am fully invested in your performance and will evaluate it to the best of my ability. I would consider myself an extremely competent Extemp (coached multiple state champions) and Platform (coached a NIETOC semifinalist) judge and a middling Interp judge -- UNLESS it's POI, in which case I definitely know what I'm doing. I look forward to seeing what you have prepared!

Extemp: Don't just answer the question accurately, but implicate it -- why is this even question being asked? Confident facial expressions and humor are always appreciated.

Platform (OO/INFO): Topic selection is massively important. I don't care how technically proficient you are; if your thesis boils down to "we should be nice to each other" or "here's some information about something" you will probably not get a high rank. I put strong emphasis on actually taking a bit of a risk for your topic selection and eschewing "safer" options.

Interp: I do not have much expertise when it comes to these, although I adore POI as the work involved in crafting a strong program feels far more intellectually robust than simply performing a dramatic or humorous piece. All interp performances should feature believable acting, clear storytelling structure, distinct characters, and intentional blocking. I do NOT value excessively traumatic topics in DI; they feel very cynical and almost exploitative to me. HI should obviously make me laugh. The interplay between performers in DUO is fun. And in POI, the most important thing I'm looking for is a clear theme or thesis that ties your program together.

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

1) Flow. It is so easy to tell when you're not flowing.

2) You should not need a marked doc when only a couple cards were skipped.

3) Despite the time and energy I spend in this wonderful activity, I am a glorified volunteer. I teach literacy to struggling readers and my stipend averages to about $2/hour. Many debate coaches, even those at the highest levels, are in similar situations -- be good to them.

4) Be kind and reasonable to everyone in the activity, whether you are a judge (don't bully children in your RFD, don't arbitrarily change speaker points because they brought you food) or competitor (welcome novices with open arms, practice epistemic humility, thank the adults in your life who have allowed you to find a home in debate). If you are someone who indicates in their paradigm that they increase speaker points for anything unrelated to debating or norm-setting, I actively think less of you as a member of our community and feel immense second-hand embarrassment on your behalf.

5) Stick with debate. I emphatically believe is the best thing you can do with your time in high school.

*Please add me to the email chain and send your case documents to me before the round.

email: kollisravanthi@gmail.com

Hi, I am a lay judge and here are a couple things that you need to know.

1. Please do not spread. If I don't understand what you are saying, you will hurt your chances of winning.
2. Try brining unique arguments. Debate will be interesting.
3. I don't flow cross but I'll listen. It there is something in cross that you want me to evaluate and use in decision, bring it up in your speech.
4. Explain your evidence, refutations, and arguments clearly. Remember Quality > Quantity.
5. I will provide a grace period of 5 seconds to complete your sentence, however I will not flow after your time runs out.
6. Avoid using technical terms in the debate. If you do, please explain what it means.
7. Please be respectful to your opponents and do not get too aggressive.
8. Prefer debaters to time.

Relax and have fun debating,

Sravanthi

For GBX '24: The tournament requires that we use the Tabroom doc share. DO NOT set up an email chain, follow tournament rules, please.

Also per the tournament invitation, "Each round’s decision time deadline is based on the Tabroom pairing start time. If the judge does not enter a decision in tabroom by the decision time, it is within the Tabroom’s power to flip a coin to determine the winner of that debate." DON'T BE LATE, the tournament does intend to enforce this.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

I am some what new judge. I am a judge for Vel Phillips Memorial HS in Madison, Wisconsin.

My background is in State Government, and I am active in local politics, including standing for election on more than one occasion.

Please limit the use of any speed talking and debate jargon. Referring to arguments by their substance rather than card names is necessary.

Keeping a consistent narrative or story during the round between the partners is important. Any weighing should err on the side of realistic impacts, even if they are smaller, than large improbable arguments as realistic problems and solutions tend to be more persuasive.

Send me case/speech docs at the start please (lankella@wisc.edu) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

Hello!

Add me to the chain: paulina.lavrova@ames.k12.ia.us

I expect you to be polite (e.g. don't interrupt, don't be condescending) and I appreciate (relatively) slow speaking.

*conflicted with BREAK LD, Seven Lakes, and Atascocita

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Round should start at start time. I will dock your speaks by .2 for every minute past start time that the first constructive has not been sent.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), debate coach at Seven Lakes HS (‘23-Current)

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round (except disclosure) -If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with TAB before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

TLDR: I am primarily a policy debater and tend to evaluate rounds like a policy judge

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col > Identity Ks/Phil > Tricks/Friv Theory/PoMo Ks

Debaters work hard and I will always try my best to adapt to you, but my experience and knowledge of args varies. For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over adapt. You are more likely to win running an argument you’re good at and know well. I tend to understand most arguments as long as they are explained well.

Tech > truth in most cases - but truth determines your burden of proof. You still need to make a complete argument with warrants/ev/adequate explanation.

I think almost everything is debatable, will vote on almost anything with a warrant and impact

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing and judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I have to arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I evaluate ev when the arg is contested. I think more debaters should be punished for reading terrible evidence, but i will not do the work for you. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will still follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L).

Time yourself and your opponents

Things I default to but can be convinced to consider otherwise: judgekick if no offense, condo good, disclosure good, debate good, competing interps

-------

Specific Args:

LD, CX, PF are combined below. Read what applies and skip what doesn’t. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it. Everything that is here is easily changeable via technical debating.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. Unfamiliar with the lit bases - I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt, however, I have voted on all of them before.

2. In round violence- I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but it’s implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hom is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated then I am more likely to be convinced by FW.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Ks which are able to interact with the aff on the fiat-consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive from proximate violence impacts.

Theory (excluding T)—- My threshold for voting on theory is slightly higher than for other args since it’s premised on being able to prove abuse.

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I err towards the team defending against theory since that minimizes the need for judge intervention. In policy debate there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in policy as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry.

friv theory is stupid, I do not like when debaters are afraid of clash.

Disclosure: If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Read less and better args - I can no longer bring myself to vote on these horrifically warranted link chains that have 0 explanation in ff. Because ev practices in PF are so bad and no one reads warrants my ballot has increasingly been decided on purely which link chain I understand more. Better warranting and better ev will win you the round.

Please collapse in the ff. it is not possible for you to adequately explain 4 diff pieces of offense in 2(?) minutes.

Procedural stuff - If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

Weighing - I will judge the round like a policy maker under an offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

I notice that in most PF rounds, weighing doesn’t end up playing a large part in my decision making process despite the fact that the impact is the first place I look to when evaluating the round. This is because PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not contextualize the weighing to the amount of the impact that is actually accessed or do meta weighing.

K: You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

Second rebuttal must extend case but I do not require you to give an overview - responding to lbl is considered an extension i.e. answering the no link is extending your link but you must also extend arguments dropped by the other team if you want me to evaluate them at the end of the round. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.

LD ---

I read phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge.

what this means:

I judge Phil like an LDer and everything else like a policy debater. It is important that you tell me how to evaluate the round since I do not have a strong opinion on whether LD should be about, for example, testing the resolution or comparative worlds.

- Phil: while I know phil lit. bases I have not thought about them extensively in the context of debate arguments. I have a pretty good background content wise for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.). I prefer substantial over tricky phil

- Theory/Tricks: I am unfamiliar with a lot of LD specific theory and tricks. This means my capabilities to flow your 32 point analytical 1NC shell significantly decreases.

________________________

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

I have been judging debate and forensics tournaments for 5+ years.

With a long career in business, my judging in debate tournaments is based on the quality and delivery of information to support your position - solid evidence with an outstanding presentation.

For forensics competitions, the selection of the piece or product combined with your your creative interpretation are the key winning factors.

I debated for 4 years at Millard North across LD, CX, and PF on both local and national circuit.

Make sure to weigh, extend offense you want evaluated, and lbl and u should be good.

tech>truth

I'm a lay judge.

I judge based on the logic of the arguments, evidence and the impact - and how effectively you are able to rebutt/defend contentions.

I'm NOT up on all the tech, so trying to sell me on the tech reasons why I should vote one way or the other may not be of much use.

If you are going to talk fast, you may want to send the doc ahead of time to me email ganesh.letchumanan@gmail.com. Otherwise, you risk me missing large parts of your case (see line 1 of my paradigm). Spreading is likely not going to help you.

Dont tell me you won. Tell me how,

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll; Collegiate

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-All evidence read will be in cut cards and sent before its respective speech (marked documents afterward is ok)

-Debaters will not clip cards or otherwise misrepresent evidence (paraphrasing is a voting issue)

-Debaters will treat their opponents, judge(s), room and partner with decency

-DEBATERS WILL BE READY TO START THE ROUND ON TIME

-Debaters will time themselves

-Google Docs speech documents must be downloadable

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.

-I'm equally happy to vote for an impact turn against procedural fairness.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case. Kick any conditional/dispositional off you don't go for. Judge-kick from neg justifies Reasonability from aff -- both are calls for intervention, but at least reasonability is an argument, rather than the absence of an argument.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean its always a good argument)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm beginning to judge more LD, but I have >10 years of experience with Policy and PF debate. As such, I'll be judging like this is a 1v1 policy round. Speed is usually fine, but please slow down on analytics and shells, especially if they aren't in the doc (I'd prefer them to be in the doc). I'll clear you if you're too fast, without penalty to your speaker points if you're responsive. Flex prep annoys me but I'll allow it. For the sake of all things holy, SIGNPOST (that includes giving me an actual pause to go to the next flow). If my flow is a mess, my RFD will be a mess. Help me help you.

Thoughts on arguments:

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new.

-Counterplans and Perms - Process counterplans are broadly legitimate. I default to aff fiat being immediate, but I'd be interested to see fiat/implementation contested. Perms are tests of competition.

-T - I love voting on T, both for it and against it. This is especially true of T against policy affs (competing interps on words other than "Resolved:" or "USFG"). I'm less familiar with Nebel/Whole Res T, but I'm willing to evaluate it if warranted well. Education > Fairness in most cases.

-Affs that don't defend the resolution - I have no face value objections to these. That said, I've found method testing to be the most compelling negative argument for SSD. Why is your injunction against the "norm" preferable?

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

I am a very lay judge-- that means if you run prog or spread, I will not understand you, and will probably not vote for you.

My ideal round is clean, slow, and civil. Please be respectful during the round, and make sure to not interrupt your opponents. Any obviously racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments are L25's.

I am truth>tech. If you tell me that fishing conflicts are going to escalate to nuclear war, you'd better have the best evidence in the world to back it up. Even then, I'd say it's somewhat risky.

Please time yourselves, and if your opponents go over time, feel free to show me your timer. Prep stealing and taking a long time to find evidence will irritate me.

(My daughter wrote this paradigm-- if you've hit Hunter MM tell me about them :) )

As a judge, I evaluate debaters based on the following qualities:

1. Present well organized speeches so that audience can follow the arguments;
2. Respond to opponents’ questions or attacks and have strategies to effectively defense his/her own arguments;
3. Utilize evidence effectively;
4. Respect your opponent.

Email: liuaugustus@gmail.com I would prefer an email chain be set up before we start the round please include me in it. Also don't hesitate to send me any questions you have or accommodation requests.

I will also ask for any evidence I think is important for me to make a decision after the round if a) it seems too good to be true or b) it's hotly contested and conflicting claims are being made

PF:

Few things, I did PF in high school so I have a general idea.

However, I only have limited topic knowledge, so please explain your arguments well.

Speed - I'm okay with speed, but don't talk so fast that you spread your opponents out of the round debate is supposed to be competitive not an auction.

I will flow the round and will vote mostly off the flow. That said if I can't understand you, or can't figure out where to put it on my flow, this may cause me to miss arguments. Signpost please I am actually begging you!

Side note on signposting I love funny 1 liners

Evidence- please please please do not ask for evidence in cross, rather ask for evidence before cross and talk about the evidence during cross, this makes the round so much more nuanced.

Weighing - I will find it very hard to vote for you if you do not weigh. To that point barring a complete catastrophe from your opponents I will not vote for you. This weighing should also be interactive, for example, if your opponents weigh on scope and you plan to weigh on probability, explain to me why we prefer probability weighing over scope weighing. If there is no weighing on the flow, I have no reason to vote for you, all I have is a bunch of links and impacts and nothing that compares them. The sooner the weighing the better, but it should at least be in Summary and definitely Final Focus. If you're going to read a turn, please please please flesh it out do not just put a billion turns on your opponents' case without warranting it, contextualizing it, impacting it, and weighing it.

Theory / K's- I had very limited exposure to Theories but I get the general idea, if you wish to run theory against your opponents go for it. K's I didn't experience any K's during my time in debate, that said if you still want to argue it go for it I will do my best.

Make your path to the ballot clear! The easier you make it for me to see your path to the ballot, the more likely I am to vote for you.

One last thing that I think should go without saying..., but if you have me in multiple rounds, especially in the same tournament, and I give you feedback along the lines of something you need to be doing, and you don't do it with me as a judge... maybe I won't vote for you... just maybe :).

Other than that have fun, debate is supposed to be enjoyable. Grow as a person, and learn about the world.

If you have any questions before the round don't hesitate to ask.

congrats on reading my entire paradigm :)

Prior to the round, please email me your case at mattmmak@gmail.com. I am a new judge - for me, the arguments that make common sense are more important than complex arguments that are too theoretical. Please avoid running theory and avoid using jargon or acronyms - speak clearly and don’t rush. I am very pragmatic and don’t tend to believe blown-up impacts.

I am a parent judge. This is my second time judging after thoroughly enjoyed the first time. Please speak slowly and do not use jargon. In my day job, I give many presentations and mentor students in giving effective scientific presentations. I look for both style and substance in a good debater. Be respectful to your peers and judges, do your best, and have fun!

General

• Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round. This includes body language, tone, and gestures. Being professional is just as important as your arguments.
• I do not understand K's or Theory. I dislike when debaters try to bring LD or Policy styles into public forum.

PF

I am not okay with extreme speed. This is not policy debate. Make sure you are speaking clearly and you are more in-depth in your arguments. If you spread, I will not be able to write down what you are saying.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).

I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks firstdoes not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.

Send speech docs @ britneymeints19@gmail.com. I would especially prefer if you share it with me via Google Docs but if your school does not utilize GSuite no worries!

General

• Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
• I have some difficulty hearing, so I would appreciate it if you send speech docs! I will also bump speaking points if you send speech docs.
• I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
• Email: blmeints1@gmail.com or bmeints@lps.org

PF

I can handle some speed however (within reason, i.e. no spreading), I am out of practice, so if you are going to talk fast make sure you are speaking clear and you are more in-depth in your arguments.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).

I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.

Congress

In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!

Extremely lay parent judge

Assume I have no knowledge about the topic whatsoever

Speak slowly and clearly

Name

Jacob Moore

Where I'm from

Omaha, Nebraska

What I judge

LD

Paradigm

Your standards debate is the first thing I view as it is my lens within the round. I am a traditional judge, but I am open to less traditional LD cases. I do love a good philosophy and ethics debate

I don't care about spreading. Below are my speaker points:

25-26 Poor

26-27 Below Average

27-28 Average

29-30 Above Average

---

-Impacts are a must in Varsity. Probability and magnitude are major weights for this.

-I allow Flex Prep, but I don't expect the opponent to answer the questions.

-Any argument you run, I roll with it. As long as you can defend your argument.

-As always, Signpost/Roadmap

-Don't expect me to be an expert, even on the topic! Your job is to easily explain your philosophy to anyone, especially a judge. I cannot become an expert in Kantian Ethics from one speech

-Don't be afraid to ask questions before or after the round

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round please: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get there.

please do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not.

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing.

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

Updated 01-27-2024

Experience: I was a Public Forum debater at Millard North High School for 3 years (2014-2017) on both the Nebraska and National circuits. I medaled at a few tournaments and went to the TOC my junior year. I debated in NPDA at the University of Arizona for a year. After graduating high school, I also have judged at several Nebraska and national circuit tournaments. I currently work for the state in the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services as a Medicaid Policy program specialist.

PF:

I will need cases and rebuttal cards to be provided to me for accessibility reasons. Please be able to do this in round by emailing me at shayaknathan@gmail.com or dropping it in the file share area in the online debate space.

Paradigm:

Speed: Don't spread. Go at a moderate pace. If you feel as if your speed may be too quick for me, make sure to enunciate clearly. That will make it easier to deal with quicker speech.

Argumentation: I'll follow most lines of argumentation. I'm okay with somewhat blippy arguments. However, if your arguments rely on obscene or offensive grounds, I'll either dock you several speaker points or outright drop you, depending on the severity. Explain everything thoroughly. Make sure I don't have anything to be subjective about by explaining exactly why I have to vote for you.

Intervention: I will try my best not to intervene, but if an argument isn't explained enough, I may be forced to intervene. One thing I will intervene is on framework. The other team can fully drop the framework and I may not weigh the framework if I don't buy it. Thus, you must make sure that your framework is explained in depth and show how it links into your case.

Evidence: I'll most likely call some piece of evidence at the end of the round, so make sure you have it. When I do call evidence and see that it's not correct or something is wrong with it, I won't hold that against you unless the other team calls it in terms of the voters.

Rebuttal: 2nd team needs to rebuild within their rebuttal.

Summary: Don't give me a complete line by line. You need to start funnelling your arguments down and boiling them down to the essentials. Don't give new arguments unless you are responding to a new argument made in a previous speech. You may introduce new evidence but it should be very important for it to be considered.

Final Focus: Same as summary but funnel it down even more. No new arguments or evidence.

Cross-ex: Don't make it into a yelling contest. Try to keep questions concise unless absolutely necessary. If your opponent asks for a question and you're trying to make a multi-part question, let them ask their question first and get back to it later.

Post-rounding: I'm open to questions after the round, pretty much about anything. However, you shouldn't try to convince me about the debate and try to sway my decision. I'll anyways have sent the ballot out before then.

Feel free to ask me questions about anything before round!

Typed by debater son.

Very very lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. No theories, no K, etc. Extend warrants, link chains, impacts, in a very simple and easy to understand way. Not very good with technology, so make sure all your stuff is working before the round starts. Keep track of your own speech times, prep, and crossfires. Announce team name, side, and speech before speaking. She will probably not be timing so if your opponent goes over their time, you have to call them out yourself. Be respectful, kind, and have fun.

Hi all! My name is Loc Nguyen (he/him/his) and I am a junior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln majoring in Computer Science & Math.

--

Experience:

I competed in Public Forum Debate atLincoln Southwest High School from 2018-2022. Now I currently compete in NFA-LD (and some NDT/CEDA) at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. I'm also an Assistant Coach for Lincoln Southwest High School.

--

IMPORTANT:

The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusion of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and a backup case or contention. I am okay with most arguments, but be mindful of your opponents.

--

General:

Top-Shelf: I view debate as a game and my job is to evaluate who wins the game. I am normally tech over truth, however, I'm pretty stupid most of the time so judge instruction is key. I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and explanation as well as weighing implication. Unless the tournament expressly forbids disclosing, I will disclose the round's result and give an oral RFD with any and all arguments relevant to my decision.

--

Evidence Exchanges:

I think debaters need to do some form of evidence exchange; I've sat through enough rounds of evidence ethics violations. Please send speech docs before you speak and, at a minimum, send all pieces of evidence you plan on introducing in your speech AND make sure that your cards are actually cut. I personally prefer SpeechDrop over email chains. If we have to do an email chain, the subject of the email should have the following format, or something close to it: "Tournament Name - Round # Flight A/B - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)" Please add BOTH nlocdebate@gmail.com and lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.

--

PF:

Rebuttal: Number your responses, they're pretty helpful. Second rebuttals should frontline arguments they want to collapse on, and interact with first rebuttal responses.

Summary/Final Focus: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments over mass card dumping). Defense isn't sticky; you have to extend it in first summary and I'll flow the responses through, or I don't evaluate it for the rest of the round. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about; extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Please weigh and weigh comparatively. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary.

Prep: You must take prep time if you are reading or calling for evidence.

Speed: I'm okay with speed, however, that doesn't mean I always enjoy fast rounds. I won’t be flowing off of the speech doc barring tech issues. Enunciate and be clear.

"Progressive" PF:

1) Theory: I believe theory has its place in debate. My general thoughts are that disclosure is good as well as open-sourcing and paraphrasing is bad. Semantics are up to you all.

2) K's: I'll be willing to listen to them in PF, however, time constraints in PF would probably limit you from engaging in good K debate. Err on the side of over-explanation, I probably don't know your literature.

--

LD:

Pref Sheet

LARP/Policy - 1

K - 2

Phil - 4

Tricks - Strike

I occasionally judge high school LD, but I don't coach LD. Don’t expect me to always be up to date on circuit norms since I don't judge the event frequently. Defer (mostly) to my PF paradigm if you want to get more of a sense of how I’ll probably evaluate the round, but I’ll be receptive to whatever. In high school I was exposed to a lot more traditional LD from my teammates, but my competition experience in NFA and NDT leans policy. Take that as you will. That being said, I’m willing to listen to anything as long as it’s well warranted and implicated and explained well enough for me to vote on it. If I don’t understand it well enough to vote on it, I won’t.

--

If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me at nlocdebate@gmail.com before and after tournaments, and I would be happy to answer them.

Hello! My name is Tessa (she/they), and I’m a former PF debater and now a college student enrolled in legal studies.

I don’t know much about this season’s topic, so, while you should be doing this anyways, be sure to clearly explain your arguments and why they should matter to me.
Focus on carrying your impacts and warrants through your speech; I will judge based on magnitude and probability more than timeframe, but it’s still an important point! If an argument is not responded to, I will drop it on the side that didn’t respond.

Try not to spread too much, though if it’s necessary to fit your speech into your allotted time, I’ll do my best to keep up with you. :)

BE POLITE! During cross make sure you aren’t acting condescending, belittling your opponent, or just being rude in general. Focus on asking questions about your opponents’ points, just don’t be smug about it.

Have fun!!! It’s been a while since I’ve been in the debate scene (something to keep in mind), but I am still so excited to judge for you! Debate is about learning and having a good time, so have compassion for your opponents, and keep your head up if something doesn’t go your way.

Thank you for reading my paradigm! Feel free to ask me any questions you have in person, too. :)

1). Please show utmost respect to both your opponents and teammates. If I hear derogatory behavior from anyone, I will have to vote against you (Absolutely fine to be assertive and bold but please do not interrupt nor show disrespect).

2). No spreading at all. Talk in a way I can understand.

3). Time yourselves. I expect you to be fair about it.

4). You do not have to extend every piece of warranting but do it so I can still put stuff down in our flow.

5). I am a relatively new judge so organize your information in a way that is clear and concise.

6). Signpost or it will be hard to follow you.

My experience as a lay judge has involved judging MSPDP (middle school), PF, and a few Congress debates.

I look for well-reasoned contentions and refutations backed up by specific evidence and developed throughout your speeches. I do attempt to flow and take notes during debates. Speaking slower and explicitly frontlining/roadmapping your points will help a lot. Taking a short pause after each main argument will go a long way in allowing me to keep up with note-taking.

For VPF rounds, I usually look to the participants to keep track of time and their opponents' time. Don't hesitate to call out if your opponents go over time.

Good Morning. I am a parent Judge and have judged only few times. Make sure your arguments are clear so that I can understand and judge accurately. No new arguments in final focus, I won't evaluate them, and please weigh.

add me to any email chains devi.poonguzhali@gmail.com.

I have been coaching/judging policy debate on and off since I graduated high school in 2009. I was most active in my coaching career from the years of 2010-2016.

I returned in 2023 as the assistant director of debate for Harrisburg High School in South Dakota where I coached the semi finalist at NSDA Nationals in LD. The following year, as a squad we received 5 gold bids to the TOC in PF.

Currently I am the Director of Debate at Sioux Falls Roosevelt High School.

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible, I.E. I am very lazy. If I have to do the work for you, it’s probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become way more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably wont have flowed everything you've said

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. So if you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are procedural args (vagueness, workability, etc) and any of the stock issues. I used to think I was some huge K hack back in the day but I'm not. I just don't really understand the nuances of the argument. However, that's not to say that I am not down for some well done and insightful K debates but keep in mind I'm definitely not as well versed in the lit as you think I might be and your debating should reflect that. Additionally, a super compelling role of the ballot argument is a must. I also really enjoy good disad and CP debates.

-Disads need to have a clear story to them and have a clear impact. It needs to something quantifiable or articulated well enough to be weighed against the affirmative.

-I really really do not like topicality debates. In all the debates on T I've judged none of them have been super compelling nor warranted my time evaluating. Reasonability is the way to go on this flow for me.

-End of the round impact calculus is really important to me. Please do this.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration. arguments like reject the argument not the team I'm pretty sympathetic towards.

-You should write your ballot for me in the rebuttals.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, debate is a game and you should have fun and learn from it. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

LD Supplement:

This is the event that I primarily judge on my local South Dakota circuit. LD debate here is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go so do whatever, just keep in mind I probably don't understand most of the traditional nuances of the event.

To me, I feel that the criterion should be the framework in which you attain some idea of your value and the way in which I evaluate and weigh you arguments in relation to the other debater.

If I am not told at the end of the round how to frame or evaluate the debate I will default to evaluating the impacts presented in the round and which ones outweigh.

I am absolutely not the judge for Tricks. If this is your strategy going into the round and you do not intend on changing it you will probably lose the round.

PF Supplement:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated at my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in the policy debate section should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your args vs your opponent's. Reference it through out the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read, not paraphrased. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Utilize the summary for impact calculus and the final focus for reasons as to why you win the round.

About Me

Former Congressional Coach at Lakeville Debate Team (2023-2024), Current Assistant Debate Coach at Wisconsin Speech & Debate (2024-)

Current MA/PhD Student in Rhetoric, Politics, & Culture at UW-Madison (2024-)

Experience: 4 years of PF in high school in Minnesota (2012-2016), 4 years of intercollegiate APPE 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 Big Questions, Congress, Policy, Public Forum, World Schools, and Ethics Bowl. I've coached Big Questions, British Parliamentary (BP), Congress, Extemp Debate, and World Schools, including State, National, and TOC qualifiers.

Congress 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.

BQ/PF/LD/Policy Paradigm

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

weigh

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

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

email - kerenandellen@gmail.com

- parent judge

- speak slow and clearly, clarity + presentation comes first

- i prefer logical arguments

- do not be rude in crossfires or during the round

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

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

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

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

Pretty experienced, tech and/or truth is cool, run whatever as long as it’s not discriminatory in any way.

Send cases to -> aarushisahejpal@gmail.com

I am a Sophomore Political Science student at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and an Assistant Public Forum Coach for Lincoln Southwest HS.

--> NFA LD @ University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

--> '23 grad from Lincoln Southwest High School, NE.

--> 4 years in Public Forum @ LSW.

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

Important:

**I would like for a speech drop / email chain to be started before round for evidence exchanges; please add me to the email chain: schadlserena@gmail.com and/or lincolnsouthwestpublicforum@gmail.com

**I flow on paper so keep that in mind when you're speaking - I may not get everything down so it is important to emphasize important arguments multiple times!

**All debaters (including PF) should disclose their AFF/NEG cases and rebuttal cards on the wiki: https://opencaselist.com/hspf24 . Disclosure allows for better debates and better researched evidence that holds debaters to a higher evidence standard. I am not sympathetic to the argument that disclosure creates an unfair advantage for your opponents, because good debaters can defend their evidence even if your opponents can prep you out. If you need help or have questions on how to do so, please feel free to reach out to me or any other southwest coach. (this does not mean I will always vote for disclosure theory - see my info on theory in PF for more info).

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

TLDR - lots of yapping in this paradigm, but here's the gist

How I Evaluate Rounds:

**I am more tech over truth. I will evaluate based off of if you extend your evidence/warrants cleanly throughout speeches. I do not bring my outside knowledge into the round and it is up to you to tell me if I should gut check or call for their evidence. The easiest way to win my ballot is if you clearly warrant, extend, and impact your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am okay with you spreading or going fast in the round, just be conscientious of your opponents and if they're okay with speed. I will not usually call speed - so long as I have a speech doc to check, but may call clear if you're just mumbling. Bottom line, be a good person and be respectful to your opponents.

**50% AFF (43/85) and 50% NEG (42/85)

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

Public Forum:

**Theory (ex. disclosure/paraphrasing) is okay in PF. Run it as you will. I personally believe disclosure is good, but you also have to prove that to me in round. There are many ways to beat these types of arguments, just make sure you have a competitive counter-interp, reasons to prefer, and voters.

**K's generally don't go well in PF, I think running a framework or framing about things like structural violence, etc. is more applicable to the event. Please be topical and relate it to the resolution!

**I think some individuals gets confused over what is considered a counter-plan and what is not in this event. A reminder that counterplans are directly stating that they should do something OTHER than the resolution. [Ex. if the resolution asked if the US should increase trade relations with the EU, a counterplan would be that they should instead increase trade relations with China]

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

Round Preferences:

*Sign-posting & road maps are a must! I need to know where you are on the flow so that I can write it down.

*Speed: I can handle you spreading as long as you a) have a speech doc and b) your opponents are okay with it.

*Impacts: I will vote for anything, so long as it is weighed and brought through each speech.

Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision. Please be kind and respectful during cross, there is a distinction between being assertive and aggressive. Lastly, if something important happened, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.

Rebuttal: Frontlining in second rebuttal is a MUST! First rebuttal should be only attacking your opponent's case- don't restate your own case because it wastes your time (unless it's a cross application).

Summary: This is the most important speech in the round so this should be a time when you are telling me why you should win! I personally did a line by line summary, but giving me voters is also a great option as well. The most important aspect though is that you are weighing and telling me why your warranting and impacts are better than your opponent's.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary, so please match their voters if they gave any. Line by line is not preferable but at least tell me why you're winning. The final focus is intended to focus the round and give overarching claims and important points that give me a comparison between the AFF and NEG worlds.

**be strategic, find ways to collapse your arguments - try not to go for the whole buffet - pick one or two contentions (if you're running more than 2)

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

LD/Policy:

I am not as familiar with this event in the high school context as I was a PF debater, but I have transitioned into NFA LD at the college level, so I can understand policy style arguments. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms as well. I would prefer rounds that focus more on policy (case, disads, counterplans, and T) since I'm not as familiar with Ks. But I will also try to adapt to your style and arguments if you so choose to run a K. Also try to refrain from using a ton of jargon in your speeches, especially if you're spreading.

General:

--I think sending a doc before each speech with cut cards (analytics not needed) is a MUST for debaters.

--A lot of times this event tends to be heavy on reading off the doc and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions that happen on the flow. I do NOT want you to just read me cards with no analysis or signposting of where the card interacts on the flow. Also, if you can do some sort of framework weighing, impact weighing, etc. - it'll be much easier to win my ballot.

--Tricks are a no-go for me, but I will vote on most anything if you debate it well enough.

K's, Theory, Topicality:

--K's are much more applicable to these events than PF, you just need to substantially prove to me that the alt can solve back for whatever the AFF is doing. Also, if you have some obscure topic lit. with a bunch of big words - please, please, please explain it so I understand. Same goes for K Aff's, you need to make sure that the roll of the ballot is clear and has solvency.

--Theory is okay with me, just explain to me why this model of debate you're bringing up should be upheld and why it matters. Frivolous theory is not going to go well and I might just not vote on it if it's nonsensical. I will vote on theories like PICs bad, QPQ bad, etc. - but not frivolous theory.

--Topicality should be very clear as to why the opponent is not relating to the topic --- I also don't want you to run T arguments that are abusive (I think definition arguments such as the abbreviation of USFG could mean United States Faceters Guild is not going to get you anywhere and doesn't show any reason for me to downvote the team). But I will vote for T so long as you're extending the interp, standards, and voters.

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

Speaker Points:

--For open pool: 26 (needs work, many crucial mistakes), 27 (good arguments, but little clash), 28 (attempts clash, but a few key mistakes) (29 (good argumentation, good clash, few mistakes), 30 (very clear, minimal changes I would make to the speech). Anything below a 26 means something seriously offensive/abusive happened in round.

--For middle school / novice pool: 27 (needs work, no clash in round), 28 (quite a few mistakes, minimal clash, but good arguments), 29 (good argumentation, a few mistakes here an there), 30 (very clear, minimal mistakes, clashed well with opponent's arguments). I will not give anything below a 27 unless something very offensive was said in the round.

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

Other Things to Keep in Mind:

**NSDA allows paraphrasing in-round (PF), but if an opponent asks for the cut card and cites w/ author quals, you are obligated to give it to them! Ultimately, if there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical.

*Please don't hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round (via email: schadlserena@gmail.com or IRL)! I am open to discussion of how I evaluated. I completely understand some frustration when judges don't vote in a way that you favor and am open to any discussions about any issues you have with my decision (of course, I will not change my ballot after I submit it).

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

About Me:

--NFA LD Nationals Double-Octofinalist ('24)

--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate

--Competed at NSDA Nationals in World Schools ('22 & '23)

--Nebraska State Quarterfinalist in PF ('22 & '23)

--Competed 4 years in HS Public Forum on National & NE Circuit ('19-'23)

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

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.

If you attempt to exceed a speed that your enunciation can handle, I will yell "clear" at least once before I stop flowing and try to focus on what you are saying

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 in Policy, sofast can be 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!!!!!!)

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.

DISCLOSURE: I regard disclosure as a tool for rich schools with multiple employees to prep out schools with less resources. This is not a theory arg I am synmpathetic to.

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/

I'm relatively new to judging PF and the parent of a sophmore debater. However, I was a policy debater in high school. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability and value clarity over speed. In addition, please sign-post during your speeches. Make sure to extend your arguments through all speeches if you want them to be considered and explain any extensions and drops, don't just list them or fail to explain why it matters. I will judge based on your ability to present a coherent argument, create logical connections between your claims and evidence, and weigh impacts clearly. Please avoid kritiks and other elements of progressive debate; I'm looking for a well reasoned and respectful debate on the issues. I value framing so you will need to tell me how to view the round and what I should prioritize. In general, I will vote based on well reasoned impacts as long as you have logically made the case. Feel free to include me (eshneken@gmail.com) on your evidence chains.

Background: Debated policy for three years in high school (Millard West 2010-2013), and have judged on and off since then.

To answer a few questions you may have:

-I'm fine with speed reading.

-I don't take prep time for flashing cards (don't prep when someone is flashing!).

Overall, I'm open to voting on just about any argument as long as you articulate it well, have good cards/evidence, and pull it through the round. The only exception to this is that I would prefer to see in round abuse before voting for a T argument. If there is no abuse, I might still vote for the argument, but you can't just extend your T shell and expect to win.

Hey everyone!

I'm a parent ("lay") judge based in Tennessee.

I would prefer if all competitors within the round kept their own time both in speeches and prep time.

Good luck to all!

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its a LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus it makes a a majority of my decisions. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech. Collapsing is important in the summary and final focus. Yes you can go fast if you are clear. I am open to theory and kritical argumentation - just ensure you are clearly warranting everything.

I'm a lay judge, no spreading, no ks or theories or debate jargon

I am a parent judge. I am a Financial Officer at the United Nations and I am excited to be judging this interesting event of High School Speech and Debate.

Talk at a normal speed, don't go too fast.

Have fun and good luck!

Bach Tran (he/him)

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com

If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

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

tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics

Tech > Truth, but I won't vote for incomplete/unwarranted arguments, and arguments that the tabroom/higher authorities forbids me to. My biases are largely irrelevant to the RFD if you tell me what I need to do via such things as weighing/framing arguments and comparing evidence & warrants.

Out of round safety concerns are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. In round -isms will result in an L and the lowest speaker points I can give.

I like and will reward bold strategies that are well-executed generously. This ranges from dedev to spark to heg good against the K.

I also like and will reward teams that do good research (reading good ev and knowing what they are talking about) generously.

Please be on time and minimize dead time or you will lose speaker points. The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that.

My current points average is in the 28.8-29 range. Ask for a 30 and you'll get whatever I feel like giving (most likely not a 30).

Feel free to ask questions in person or via email.

Evidence

- Speech docs/ev sharing are almost non-negotiable

- I prefer verbatim word docs to pdfs - please refrain from google docs that get unshared right after round or sending cards in the email body.

- Speed is fine, unclearness is not - will clear/slow you. If the rebuttals are somehow faster than constructives then something has gone horribly wrong - you should strike me if you think I can flow (possibly) round-winning analytics with no docs at top card speed.

- I flow on paper, straight down, without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts

- You can insert rehighlights if they are short and you explain the implications. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.

- You can stake the round on ev ethics - W30 if I think you are correct, L0 otherwise.

- Please tell me to read cards - no "read X card," yes "read X card it doesn't assume [thing]"

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

Policy: Anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible.

The K: overviews bad, lbl good - explain what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team.

Theory/T: any shell is fine but no adhoms. No defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on the analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.

It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.

K Affs: yes, explain the method/aff. 1ac should defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (it can be more). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms)

Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.

Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them - proceed with caution I guess

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.

Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.

I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (actual) impact framing arguments or actual K tricks instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.

Saying "try or die" without explaining who tries and/or who dies and/or how the end of the world plays out is akin to saying random words and pretending that such words form an argument when it is barely a coherent sentence. The same thing applies to "link is perceptual" without explaining how perceptions trigger the link or "intervening actors check" without identifying who said actors are and what they would do. Weighing requires explaining scenario and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other (yes, the issue is not exclusive to K debate) - teams who do the former and call out others who do the latter are more likely to win and get higher speaker points.

Substantive issues are almost never yes/no - as such, I think teams should debate more in terms of probability and relative risk of everything.

Please stop having prepositions as taglines

Please collapse in the back half

Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back half.

You need to win the link to get the impact - link weighing is underrated and usually round winners

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.

My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.

This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.

I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
   
   

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
   
   

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
   
   

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
   
   

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

6. I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?

7. Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are fine(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

Short version

Policy/LD background. Former debater and current coach. I time prep, but you should too. Please don't rely on me to give you 30-sec intervals.

PF - Big fan of disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory, but I'm iffy on most other theory. Don't tell me why your impact is big, tell me why it's BIGGER than your opponents'. I don't need you to win every contention (kicking out is under-rated). I don't need you to win more contentions than your opponent. I just need you to tell me why the arguments you DO win are more important than the other arguments in the round. Impacts are crucial for that. I'm a sucker for "even-if" weighing. Please don't make me judge a round where both teams close for everything, some contentions have links, some have impacts, and none have both. If you call for a card, prep starts as soon as the card is in front of you. Your speaks will take a hit if you steal prep. Your speaks will take a bigger hit if you make blatantly new args in FF (which I won't weigh). 2nd rebuttal should respond to 1st rebuttal. Uniqueness is probably important.

LD - Connect your contentions to your framework (or your opponents') or tell me why you don't have to. Winning framework alone is almost never enough to win the round. It is in your best interest to give me more than one way to vote for you (e.g. "I win and uphold my framework so vote for me there, but even if you don't buy that then here's why I win under my opponent's framework"). I am willing to vote you down for paraphrasing evidence instead of reading/quoting cards if your opponent calls you on it and gives me any explanation for why it's a bad thing to do.

Long version / policy version:

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. If 10 is top-speed, then I can handle about a 6. I will try super hard to follow the round, but it'll be in your best interest to slow down (substantially so on theory). LD/Policy experience. Always up for a K if there’s a solid link, but not familiar with most K lit. I’ll vote for almost anything with a valid warrant behind it.

Please, ask me anything before the round. I've been judging national circuit LD/PF for the last few years and there are no arguments I'm opposed to on principle (except overtly discriminatory arguments...), but there's a solid chance that I won't have the same understanding of how a round should break down or what's meta. Asking me stuff before the round minimizes this chance.

My default weighing preferences (I can absolutely be convinced away from these):

Pre-fiat K > T = Theory > Post-fiat K > Substance. Condo is fine, running a ton of blips or spikes is sleazy and I'm way less likely to vote for you on those.

I default to truth-testing in general and reasonability on theory. I have a high threshold on theory and probably won't vote on without clear in-round abuse.

Pet peeve: people who say "moral obligation" or "d-rule" with no warrant beyond "x is bad". If you want me to weigh your args as a prior question to your opponent's args, I need a solid warrant for that.

Higher speaks indicate I learned something from you (either about debate or about your argument) and/or that you clashed often and effectively.

Lower speaks indicate that I think your strategy was sleazy (tricks / spikes), or that you were a jerk to your opponent.

I might disclose speaks, but I'll be the one to tell you--please don't ask.

Email-chain: benwheeler194@gmail.com

Background: I was a policy debater for three years at Millard West High School, from the years 2016-2019, and I have been judging debate from 2019-Present. I have experience judging policy, congressional, and Lincoln-Douglass debate. I have obtained my degree in Microbiology with minors in Physics and Mathematics from the University of Nebraska--Lincoln. I have experience in both traditional and K debate, but I have no overall preference (I will listen to any argument and weigh them against each other). I have debated as both a 2N and a 2A.

TL;DR: Run whichever argument you are most comfortable with--just make your arguments smart. I try not to put my own personal biases in the debate round, so just run the arguments you are more comfortable with (I am more likely to vote on a smart argument which you are comfortable with than I am for a certain type of argument). Make sure the way you frame your arguments makes sense, and that you answer the opponents arguments. My favorite things to see in-round are clash and framing debates.

Policy

AFF: I am a big fan of continuity throughout the AFF (i.e. extend your arguments throughout the round, and make sure your arguments all make sense with each other). This can be done as either a simple case overview, or can be more complex, given the context of the round. Vote NEG on presumption (unless you give me a REALLY good NEG debate). I am not a huge fan of not using the AFF throughout the debate. If the AFF team, specifically Policy AFFs, do not at least extend their plan-text throughout the round, I have a hard time voting for them.

NEG: Anything you want to run, run it. Typically a bigger fan of Policy arguments on the NEG (T, FW, CP, or DA's), but I think all NEG arguments warrant some merit.

Specific Arguments:

Policy v K AFFs: I think that both Policy and K AFF have merit within the debate round. If you run a Policy AFF, make sure you put forth the plan-text in every speech, and give me a reason why your plan-text matters, not just within the round, but also outside of it. For K AFF's, I would prefer to see some sort of advocacy, but if you don't use one, make sure you tell me why that matters. If you don't, i'll just assume you don't have any sort of plan, and therefore, no out-of-round solvency. For both types of AFF's, I like to see solvency and framing above impacts. Even if the impacts seem smaller than those of the NEG, if you can solve it better than that of the NEG, you win the round.

Kritiks: On the K flow, I think links and solvency are the biggest issues you need to solve for. Not only do you need to prove you solve, you need to prove how you solve better than the AFF. But you also need to link to the AFF for that to work. Outside of these, I like to see both a good impact debate, as well as a good theory debate on the K flow (perm theory or otherwise). Alternatives should also be thoroughly explained as to how they solve, or if you don't have an alternative, tell me why.

Theory: I think theory arguments can be very interesting, if you can spin them right. I think most theory is very under-utilized within the debate space, especially within the Nebraska circuit. Vague Alts and Multiple Worlds are good arguments, if you can explain to me how they work, and why not voting on them is a bad thing. Other than those, conditionality theory and framing debates are always fun debates to watch. If you are going to run theory, just make sure you explain yourself well so I can follow along.

Topicality: Interpretation debate is an important factor of this, as well as having counter-interpretations. Make sure you explain why your interpretation is important to this round specifically, and how it operates better than the counter-interpretation. Make sure that these also have standards and voters, or I won't vote on them. If you run either Effects-T or Extra-T, just make sure you know how they operate against the AFF.

FW: Big fan of FW, but same things as said in the Topicality section. Make sure you have a good interpretation, standards, and voters, or I will not consider it against the AFF. I am a big fan of education arguments, with both FW and T. You also have to gear your arguments specifically against the AFF (generic FW shells are usually un-interesting, and lead to a lack of clash on the FW flow). If you actually engage the AFF specifically within the FW flow, I will consider the arguments more than if you don't.

CP's: Extend your plan-text within every round, and if you can have your own internal net-benefits within the CP, I am more likely to consider it than without it. Internal net benefits are not necessary by means, but it is difficult to evaluate a CP against the case if there are no net benefits (either internal or from a DA). Big fan of perm debate on the CP flow as well, especially if it's outside of perm do both.

DA's: If you are going to run a DA as a net benefit to a CP, make sure you actually link to your CP, and that there is an internal link between the DA and its impacts. Otherwise, your DA will be wishy-washy at best. If you are running a DA on its own, the impact debate is going to be the most important thing I look to. Sometimes these DA's work better as straight case turns, and sometimes they work really well as standalone off-case--depends on how the round is playing out. If you run a DA as a net benefit to a K, I will cry actual tears of joy.

Counter-Methods: Essentially a CP against a K AFF, I think these are hella under-utilized and could lead to really good debates. Just prove to me how your method is better than that of the K AFF, and how its solvency mechanism actually operates.

In-Round Procedure:

Speed: Read as fast or as slow as you are comfortable with. As long as I can still understand what you're saying, go for it.

Prep: Don't steal prep--if you do, just make sure I don't notice. I won't count flashing or emailing against your prep time. Just don't steal prep, and we'll be cool.

Fun: Have fun.

Congressional Debate

TL;DR: When judging a congress round, the most important things I look for are sources, clash, and decorum within the round.

Sources:When making an argument within a congress round, I would like to see some evidence to back up the arguments you are making. This is not necessarily important if you are refuting an opponent or referring to evidence provided by other debaters in the round--this is specific to the arguments you make. Sure, some arguments are good as analyticals, but if you are making any claims involving statistics or empirical evidence or whatnot, I would like to either see some evidence to back up these claims, or some REALLY convincing analytical arguments.

Clash:One of my biggest gripes with congress rounds are a lack of clash/interaction with other speeches in the round. I can grant that this is impossible for the first speaker, but if you are the second speaker or later and you do NOT referring to opponents speeches/arguments, you are missing some opportunities to make your case sound stronger. Having good clash within the round can make the claims you are already making seem much stronger, and fully utilizing all the evidence within the round may help you make arguments that you otherwise might not have considered. A "plan in a vacuum" with good evidence and warrants to back it up seems less convincing to me than an argument that fully incorporates arguments made throughout the round, but has slightly worse evidence. While clash is not an expressly "necessary" part of the congressional experience, clash, in my opinion, makes the round more fun for me and in turn, means I am more likely to vote you up.

Decorum: This mostly has to do with speaking points, but clear and concise diction throughout your speeches is appreciated. When watching someone speak and giving them speaker points, I look to the debater that is the most confident in the round and can put together arguments/refutations in the best order. Good speaking means good diction, clear speaking, and convincing arguments.

Miscellaneous: If you are chosen as a PO for the round, don't think of that as a bad thing! POs have a tough job within the round and my scores for you will reflect that. As long as you are keeping every on track and keeping good time of the round, I will generally score you well.

Other than what I said above, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask!

Lincoln-Douglass Debate

Given the current board state of LD debate, my judging is typically very similar to that of policy. If you are reading anything resembling a policy speech (such as a K), refer to what I have said above.

Value Criterion: If you are still running a value criterion in 2023, then kudos to you! I love seeing value criterion within the round, irregardless of if there is a plan/advocacy to back them up. Just make sure that your value criterion is not vague, and make sure the value criterion actually does the thing you want it to do. It doesn't matter how good a value criterion is if you can't debate it effectively.

Logic: When watching a LD debate, I want the arguments you are making to be made in a logical order and in a way that I can easily interpret. High theory Ks and other likewise arguments are fine, but just make sure that you can explain it to me or I will NOT vote you up on it. Being too technical isn't my favorite either, but a good mixture between the two can help you to make fun arguments while still being logically sound.

Public Forum

I have never judged PF, but it seemed rude to not include in my paradigm (since I already have the other three styles listed). Basically for PF, make your arguments clear and easy to follow, and I will judge from there. I do apologize if I judge it like a policy judge though.

Big Questions
Based

Win the flow. As simple as that.

In terms of your constructive arguments or "original case":

I don't mind "creative" contentions so long as they are properly supported. This means that your primary contentions only need to be tangentially related, so long as you provide a cognizable link to the resolution. It is your opponent's job to raise a valid defense, call irrelevance, or reframe the more important arguments.

This gives you a lot of freedom to implement "more interesting" arguments. However, this is not a pass to present truly abusive or wholly non-topical arguments.

In terms of responding to your opponent's case:

I will vote for whoever wins the flow. Therefore, I like when debater's roadmap clearly and give explicit voters. I don't count roadmaps against a debater's time so long as they are less than 30 seconds.

I will not flow an argument in your favor unless you tell me why I should. Conversely, if your opponent drops a contention completely, I won't flow it in your favor unless you tell me to. I firmly believe that it is the judge's job to flow all arguments, but it is not the judge's job to debate/argue in their mind for you.

Speed:

I personally cannot handle that much speed. I can listen to you when you talk a little fast but, keep in mind a judge can't flow what I can't understand. If you choose to talk fast you have to enunciate your words. If you are talking too fast I will say clear. If you choose to continue at that speed I will say clear again. If I still am unable to flow and understand you then I will drop my pen and stop flowing until I am able to understand you.

Logistics:

Pre-flow before you come into the room. Keep your own time. If you don't already have the time constraints and speech order memorized, make sure to write it down before we start.

Cross-examination/Crossfire:

I don't care if you sit during these. In PF, I prefer teams to alternate asking and answering questions (unless it's a very brief follow-up). If not, a lot of unnecessary time gets taken up by asking/negotiating who is going to take the next question.

Have fun and be civil.

Hi, I am a lay parent judge with MINIMAL judging experience. I work in biotech, if that means anything.

English isnot my first language. Slow down and err on the side of overexplanation.

Please add chenghsien.wu@yahoo.com and yellowhighlight00@gmail.com to the email chain.

Truth>tech. I value arguments based on facts and evidence, rather than feelings, and will be less inclined to vote for arguments with long link chains that lead to big improbable impacts: i.e. if you read that single-use plastics lead to nuclear war, you probably have already lost my ballot. The shorter the linkchain, the better - i.e. (long) chains of cause and effect are not effective, please be direct as possible in your arguments. I also heavily dislike it when people read arguments that are obviously not true - make sure you know what you are talking about, and that it makes sense.

Being aggressive in crossfire is okay, but don't be rude. In speeches, please slow down and speak clearly. I can't vote on something that I didn't hear or understand properly.

*My daughter wrote this paradigm. Do not assume that I know any jargon/debate structure specifics.

Elizabeth Wu (she/her)

add me to the email chain: elizabethwu38@gmail.com

i'm a lay judge but i did PF before so I understand the basics of how everything works

you don't have to speak too slowly, think something like 1.5-2x speed on Youtube, but make sure to clearly state your contentions and subpoints otherwise I'll probably get lost

I have a short-ish attention span so once that timer rings, I'm not listening lol so if you don't get to finish saying "we strongly urge an aff/neg ballot" it's fine

tech>truth - essentially attack your opponent's case well and defend your own case well, don't just base it off what will theoretically happen or not

in final focus, tell me exactly why you win and why your opponent loses

offtime roadmaps are great, use them

My email: zhaomeng.la@gmail.com

I am a parent judge who enjoys hearing innovative arguments. I have judged about 15 tournaments and more than 50 rounds of TOC/Varsity level of PF competitions. Below is a list of my criteria:

1. I prefer each team to provide a speech document for at least the cases and rebuttals with cards. It makes the evidence exchange professional, efficient, and fair, while allowing the judge to go back to check the evidence for clarification and validity if necessary.

2. Signpost is highly appreciated.

3. Collapsing in the back half is highly encouraged and appreciated. Also, the final focus is important for my decision, anything you want me to evaluate should be in the last speech.

4. I am okay with speed up to 220 words per minute. Speed is usually always fine, if it is well organized with signposts, and clearly delivered.

5. Tech over truth. It’s your burden to disprove your opponents’ absurdity. Comments such as “this is ludicrous” without a warrant will just make me laugh.

6. Theory running is appreciated in the debate. in fact, any argumentation is encouraged if there is a sound explanation/defense. However, make sure you explain what the jargon means when debating theoretical arguments.

7. Personally, I believe the practice of disclosing arguments on the wiki is in the best interest of the debate community’s well-being, and should become a norm, at least in varsity debate competitions.

8. I do not have a preference of paraphrasing, but evidence ethics is an important voting issue for me. For example, misrepresenting evidence in extremely egregious manner should be considered a fatal error and can’t be overlooked. However, minor infractions should not be zealously prosecuted.

9. If you beat your opponents in crossfire, you need to extend it into the speeches to score points in my evaluation.

I am new parent so please be slow. Smooth convincing arguments are appreciated. Please be nice in round and have calm expressions.

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

Public Forum

General Note

This event was created as an accessible alternative to policy debate, and I will judge as such. I will value and consider the arguments presented on the flow; however, I am not the judge to present blippy, under-developed, card-dumps to.

Round structure

1) Make sure to not go overtime. I will stop flowing and not consider any arguments presented after your time has elapsed.

2) Defense is not sticky. You should be extending all of your arguments in each round. If you do not carry through your arguments into each speech I will not magically carry it over for you.

3) Second rebuttal should respond to the arguments presented in first rebuttal as well as your opponents case.

4) No new in the two.

5) Read theory and kritiks at your own risk; however, I am partial towards Schopenhauer.

6) Impacts are essential. It is your responsibility to make it clear why your arguments are important and which ones should decide the outcome of the round. If you do not have an impact, you do not have a reason for me to value the argument.

7) If there are competing frameworks or definitions, it is important to establish at the top of the speech which interpretation I should be taking and why. Do not just extend through ink without any nuance.

8) In a similar vein, it is essential that you compare your arguments. A simple repetition of your arguments is not nearly as convincing as clear weighing that shows why I should choose your side.

9) I will not intervene unless you leave me absolutely no choice but to end up picking a side without any help from the debaters. I do not want to do this and you do not want me to do this so make sure you have clear and comparative weighing throughout the debate.

Views on evidence

1) I will approach the round tabula rasa, so it is your responsibility to make it clear when your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence.

2) I am ok with paraphrasing; however, misrepresentation will be reflected in your speaks and round result.

3) Have your evidence ready. If your opponents ask you for evidence you should be able to produce it within a minute. After that you are wasting my time and your opponents time.

4) A last name and year is not a sufficient presentation of your evidence. I expect to hear at least the full name, month, year, and organization. Additional qualifications of the author are also recommended.