I do appreciate very good idea generation, very comparative cases and responses.

It is very nice that students are also able to utilise good case strategy.

Sophmore at Mira Loma High School. Been debating for 2 years now.

I think of myself as a standard flow judge.

** On the April UNSC topic, I haven't done any research so define any weird acronyms beforehand.

Online Debate: If competitors are comfortable, I prefer if everyone has their camera on. You will get higher speaks if you do so. Also, if my camera is not on, don't begin speaking.

Before round: Add me to the email chain: m.j20081@gmail.com and label the chain appropriately, ex. Berkeley R1 Flight 1: Mira Loma AS 1st AFF vs Durham HH 2nd NEG.

Speech Docs: Send the full speech doc before speeches - if you do this you're speaks won't go below 28.5. If you elect not to do this, your opponent can take prep while you try to find individual cards.

Specific to novice: Create an off-time roadmap. It helps you and it helps me. Just don't make them long, it should be to the point and short.

Kritics:

• Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB.

• Explain your kritik in cross if its rare and ask me before round if its something I have seen before.
• No friv Ks.

Theory:

• Make sure to extend theory in every round. If dropped - I will take that into heavy consideration.
• You can run any theory you want, just explain it well
• However, they are quite boring to judge so run it at your own risk

Tricks:

• Send me a doc if you are reading tricks.
  
• Also, not a huge fan but whatever

General:

• Collapse!!! The FF should have one contention and a few args on the opps case. Choose your best argument, frontline it well, and weigh.
• Please preflow before round
• Tech > Truth. I'll evaluate the round on what is being said and make my decision off that.
• I don't flow cross. Use it to poke holes in the opps argument, not to extend your own arguments.
• If your evidence is miscut (egregiously) and called out - I will not vote for you.
• Please send evidence in the email chain in 1 min or less. Otherwise, I'll start by lowering your speaks. I really like rounds to be quick and taking forever to find evidence kind of looks like you're stealing prep time.
• Please keep track of your own prep time.
• I stop flowing 5-10 seconds after a speech time ends.
• Weighing is a core part of debate and carded weighing is cool.
• Make weighing comparative, compare link-ins, and metaweigh (pls).

Speaks:

• You'll get high speaks from me, just be confident and funny.
• I won't give you below 27 speaks unless you say something offensive.
• I'll give you instant 30 if both teams agree to debate without prep time (please agree and announce before the start of the round).

Overall, be chill in round. If you have any questions, ask before the start of the round.

Good luck!

Hey! I'm Roberto (he/him) and I do PF at Hunter.

Add me to the email chain: robertobailey@hunterschools.org.

— FOR ELEMENTARY & MIDDLE SCHOOL PF —

At the elementary/middle school level, I'm a "flay" judge - I evaluate based on the flow while simultaneously caring about your persuasiveness and the truth behind your arguments. Most of my specific preferences as a judge are the same as for high school PF. If you'd like any clarification either come up to me in-person or shoot me an email before the round.

— FOR HIGH SCHOOL PF TOURNAMENTS —

TLDR: Basic Tech Judge

Housekeeping:

1) Set up the email chain before the round begins.

2) Send case and rebuttal docs in the email chain before you begin your speech as cut cards. I prefer if everyone sends docs to everyone to cut down on stolen time as well as make the round more fair and interactive overall. If you don't want to send docs I won't penalize you in any way unless you are spreading. However, note that I might miss responses if you speak too quickly without a doc.

How I Evaluate the Round:

1) I first look to the weighing debate. Metaweighing writes my ballot for me. Give me reasons why I should prefer your argument, and extend turns and prerequisites in summary and FF. If you don't weigh, I'll have to judge intervene, which no one likes.

2) Then I look to the link debate. For me to buy your link, it needs to be extended properly (links, warrants, and impacts).

3) Defense needs to be in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. Please read warrants and implications in rebuttal (quality > quantity). Remember to frontline starting in 2nd rebuttal.

4) In the case that both arguments are a wash, I presume the first speaking team. If you read presumption warrants I will follow them (unless they are new in FF).

Speaks:

1) I can flow fast speaking but prefer it if you keep everything under 1k words/250 wpm. Your speaks will be impacted if you surpass this limit and especially if your spreading is incomprehensible. If you spread without sending a doc I'll have trouble giving you above a 27.

2) If you do anything that makes the debate space unsafe, such as reading graphic arguments without a trigger warning or reading arguments that perpetuate discriminatory ideologies, I will drop you and give you a 25.

3) Speaks largely depend on how respectful you are during the round. Be kind.

Progressive Arguments & Prefs:

1) Framing - I love framing in PF and encourage teams to read it, but make sure you actually weigh (e.g. if you're reading SV and the other team links in, you need to weigh how you link better to the ROTB).

2) Theory - I personally think many teams in PF abuse theory for the ballot, and that is the opposite of its purpose. If you run disclosure or paraphrasing on a team that clearly is new to theory arguments, it will be difficult for me to give you high speaks and I'll be easily convinced by reasonability or small school arguments.

3) Kritiks - Ks are not my comfort zone. I've written one and have judged and spectated K rounds, but that's the extent of my experience. However, I'll evaluate them as I would any other arguments.

4) Philosophy - Because I'm primarily involved in PF, I don't know much about phil. Read these arguments at your own discretion, but if you do choose to run phil, I'll need lots of judge instruction.

5) Friv, Tricks - I will not evaluate these arguments at bid tournaments and highly encourage teams not to run them.

Evidence:

1) I'm okay with paraphrasing as long as you don't misconstrue evidence.

2) Evidence debates must be brought up during the round for me to evaluate them - I won't call any cards unless there is specific evidence clash. If there are conflicting cards but no actual evidence debate, it's a wash.

3) Please only read evidence challenges if you legitimately think the opponents have violated NSDA rules through distortion, nonexistent evidence, or clipping.

he/him

Joined in 2023.

Coral Academy ('24) in Varsity PF, USX, and Duo.

UNLV OF, ASU QF, Nevada State PF Champ, 1x TOC, 2x NSDA Nationals.

Email chain: kenbhardwaj2@gmail.com

PARADIGM

Novices: Be good on the flow and don't be offensive. I give out good speaks for the following things: impactful endings, jokes, personality, efficiency. There are other ways to get good speaks, but without one of those, a 30 is hard to attain.

TLDR: As long as you're not being racist, sexist, homophobic, Tech > Truth. If you do any of the ists/ics, I will drop you immediately with the lowest amount of speaker points that Tabroom allows me to. I like weighing, I'll evaluate prog and I enjoy a good framing debate. 50/50 chance I adapt on a lay panel. Just depends on my mood. Basically do whatever you want.

Pref Sheet:

1 — Tech Substance

2 — Theory

3 — Stock K's

4 — T, Identity K's

5 — Tricks

Content Warnings:

I agree with Gabe Rusk.

Prep Time:

Track your own time, I'm too lazy. I trust you won't lie to me. Flex prep is fine.

Evidence:

Make the evidence exchange quick. If there's an email chain for cards make sure to include me on it. I may take a peek at your cards, but I won't do anything about it unless the other team calls it out. If you get caught paraphrasing in an extreme manner, I'll dock speaks accordingly. Engaging with evidence is important! I encourage all debaters to ask for evidence that they think is fishy, and not to take a warrant at face value because there was a last name and publication attached to it.

Speeches:

Please signpost so I know what to write down on my flow, and make sure to speak at a comprehensible speed. If I think you're going too fast I'll let you know. You can bypass this by sending me a speech doc beforehand. I stop flowing 7 seconds over time. This does mean that you can technically have an extra 7 seconds to speak, but use it sparingly; I'll probably dock your speaks a bit.

Cross:
Nothing said in cross goes on my flow unless it's brought forward into subsequent speeches. Be assertive, but not overly aggressive. A good cross will benefit your speaks, even if you lose the round overall. If everyone is in agreement we can skip grand for a minute of extra prep. Open cross is fine if that's your preference, just make sure to ask the other team first.

Rebuttal:

I'm fine with off-time roadmaps, if you don't give one just make it clear what you're responding to and how.

1st Rebuttal:

Make sure to be clear when you're going from one argument to the next ("Next, on their internal link... Then go to their C2..." etc.)

Anything flies in first rebuttal, make sure you signpost to I know where to flow.

2nd Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal has to frontline: If you don't frontline at all you've lost the round and the other team can call a TKO after 1st summary if they play their cards right. Generated offense in 2nd rebuttal has to be in the form of turns and not just new disads. No new framing in 2nd rebuttal. If it was that important to you it should've been in constructive.

Summary:

No new evidence. (Unless it's to frontline your case in first summary)

Defense isn't sticky. Please extend defense in every speech; you can't forget to extend a piece of defense in summary and do a ritual in final focus to summon it.

Extensions don't have to be perfect. As long as you extend uniqueness, link chain, and impact, you're good. If I don't hear an extension it's wraps. You should also collapse in summary.

Weighing is very important. I like seeing direct comparisons between impact scenarios and links. This means that the weighing has to be comparative. Weighing is not "we cause a nuclear war" and nothing else. I want to hear "We outweigh on timeframe because our impact triggers instantly while theirs takes x years" – that's a direct comparison. If teams present different weighing mechanisms, please meta-weigh. If neither side meta-weighs, I default to timeframe + magnitude.

Final Focus:

Everything in FF should've been in summary.

This includes weighing! If I hear weighing in final that wasn't in summary I won't evaluate it.

I just want a solid explanation as to why you won the round. You can do it line by line, or go by biggest voting issues. Just make sure you're extending what was said in summary and crystallizing everything.

Framing:

I like a good framing debate. I won't accept "Other team has to respond in their constructive" or "Other teams can't read link-ins to the framing" as underviews or general responses. You're just avoiding clash, grow up.

Theory:

I'll evaluate disclosure, trigger warning, and paraphrase. Disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I won't hack for these positions though. If there's no offense from either side I err to those positions. Don't run theory on people who are obviously novices. If you're on varsity anything is fair game. I don't care if you don't know how to respond to theory, "theory is dumb" and "we don't know how to respond" are not responses at all. I'll drop you like Georgia dropped FSU.

K's:

I'm fine with them. Just make sure to send a doc so I can follow along. I will vote for things I'm ideologically opposed to (like cap good) if the warranting is sufficient. Just win the flow. Don't run Afro-pess if you're not Black, don't run Fem-Rage if you're not female-identifying. The only thing doing that will earn is a massive side-eye.

Don't run spark.

Obviously don't cite this in-round, but on the off-chance I am leftabsolutely flummoxed post-round, I presume NEG.

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (28 - 29.5 range), but it's not too hard to get a 30 from me. Just have a good strategy (like going for turns, innovative weighing) and you'll be guaranteed high speaks. Each Taylor Swift reference gets a +1.

Post-round:

I'll disclose my decision upon request (if tournament rules allow for it) and give some level of feedback. I'll try to make my RFDs detailed, but I've heard that tournaments have quick turnaround times in terms of judge decisions, so this might not be the case. If you have further questions about why I voted a certain way, you can email me and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If you have any questions not covered by this paradigm, feel free to hit up the email at the top or ask me before the round starts.

Good luck, have fun, and do your best!

Lay judge - not experienced

flay pf judge
tech > truth (most of the time)

try to keep your speed <300wpm and <200 in jv/novice.
i vote off the flow. if you want something brought up in cross to end up on my flow, bring it up during the next speech.

• I don't believe in sticky defense.
• I would advise not running a theory (especially disclo) or a K.

hf debating!

Langley '26 | PF for two years

Add me to the email chain: chunconnor@gmail.com (he/him)

While I come from the incredibly and atrociously lay Virginia circuit, I have a decent amount of experience on the natcirc. I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer...

Hard Prefs

Stolen from my friend Tobin- There are not enough people yelling clear or requiring their students be clear. Yes kids today don’t flow because they just look at the speech document- but guess why they do that? Because no one can understand what the other team is saying [...] even when I say “clear” people totally ignore it.

Here is what it means when a judge says “clear”: I cannot understand what you are saying, therefore I cannot count any of the arguments you are making. Without arguments you will probably lose.

What kids hear: “LOUDER” “1% slower please” “Can you enunciate for like 5 seconds and then go back to mumbling?”

-

That being said, there are a few (pretty obvious) things that are absolutely set in stone, so you should definitely read this if you want a quick summary of my preferences. These are more lenient in novice/jv rounds (excluding respect)

1. Be respectful. Any bigotry or blatant rudeness will get you a quick L20.

2. Speed is fine- be coherent. I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.

3. Obviously keep track of your own time. I will also be timing and stop flowing once the timer hits zero, give or take 3~ish seconds.

4. Evidence exchanges have a tendency to take way too long. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to grab a card your speaks will suffer. I'd prefer it if you sent cut cards before speeches or at the very least before constructive.

5. Theory is fine, but I shouldn't be trusted to evaluate K's very well.

Other Stuff

Top level I default util, but have ran lots of SV and Extinction framing. Reading carded frameworks in first summary is iffy and reading it in second summary is way too late unless you're responding to your opponents' framing. I prefer not to vote on pre-fiat "discourse" arguments- the idea that I should vote for you because you just read a framework doesn't make a ton of sense.

Make my job easy by explaining your clear path to the ballot. Collapse on your case, collapse on their case. Debate is quality > quantity so rather than going for five unweighed turns it makes way more sense to go for one with good weighing and a strong link chain.

Weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we OW on probability because their argument about nuclear war is stopped by MAD," that's new defense I won't vote on.

If I look confused I probably am.

Me: Top 21st Nationally Ranked in WSD, 3rd year of S&D, 2x Nationals qualifier, 2x TFA State Octofinalist;

My Events: WSD, Congress, DX, IX, Impromptu

Debate:

- Although many judges say they are a blank slate, no one is. It wouldn't be true to say that my experience in debate, argumentation, and general knowledge doesnt play into my ballot. However, if you don't argue against a point even if its something like "the sky is green" its more likely to flow against you, but you all should be doing the debating, not me. I am here to evaluate. However, if arguments arent made, or even if they are something like the "sky is green" wouldn't pass through, understand that just because you say it (and possibly they dont respond to it) doesnt mean I have to buy it. When considering how I will follow your speeches, consider me an intelligent baby. I can follow your arguments as you put them and the debate as a whole but I can not piece together thoughts such as your claims, warrants, and impacts for you. Make your contentions links obvious.

Winning teams :

• Best prove their arguments were true (Practical through impacts, Principle through thoroughly proving importance, relevance, and uniqueness)
• Weigh both the principles and practicals to prove why they win on both, or one type of ground and why its the most important clash/argument in the round.
• It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponent's world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents on the same grounds or lower grounds.

Personal Preferences:

• Content and Strategy > Style (although style is still important)
• Clash heavy debates
• Framework carried through the whole bench
• Weighing that's fleshed out

Don't:

• Rude/Disrespectful
• Spreading (I can handle fast speeds but if it interferes with my ability to flow or your ability to flesh out your arguments you will lose points and my attention)
• Devolve into a definition debate, semantics, or try to tread the middle grounds
• Make me do your weighing or debating for you in my RFD

Speech:

• Speak at a pace that gets your information across, but also leaves space for style
• Use rhetoric not just content to get your points across and display emphasis
• Don't just be informative, be persuasive

I prioritise good explanation and very good style in terms of wit and use of persuasive emotive language

Howdy folks. I hope that today is going awesome for you. I did debate for 4 years in high school, and I'm glad to be able to judge. Here are the things that you need to know.

1. Make good arguments (unique advice, I know). In all honesty though, if you want me to vote for your side, be sure to provide strong links between your evidence and arguments. Don't let your evidence stand alone. Warrant your evidence. Explain why your side produces the most positive impacts.
2. Be respectful. Though I don't typically decide rounds based off of etiquette, I will dock speaker points if you are rude. This includes constantly interrupting your opponents, yelling, refusing to answer questions, being bigoted, or any other kind of disrespect. Keep things clean. Don't turn Grand Cross into a yelling contest.
3. Make sure that I can understand you. I don't mind spreading, but please just be sure that you're coherent. I'm not voting on points that were spoken too fast for me to hear.
4. You can keep your own time, but my time is official. I will not flow arguments that are spoken overtime.

Public Forum:

1. I can judge a round without framework, but I really do prefer that you have one. If one side has a framework and the other side doesn't, I'm judging the round off of the side that has a framework.

Lincoln Douglas:

1. Keep the debate based on philosophy. Don't turn this into a mini policy round. I will be voting for whichever side makes better philosophical arguments.

Policy Debate:

1. Keep this debate based in reality. Don't rely too much on theory. I want realistic impacts. Keep things topical.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

she/her

Yes, put me on the email chain is there is one:

moonyounghwang.debate@gmail.com

(PF / LD) I flow the entire round / send me evidence if you call for it - I will read it.

Please send out the full CP / perm text in either the chat or email chain if not sending docs. (If its pdb pdcp idc)

TLDR: I'm a junior- FCAHS '25. I'm a circuit policy debater (I've been both a 2A and 2N) - I'm a two time state champion (PA) and made it to several bid rounds. Generally, I've been in the activity for almost 5 years. I have 1.5 years of PF experience and tried LD twice if that matters.

• Debate in a way that makes you feel the most comfortable and I'll adjudicate it.I think debate should be fun --- I'm pretty chill.
• Tech > truth. Some arguments are stupid. I will vote on any stupid argument if 1. you give me a good reason to vote on it 2. it gets mishandled by the other team.
• I'm fine with speed - I do a fast format - but I'll call "clear" if you're unflowable - I probably won't dock speaks heavily as long as this isn't consistent.
• Being a nice person makes me a nicer judge --- that being said I don't mind "aggressive" cross-ex --- just don't personally insult each other.
• I've been told I give strong visual cues --- If I look confused I'm probably confused. If I'm hiding my face you're probably funny.
• Judging gets boring --- make me audibly laugh and I'll give you a 30.
• I'm lazy; write my ballot for me and I'll boost speaks (i.e. weighing, clear warrants, and judge instruction)
• If neither side weighs anything I'm flipping a coin. [half joke] In all seriousness, I probably default to magnitude over probability.
• I trust you to time yourself - please don't steal prep.
• No argument is too presumptively unfair to answer, and there are no arguments that I will auto-vote down unless they are harmful in some way to the debate space (homophobic, sexist, racist, ableist, etc.)
• Flex prep is cool
• I'm pretty generous with speaks

PF/ LD: Don't assume I have more than general topic knowledge.

Policy: I have extensive topic knowledge.

Online Debate:

If comfortable, I'd heavily prefer that everyone has their cameras on during speaking time. If my camera is not on, do not begin speaking.

PF

• I'm generally fine with speed but if you aren't sending docs please be clear on at least tags & analytics.
• I will vote on whoever had the best clash & warranting on the flow.
• I have more detailed stuff for circuit/prog ppl if you scroll down to the policy section but I'm down to judge anything.
• Don't spend the entire round calling for evidence. It wastes time for me, tab staff, and everyone else - if you're going to do this, I'd rather both teams just send out all of their cards before the round. [note for spring break special - you're probably fine if you call for some ev - this is mostly a PA ick bc it just happens every 30s.]
• Lying about evidence that doesn't exist is an automatic 0 and loss for the offending team if called out - I don't know when this became a norm for PF in PA but it happens HORRENDOUSLY often.

LD

• I don't have much experience here so I'll judge it like policy, but if you want a traditional LD round let me know.
• In that case cross apply the stuff under PF.
• Even in a traditional round winning framework doesn't auto-win you the round.
• Trix are for kids. I will vote on trix. [side-eye]

Parli

• I have done this event maybe once - cross-apply stuff about warranting above
• You should answer at least one POI.

Congress

• Idk why tab would put me here but if that happens treat me like a parent / lay judge.

Note for Spring Break Special:

Anything beyond this point is probably not worth reading unless you really want to know the minutia about what I think about specific arguments. Probably the only thing relavant is I'm not the best judge for a KvK debate. Don't sweat it if everything sounds like gobbledygook - if you made it this far, you're already doing great by reading the paradigm! Good luck and have fun! :))

Policy

• Spreading is good. Not spreading is good. Do whatever makes you most comfortable. (But I will dock speaks if 1. you spread when your opponents asked you not to and 2. are SUPER unclear and don't send analytics [most ppl are fine so don't sweat it])

Affs:

• Policy affs are good K affs are good.
• I'm not a great judge for KvK debate based on experience but I don't have any bias against it.

Case

• C/A everything above about proper warranting
• I love impact turns and case turns!
• Your case is your baby don't drop it - Rajeev Godse
• Breaking on paper is cool

Framework

• Clash > education > fairness

Theory

• Run 736413 condo off or read condo bad in the 2ar neither offend me - the team that debates the best wins. That being said I think condo is good at a truth level.
• Hiding ASPEC is cowardice. I will vote on dropped ASPEC.
• I probably won't vote for out of round abuse (i.e. callouts)
• I might vote on misgendering if it happens in round multiple times.
• I will vote for spreading theory only if both teams agreed not to spread before the round (but you still have to extend it in the 2nr / 2ar)

Topicality

• I love a good T debate!
• I probably want a card doc for this

Disads

• Impact calc + turns case are probably the most important on this flow
• I don't think you can ever truly zero the case page (unless they cleanly drop the da ig) so tell me how risk of disad outweighs risk of case
• warrants & recency matter more than card volume for the link & uniqueness debate --- if the debate comes down to this I'll probably ask for a card doc.

Counterplans

• I'm a pretty good judge for advanced competition arguments & theory
• "weird" CPs are cool - try me
• I love process CPs!
• please send perm texts

Kritiks

• Ks are cool - I personally like policy aff v. one off K debates a lot.
• Run anything high theory at your own risk - I probably don't have that much topic knowledge.

If you made it this far:

Good luck and have fun! If all of this sounds like gobbledygook to you, don't sweat it - you're already doing great by reading the paradigm! :))

HEPHZIBAH IBUKUN

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at the University OF ILORIN studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

Winston Churchill '25 -- 3 years of mostly PF

Put me on the email chain, my email is cameroningramdebate@gmail.com

Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have

most of this is taken from Vivek Yarlagedda, Ishan Dubey, and Ilan Benavi

TDLR: Tech PF Judge

---PREFS---

LARP -- 1

Theory -- 2

Plans/Counterplans -- 2

Topical Kritiks -- 3

Non-T Kritiks -- 4

High Theory/Phil, Performance, etc -- 5 (Strike)

---GENERAL---

Tech > Truth

Truth is largely determined by the technical debating in round. Debate is a game about persuasion. I am most persuaded by arguments. Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge is usually a safe bet, though not a lock. Conceded arguments are "true" per se, but only the conceded parts. "Even if" arguments and cross-applications are fair game. This should go with out saying but I will not vote on an argument that I cannot make sense of or explain back to you, even if dropped.

Prep Time

Don't steal it. Flex prep is fine. Clarification questions are flex prep.

Signposting

Signposting is crucial, especially for messier rounds. Judge instruction is also super helpful and highly valued (how to evaluate the round, when/whether I should grant new arguments, if I should gut-check or err one way or another, etc).

Cross

Cross ex is binding but you need bring up relevant concessions in a speech (it can be brief, don't waste time re-inventing the wheel). I'll likely listen to cross ex but will not flow it. Open cross and skipping GCX are good.

Weighing

Resolve clashing link-ins/pre-reqs/short circuits -- otherwise I'll most likely have to intervene to resolve it.I'll be sad and you'll be mad.

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Defense

Frontline in second rebuttal -- everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

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

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," I'll be a little disappointed.

Evidence Ethics/Exchange/Thoughts

Send speech docs before you speak. This is non-negotiable for national circuit tournaments and entails, at a minimum, sending all evidence you plan on introducing. If you choose to send "specific pieces of evidence", I will not stop your opponents from stealing prep in the meantime.

Use an email chain, preferably, speechdrop, or tab for exchange. Don't send google docs, especially if you intend on disabling the option to copy and/or download. Long evidence exchanges are a huge pet peeve. The quicker and smoother the round, the better.

Marking docs doesn't require prep. Using accessible formatting on verbatim or sending rhetoric is fine so long as the cards are included as well, though I think that sending rhetoric may be a violation of some shells.

Evidence matters a lot to me. Debate is a researched-based activity. Evidence/warrant comparison plays a huge part in most of my decisions. Do it so I don't have to.

None of this is to say don't make make analytics.Sound analytics can be very convincing, especially when used to exploit inevitable gaps in logic. Smart arguments and strategic decision-making can absolutely beat quality evidence. That said, I may not catch nor vote on incredibly blippy analytics.

I encourage you to stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating NSDA and/or tournament evidence rules (generally clipping, fabrication, straw-manning, ellipses). If there is a rule against something and you are not willing to stake the round, it will be difficult to convince me that the practice merits a loss. That said, rules are a still a floor, not a ceiling.

Other

I'll probably always have done some research on the topic, but still explain jargon.

Absent warrants, I'll presume first due on non-fiated topics, and status quo on fiated topics. No new presumption warrants in final focus though, make sure they're in summary.

Winning zero-risk is not impossible but will usually require solid explanation and/or evidence.

Speak at whatever rate you want so long as you are comprehensible, most people think they are clearer than they are. I was a fast-ish debater but appreciate the slow-and-steady approach. Fast or slow, pen time is nice.Do not sacrifice clarity. Slowing down on analytics and for emphasis, especially in back-half speeches, tends to be helpful. If you spread, please read real taglines (thus, additionally, etc. don't count) and actual cards otherwise flowing will be difficult and your speaker points will decrease.

I stop flowing when the timer hits 0. Time yourselves and call each other out.

I think long case extensions are bad for clash, so I have a very low threshold for extensions, BUT, they must be very clear. Ex. "We're going for our argument on X". Answering turns on arguments you're not going for is a must, however you chose to do that. I do think that extensions of things that are not case do require slightly more in depth extensions -- think turns, defense, etc, but not to the same extent as other judges. Things like impact turns and Ks do not need explicit extensions unless you want to clarify the link story for me.

If you want to read a complex/wacky argument, just be read to defend and explain it (especially the latter). You'd be surprised at how often you can win rounds on "untrue" arguments, so it's disappointing to hear such arguments read solely for comedic effect.Being strategic and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Well-warranted impact turns are often strategic: democracy, growth, food prices, climate change, disease, etc. Please supplement these with impact defense and interact with your opponent's impact evidence/explanation if you go this route. Arguments like spark are fine, arguments like wipeout are questionable.

Please label email chains clearly. Ex. "Grapevine R1 -- Winston Churchill IM (Aff 1st) vs Southlake Carroll RY (Neg 2nd)".

---PROGRESSIVE---

Theory

I prefer binary theory debates over semantical ones. I will probably ask myself: "Is X practice enough for Y team to lose the round?" Avoid theory as a crutch. I am not a good judge for frivolous theory. In elimination rounds especially, you have to win substantial offense to convince me that it is more important than substance. Substance crowd-out is absolutely an impact and one that I will implicitly consider. Lack of a CI is not always round-ending, especially if you plan on impact turning the shell; I will simply assume that you are defending the violation/status quo. Shoe and Team Sweater theory is friv, hyper-specific disclosure shells and must not send Google docs are not.

Defaults: Text > Spirit, CI > Reasonability, yes OCIs (non-negotiable), no RVIs (a turn or anything of the sort is not an RVI), DTA, DTD doesn't need to be explicitly said or extended -- a warrant for why something is a voter/reject the team/debater is sufficient.

Paraphrasing is bad. It will be hard to convince me otherwise. I will not directly penalize you for paraphrasing if it is not an issue in the round or unless evidence is egregiously misrepresented, in which case speaker points will suffer and you may lose. Bracketing can be just as bad as paraphrasing. If you bracket, do so in good faith. If there is a theory debate, intent matters. The only difference with paraphrasing in terms of penalization is if there is clearly excessive bracketing then I will decrease speaker points and call you out.

Disclosure is probably good and open-sourcing is probably the best way to do so. I do not think OS qualifies as semantical. If you read disclosure without open-sourcing, it will be a harder sell. More broadly, reading disclosure with bad disclosure practices is a colossal risk.

You only need a Content Warning if discussing something something graphic, but I do not personally think that the absence of a CW should be an in-round voting issue and opt-outs definitely aren't.

I don't love "IVIs" (short procedural arguments are different) but will vote on them if they are presented as a complete argument and won. If the abuse is clear and obvious, an "IVI" will suffice, though I strongly dislike the term.

I will never vote for call-outs, ad-homs, or arguments based on things outside of the round that are non-verifiable (I think disclosure is different but not all circumstances surrounding it). If there is an in-round issue, that's a different story.

The K

I'm interested by these arguments but do not have an amazing understanding of most of them.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Be very clear on what voting for you does and what the links are, especially if fully non-T.

"Conceding" the text of a ROB does not mean the round is over: creative weighing under a conceded ROB is welcome.

Reject alts and discourse alts are probably fake, but I will vote on them if won. I'm pretty flexible with extra-topical alternative/method strategies, which I think is needed for a well-executed K in PF. (pls do that; ontological revisionism > reject capitalism)

I will never vote for arguments precluding your opponents from linking in or "we said it first".

Framework and T-FW are pretty persuasive to me. Theory uplayers the K but I can be convinced otherwise.

Framing/ROTB

I default to util and will evaluate basic framing (think Fem, SV, etc). Anything more complex is out of my realm, but I'll listen to anything.

Plans/Counterplans

I've run them before, I think they're good, but I'm probably pretty lenient in terms of responses. If it's a natcirc, I don't care about the rule that bans them, if it's NSDA districts or nats, you might be able to sneak it in but I probably won't eval it.

Won't work on "on balance" resolutions, but if it's a fiated policy topic, go for it I guess.

Tricks

I won't evaluate anything I don't understand and my knowledge on these falls off a cliff once you go past "predictions fail" to "dogmatism paradox", but in general, probably just don't.

---EXTRA---

After Round

I will disclose who I voted for unless there is a rule against it. There will always be some explanation on the ballot.

Speaker points are my decision (I will not give everyone 30s because you asked) but I will try to standardize them as much as possible. I will base speaker points off of the event norms, strategy, coherence, argument quality, increments, and tournament (local, national).

Post-round/ask questions. Doing so is educational, holds judges accountable, and makes debate more transparent. Being upset is fine, just don't make it personal.

Speaks

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor.

---NON PF EVENTS---

The PF paradigm applies, I do almost exclusively PF, but I'm not super unfamiliar with a lot of policy arguments, LD is the event I'm least familiar with.

Main difference to note is counterplans, read them, go for them, but be sure to explain them. Theory is a valid response to a lot of things, i.e. process CPs, mostly.

Hi, I’m Amit! I’m a PF debater at Brooklyn Tech. I’m not too picky, but there are a few things I prefer!

email: amitkakumanu2009@gmail.com

(credit to Emma Smith for parts of this!)

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. I feel like explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Do all the good debate things! Do comparative weighing, warrant your weighing, collapse, frontline, etc.

-- Warrants and full link chains are important! I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round and won't do the work for you on warrants/links. Please do not assume I know everything just because I've probably judged some rounds on the topic.

- I won't read speech docs, so please don't sacrifice speed for clarity.

- I have a really low threshold and 0 tolerance for being rude, dismissive, condescending, etc. to your opponents. I'm not afraid to drop you for this reason.

Evidence-

- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Stuff-

- I'll vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents. (I am admittedly not a fan of K's but will vote on them if I absolutely must.)

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse and reserve the right to drop you for frivolous theory. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a content warning before the round.

TLDR: tech over truth u do u

Disclosure: Use speech drop or email @roydebate2@gmail.com

Speaks ova:
Your starting speak for me is 27.5 lowest I'll give you is 25 and highest is 30


You can lose speaks if you abuse your opponent too much.

Prefs

PF: All arguments are fun more specific bellow; not exactly the best judge for trix and K's but I can handle it
Spreading: u do u
Trix: Line by line it please
K's: Cool ????
Theory/T: Love them favorite types of argument, cool with friv as well i dont think any theory is friv until disproven
FW: Nice and simple
Standing or sitting; I do not care if you sit or stand

Random stuff

Do not ask "can i have the first question" in cross if you're the 1ac or nc or its 25 speaks

Defense is not sticky

Extensions aren't the be all end all unless its a close debate, their purpose is to break clash not be a voter

30 speaks if ur not wearing formal clothing, can we like leave that in the past we are fr the only event that spams suits atp

Do not:

Too abusive: eg. if it's your opponent is a newer debater don't read 5 offs, spread, 3 t-shells and FW, just win by skill rather than being fugazi as hell

think im presuming 1st speaking team, I err neg unless given presumption args(heavily urge u to spend 3 seconds of ur speech reading one if its a close round u wouldn't believe how many good debates collpase down to that on 3 judge panels for the flay trust bruv)

this list will grow over time

Thats all, extra info below if u want

Here are some debaters that I like and agree with- refer to them if you want more info, i was taught debate by all of them to some extent and therefore share similar views. I consider these 3 quotes some of the best advice any debater can take.

Joseph Nahas

"If you want to dump responses on the flow, I respect that, but I HIGHLY SUGGEST that you don't spam under-warranted and blippy analytics. Conversely, I LOVE warranted, smart, and efficient analytics. Good analytics are underrated :)"

Martand Bhagavatula

"any argument introduced in rebuttal, for example, must be fully flushed out/warranted in the rebuttal speech. If something's under-warranted in rebuttal, and your opponents call you out for that, you can't go up in summary and say: "they say there's no warrant, but here's the warrant:" and explain it in detail for the first time. With that in mind, explanations should stay constant. They can't get more in-depth throughout the round, nor can they really be less in-depth, with the former essentially prompting the formulation of a new argument, and the latter hurting your odds of winning'"

Gabe Rusk

"Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want."

(TL;DR I am a tech judge, not a huge ran of theory or k and please extend properly if you want an argument evaluated in the round)

Hi! I am Steven (he/him) and I am a current Junior Varsity PF debater at Brooklyn Tech.

Add me to the email chain: slinkh5657@bths.edu

If you send speech docs with fully cut cards (for constructive and rebuttal) to minimize calling cards time (and add me to the email chain), +1 speaks

Here are just some of my preferences:

General

I am a tech > truth judge 99% of the time, which means that I flow everything throughout the round, even if I know it isn't true.

Please don't spread. I can handle a little speed, but not too fast, or else that will probably impact your speaks. Just speak thoroughly and clearly and you'll be happy with your speaks.

Don't worry, I will not flow crossfire, unless something that occurred in crossfire gets brought up in another speech. The only time I'll flow cross is if there is something I didn't get when flowing and its a clarifying question.

If you want a pic of my flow just ask after the round ends and I'll be more than happy to send it to you.

Please use all of your speech time, that's extremely important.

Constructive

• HAVE IMPACTS!!!
• Please don't run prog arguments - I'm not super familiar with them, with the exception of a Cap K. Also if your going to run theory, be VERY CLEAR about it, because I'm not super duper familiar with that either
• I'm fine with Frameworks - I've ran them a buncha times. If there is no framework or your framework isn't extended throughout the round, I default to utilitarianism, the most good for the most number of people

Rebuttal

• Signpost please
• Give me an off-time roadmap from here on forward, because it helps me as a judge. The second thing I love after signposting is off-time roadmaps and if you do them, you'll get good speaks. (If you don't know what this is just ask me before the round and I can tell you/teach you how to do one)
• For second rebuttal speaker, I would suggest sticking to frontlining -> refuting, but whatever works for you, just please signpost

Summary

• Extend your points from Constructive and Rebuttal otherwise it doesn't make it onto the flow and doesn't factor into my decision
• I'd prefer you collapse, just to make the round less messy and to give you more time in final focus to weigh (this is just something I like to do - I really highly suggest it)
• This is the latest in the round to start impact weighing. If you don't I will be very, very sad.

Final Focus

• Really, just tell me why you won the round
• Write my RFD for me and make sure to do impact weighing

Be respectful of your opponents and have fun in the debate round. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. Also, if you make me laugh or make a minions reference, +1 speaks. Also if you reference the movie up + .5 speaks.

Last thing, I enjoy a great clash on arguments throughout the round. If there is a lot of clash, I will give high speaks to everyone in the debate round. Have fun and if you have any questions don't be afraid to ask me, because after all, this is all a learning experience.

PLEASE RUN THEORY
father ove 2

english no goode

just kame two america

age of ate

i luv ramen

bring me kup nudo ore food, +3 speaker poynt

MUST: SEND SPEECH DOCS

plz run theory, idc frivolous

I luv debaters hoo talk at 5000 wpm

i kankot hando a 1word/4min speeych <-- it two fast

goode at numbberz

bye "nukelier war goode" argooments

link waying>empact waying

Make debate fun

Policy: This is my expertise, I debate policy all 4 years of high-school, went to state two years, and went to nationals once. I also participated in Parley debate for my freshman year in college. So I am really relaxed on my paradigms. I would say that while I appreciate the Stock Issues structure of policy debate, I am totally fine and encourage critical debates and critical affirmatives. I am fine with speed, if for some reason you speak too fast for me (which is rare) I will yell clear and put my pen down if you do not slow down after. I do not like topicality as it takes away from education and the debate itself, it is a weak argument and it is boring to sit through a debate that consists of going back and forth about a definition about the meaning of "should". I also do not prefer CP's. My reasoning behind that is that it is normally just the same as the affirmative, just with a different actor and then we are just left with a conversation about who is the better actor. Its fine to run, I would just rather engage in different conversations. At the end of the round you should have given me a framework to view the round and several voters. I will not connect dots and do the work on the flow for you. So that means give me an impact calc, give me voters, give me a framework, and extend all arguments you want me to weigh in the round.

PF: I do not have any PF experience, but I have judged several PF rounds in the past couple of years. I do not have any specific paradigms but I will say be civil, explain things as if someone who has not ever heard a debate in their life, and do not spread. Just give me a framework to vote on! I will not do the work for you, so do it for me.

LD: I have competed in LD once in high-school and understand the structure. While in policy I am all for critical debates, I am fairly traditional in LD. I do not like this sudden merge that is occurring in LD right now between LD and policy. If there are any policy-based arguments in LD (Kritiks, CPs, DA's, T's, etc.) I am going to be REALLLY skeptical in voting for you IF you do not run it correctly. Also, I do not understand very well the significance in running a CP, DA or T argument in LD, so if it is something you WANT me to vote for, walk me through it all the way. I will not do the work on the flow for you and I need you to give me a framework to vote on. Also, voters at the end of the debate are huge musts. The fundamental basis of LD is to engage in a conversation about morals and ethics. So, lets save the CX type arguments for the CX'ers. I want to see a value and criterion, how they A) Uphold the resolution and B) how they link with all of your contentions.

As a former competitor turned judge my two biggest paradigms are etiquette and resolution debates. I really dislike when the whole debate turns into semantics over one single card or one single point. I appreciate when participants can uphold their voters and/or prove why their clash took down points. I will always try to give a lot of feedback for my reasons for judging in every round to help participants understand anything specific they can improve. The biggest way to sway me is to keep the resolution throughout the flow.

What my scoring means:

26- needs improvement

27- close to average/average

28-above average.

29-little improvement needed

30-almost no improvement needed

***If you receive a 25 or below, you have done something that has been a noteworthy violation of rules or etiquette.***

For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too. I’m a flat judge with experience in judging PF, LD and a few other speech events. He/Him pronouns.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

Hey there

My name is Olowookere Ganiyat (she/her). I am an undergraduate of University of Ilorin, Nigeria. Ihave experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have some experiences as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: olowookereganiyat15@gmail.com

Conflicts: I don't have any

As a judge and educator, I prioritize creating an empowering learning environment for participants while providing valuable feedback. I value fairness, equity, and respectful engagement during discussions, and I encourage debaters to present their arguments thoughtfully and engage with opposing viewpoints respectfully.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATION FOR ONLINE SETTINGS

In virtual debate settings, I emphasize clear and audible communication, I urge participants to ensure their microphone works well and to maintain an appropriate speaking pace.I understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Best wishes

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

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

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

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

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s have a great time!

Hi, I'm Bohan

PF debater for 3 years on a mostly trad circuit, but i know how to evaluate prog. However, BE CAREFUL and run at your own risk, I am from a trad circuit.

Feel free to ask me about my paradigm before round

tech > truth

SPEAKING

idc if you go fast but if not audible it will not be flowed

if you're gonna spread send speech doc or email chain so i can follow

ROUND EVAL

extend properly; if anything isn't extended well and that's called out by opps in subsequent speech, that's terminal defense, i will not evaluate whatever was improperly extended

weigh properly; do the comparative dont just say ow on magnitude, i like metaweighing

wont evaluate anything dropped(once extended as dropped, if actually dropped will not be evaluated)

PROG

i will evaluate most theory but it has to be run well or i wont vote off of it

not super familiar will all k's, you should probably explain super well to me

make presumption args so you don't lose on presumption

no tricks

dont run in bad faith on novs, debate is supposed to be accessible; i will evaluate cant engage responses if i feel you are making it impossible for the opponents to engage and participate in the debate

most likely will not vote on explicit depictions of possibly triggering topics ie gendered violence, mental health, etc.

GEN

content warnings are appreciated

i will intervene or end round on content warning shell if i find it reasonable

if evidence unclear and highly contested i will call and make decision

happy to disclose if that doesn't violate tournament rules

have fun!

overall

Hi, I'm logan Preston, I have 3 years of high school debate experience, and I'm a current junior at Bryan Station High School. I hold crossfires and final focus in high regard. so if you're not very clear in your responses, I will not flow it. second off I like speakers that take charge of the debate. but overall just have fun that is the most important thing.

speech

if you speak fast, send me the speech beforehand so I can more easily flow. but don't go too fast to where your opponents can't understand you and in that case, I won't flow it.

quality of life

make sure you are quickly presenting evidence cards when asked and if you are having technology problems just tell me and I will act accordingly.

hope to see you in the debates,

add me to the email chain: brask225@gmail.com

tech > truth

3 yrs of pf on nat cir (so far)

general:

keep offtime roadmaps short

theory is good, but you have to send a doc. im not good at evaluating k's so its probably safer not to read them on me

send a doc if you are going to spread, but im not going to flow off it - if i have to say clear more than twice ill stop flowing

if an argument isn't responded to in the next speech it's conceded, with the exception of second constructive unless first constructive gives a warrant otherwise (this means second rebuttal has to frontline everything or its conceded)

analytics are good if they have warrants; simply saying "they don't read evidence" isn't a sufficient frontline; warranted ev > warranted analytic > unwarranted ev > unwarranted analytic

speaks start at 28.5 and go up or down for how well you do what i ask in my paradigm

if you are going to concede defense to kick out of a turn, you have to say explicitly what responses you are conceding and how it takes out their turn -- doesn't have to be more than 5 seconds AND it has to come in the speech after the defense was read

evidence:

pls have cut cards and read paraphrasing theory

set up an email chain before round ; if you take more than a minute to find one piece of evidence, your speaks will tank

likewise, don't call for an unnecessary amount of evidence; if i think you're stealing prep while calling for evidence, ill dock your speaks a lot

to avoid all this, if you send all the cards you read before your constructive and rebuttal ill give you +1 speaks

backhalf:

please collapse

if you want it to be on my ballot it has to be extended with a warrant in summary and final

defense isn't sticky

extend all parts of an argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) in the backhalf, theory shells must be extended in rebuttal

if you go for a link turn, extend the impact. if you go for an impact turn, extend the link. otherwise, i'm not voting on it.

pls weigh, metaweigh, and respond to their weighing so i know what to vote for, otherwise i dont know how to evaluate the round

我会评估任何事情，只是不要让这一轮变得烦人/困难 将我添加到链中： pranav_ravulapati@caryacademy.org 或有时这很慢，所以也添加 caryprdebate@gmail.com 以防万

Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current junior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success on the local and national circuit. I've had a good amount of experience as well.

Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.

I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

I evaluate the weighing first. Once I determine which team is winning the weighing, I look at their case first. If that team is also winning their case, the round is over. If that team is losing their case, I will presume for the team that is speaking first. I make this notion because first summary and final focus are objectively the hardest speeches in the round. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to make presumption warrants and I will evaluate them.

General:

I am mostly fine with speed. If you start going over 215 words per minute, please send a speech doc before you start the speech.

Please make evidence exchange quick. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to send a piece of evidence, I'm striking it from the flow.

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

Feel free to read whatever you want as long as it's not excluding anyone. Make sure to give warrants for every argument that you're reading.

Rebuttal:

Feel free to read how many ever overviews/advantages/disadvantages in rebuttal. The only rule I have about that is being clear. It becomes a line where I prefer quality over quantity. Collapsing in second rebuttal is also cool.

Summary & Final Focus:

These are the most important speeches in the round, so it's important that you do them right. Extend your arguments properly."Extend Kumar 23" isn't a proper extension. Please weigh. Please make your weighing comparative. Please make sure that you respond to all weighing in round. These speeches also must mirror each other. I will not evaluate anything new.

Progressive Argumentation:

I would highly prefer that you do not read progressive argumentation. I do not believe that I have the sufficient ability to evaluate progressive argumentation to a high extent.

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

30: Referencing the Seattle Seahawks or anything related with cricket.

30: Referencing Kanye West, Juice Wrld, Playboi Carti, or Lil Tecca in speech. (Send song recommendations too).

Some of the debaters that have shaped my view of debate are Vedant Misra, Marcus Novak, Anmol Malviya, Ryan Jiang, and William Hong. Read any of their paradigms if you have any questions or preferences related to substance.

I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views about a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in room.

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a graduate of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria and I have experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, Policy, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have solid experience as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

Even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

MY PARADIGM.

Welcome to the Debate Arena!

Judge Profile: Salman Opeyemi Sulaiman

About Me:

I bring over a decade of expertise as a debater, judge, and coach. My passion lies in nurturing analytical skills and fostering intellectual discourse within the framework of debate. While I prioritize substance over style, both are essential for a compelling argument. I also prioritise a constructive characterisation in terms of setting up a debate motion, before going into argument as this lay the foundation to your entire case. I have a highly intellectual knowledge in the debate circuit, which is not only limited or circular to parliamentary debate, world school debate (WSL), public forum, among other policy debates. My experienced approach emphasizes fair pacing and attentive listening in delivering an effective evaluation and scrutiny in debate rounds.

Contact Information:

Reach me at: salmanopeyemi564@gmail.com

Conflicts:

No conflicts to declare, as I posses none.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A STRONG DEBATE:

Critics:

A well-articulated critic can be a game-changer, but relevance to the debate topic is paramount. Clear explanation of links, impacts, and alternatives enhances persuasiveness. Connect the critic to the broader narrative and use real-world examples for clarity. Ensure adherence to debate format rules and engage in dialogue during cross-examination for clarification.

Policy:

Master deep research, effective evidence usage, clear argument structure, adaptability, and strong cross-examination skills for success. Craft questions strategically during cross-examination to highlight weaknesses and gather information. Focus on arguments with strategic relevance, prioritize clarity over speed, and aim for quality over quantity.

Speaker Points:

Substantive contributions and meaningful clash are key to earning speaker points. Utilize evidence effectively, make further analysis, which may include impactful weighing and comparisons and consider re-highlighting at a point when it adds value to your argumentation.

JUDGE'S PERSPECTIVE

Qualities I Value:

Active listening, objective evaluation, striving for excellence, inquisitive mentality, open-mindedness, confident delivery, and readiness to defend positions.

Impact Weighing:

I evaluate arguments based on their impact, relevance and significance. Effective impact weighing can sway the outcome of the debate and even produce more clarity on which resolution is the best. Give due attention to impact weighing in your speeches to bolster your position and influence the judge’s decision.

FINAL REMARKS:

Regular practice, seeking feedback, and continuous improvement are essential for honing debating skills. Remember to prioritize substance, engage in thoughtful discourse, and enjoy the debating experience.

Thank you for your dedication to delivering high-quality and impactful debates.

Best regards,

Salman Opeyemi Sulaiman.

send speech docs

2x pf toc qual, couple of bids, not very familiar with theory/k's but am willing to evaluate them, will presume 1st if not offense, also did speech & WSD, and ran a few tournaments here and there

I flow

Hello! I'm Angad, I'm a Junior and I debate on the national circuit and it's my 2nd year in debate.

Email Chain: (angadkv1225@gmail.com) Send speech docs with cut cards

you can call me whatever idc judge is fine if you want

FOR MSTOC

No pressure, just take a deep breath and try your best! If you don't understand everything in this paradigm that is ok, here is a simplified version. If you are more experienced feel free to scroll to the bottom. I debated the topic so I have some experience and I'll evaluate any argument you give me as long as it is warranted.

For Novices

1. Extend the argument you want to go for, by this I mean repeat the idea of the argument again which includes claim warrant impact, this is important because I need to know which argument you are going for in the round and why to vote on it.

1. Do Comparative weighing between your argument and your opponent's case. If you just say "We outweigh on magnitude" that doesn't give me a good comparison between you and your opponent's argument. A better example would be "We outweigh on magnitude because nuclear war causes extinction which outweighs the impact of a recession in the US because that harms significantly fewer people and leads to far fewer deaths". (This will make your chances of winning 10x higher and make the job easier for me as a judge.

1. Warrant everything. In PF debaters usually forget to warrant most of their responses and arguments, I need a warrant to fully evaluate it, by warrant I mean a reason for why it is true. Imo warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > unwarranted analytics

Signpost. By this I mean tell me where you are in your speech, i.e "on their c1" "on their weighing". This will help me flow better so i can evaluate your arguments cleanly without missing anything.

TLDR

• Tabula Rasa Tech > Truth (to an extent)

• If you win the weighing debate you win the round, but please do good and comparative weighing, so I don't have to intervene.

• Signpost, It makes everything easier on the flow.

• Speed is fine but send docs

• Send speech docs for case and rebuttal with cut cards before you speak

• Extend properly (link, uq, impact)

• I stop flowing 3 seconds after times up

General

• I presume neg if there is no offense in the round unless given warrants to do otherwise. If the round is a progressive round, I presume the team that spoke first.

• If something is dropped in 2nd rebuttal then it can't be in summary.

• New Weighing in the 2nd summary is fine, but there is no new weighing in either of the FFs. Except new metaweighing is fine in 1st FF.

• No new responses in FF

• If both teams agree we can skip grand cross and I'll give 1 minute of prep.

• I default to Util/CBA as a framework unless given a framework.

• You must read trigger warnings if your case contains sensitive content. This is to make the debate space safe and accessible

Evidence

• Don’t take too long with evidence exchanges, please.
  
  

• You MUST read from cut cards, no paraphrasing, that is the only ethical way to present evidence in PF.
  
  

• Refer to NSDA rules for more.
  
  

• I rarely will call for evidence unless it's the center point of the round.
  
  

• Send speech docs with cut cards, however, you don’t need to send analytics.
  
  

Prefs:

• I'm a flow judge so I will be flowing. Tech > Truth to an extent, I'll evaluate whatever you put on the flow unless it is blatantly false or is severely unwarranted. I won't intervene.

• I tend to ignore Cross, but please try to be respectful.

• I prefer if you go line by line (grouping responses is fine too) but it's just helpful on the flow.

• Collapse, extend well, and SIGNPOST, please. You can go for 2-3 args if you want but please fully extend them (extend claim warrant impact)

• A few well-warranted arguments > a bunch of blippy arguments, if you are missing crucial warrants it's hard for me to evaluate your argument, even if I am tech >truth you still need a warrant.

• I'm okay with speed, I can flow up to 300 wpm but send docs to me and your opponents for case and rebuttal to make it fair.

• Don't be blatantly rude or I will lower your speaks. Racism/sexism/homophobia will result in me auto-dropping you with the lowest speaker points I can give.

• I'm fine if you whisper to your partner mid-speech i.e. summary but I won't evaluate what is said unless it is said by you.

[How I evaluate the round]

• I see if both teams are winning their arguments. If one team is winning and another team is losing, I'll end up looking at the team that wins. If both teams fully extend and get full access to their offence. I then look at the weighing debate.

• The weighing debate is what my ballot comes down to, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because nuclear war causes extinction" Please do good comparative weighing. Metaweighing is great and can help me decide my ballot faster and I will boost speaks for good weighing/metaweighing.

• Extend defense on your opponent's case and explain why it's terminal or why they lose their arguments, if you are winning your case and weighing the ballot can be easier for me to decide.

• You should be getting full access to your offense for the weighing to matter, for example, if your opponent is extending defence you concede saying "Nuclear war won't happen", I won't evaluate your “magnitude weighing” since you aren't winning the argument.

Prog

I treat theory as the highest layer. So generally theory up-layers substance and the K.

Theory

• I won’t evaluate theory on the local circuit

• Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad

• Default to Competing Interps > reasonability unless convinced otherwise

• Default to No RVIS unless convinced otherwise

• I won't evaluate blatantly friv theory and I will tank your speaks.

• You need to read a CI or we meet after the speech theory was read or you don't have offense on the theory layer.

• If I'm judging at a camp tournament, please do not read prog on novices/inexperienced prog debaters, it's unfair, and I will drop you with 25 speaks. But If both teams agree to a theory debate I will evaluate it.

Ks

• Limited experience with them.

• If you choose to read one, do it at your own risk because I'm not the best at evaluating them.

• I won't evaluate performance/nontopical Ks so please don't read them.

Please do not read tricks.

Speaks

• Starts at 28 and goes up and down from there.

• If you're blatantly rude I will lower speaks.

• I'll boost speaks based on good strategic decisions in the round.

• I'll boost speaks if you do anything funny. i.e

• If you do a 360 when reading a turn

• Funny contention/tagline names

• Make jokes

• If you say "The earth is flat at" the start and end of every speech instead of "we affirm/negate, thus we affirm/negate"

After Round

• I will disclose if both teams are alright with it and If the tournament allows it.

• I believe postrounding is good since it holds judges accountable so if you want to postround feel free I won't tank speak but please try not to get too heated.

No pressure, it's just Debate. Good Luck and have fun!

hi.

im prisha and i've been doing PF for about 4 years now

you can speak fast if you'd like but please keep it in moderation. its not that cool to speak fast anyway

FOR PF:

add me to the email chain for cards: prishavora@gmail.com

please please please weigh and extend your arguments or else I cannot vote for them

things that will get you 30 speaks (your speeches also have to good)

• make a reference to formula 1 in any speech
• flow with a sharpie

things I don't tolerate: just like all other judges, under any circumstances do not be racist, sexist, etc.

please DONT

• dont do offtime roadmaps
• dont spend a crazy amount of time sending cards

just a heads up I do not flow cross but I do listen and will note if anything very major happens like if someone contradicts their own argument. also I do like heated crossfire but please be respectful. push yourself to ask questions that point out flaws in your opponents case. don't ask questions that don't help the debate or move it forward.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me why you win the debate and why your opponents don't or else you give me more of a decision to make which might not favor you at the end of the day.

if you have any question about my reason for decision or if you want any personal feedback please ask during round, but in any case if anything comes up after the rounds you can email me @: prishavora@gmail.com