Tabroom.com

Barkley Forum for High Schools

2025 — Atlanta, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Henry Anastasi-Scott Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 12:05 PM EDT

- I truly believe hacking or even small acts of bias are the worst for the activity. I would drop my closest friend in toc finals if they lost the flow. I'm not worth the strike if you are concerned about that

- I have learned the most in debate from asking judges dozens of questions about things I didn't understand in their paradigm. If you have any questions, feel free to ask before or after the round!

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

Add me to the chain: Henryanastasiscott@gmail.com

Henry Anastasi (He/him/his) Debated PF at J. R. Masterman HS for four years; I currently coach PF and LD

PF PARADIGM (LD paradigm below)

TLDR-Tech>Truth, set up an email chain and send speech docs IN THE CHAIN WITH ME AND YOUR COMPETITOR (not Google docs).

General

tech>truth, that doesn't mean saying 'the sky is red' has as much legitimacy as 'the sky is blue'; however, if 'the sky is red' is dropped, it's true
Defense ain't sticky, I don't even know if this has to be said anymore
Quality signposting and delineation of arguments will get you far

Weighing

Weighing will win you rounds
Take both impacts at their fullest and COMPARE
I default to the link into "the most important impact" but am receptive to strength of link claims which you can read about in the section below
"The most important impact" is up to you to establish

Probability weighing (yes, seriously, it is its own heading)

GOOD PROBABILITY WEIGHING GOES IN TANDEM WITH LINK DEFENSE AND GIVES REASONS WHY I SHOULD PREFER PROBABLE ARGUMENTS. You should not let opponents get away with improbable arguments. You just need to make claims as to why they aren't probable in REBUTTAL and make claims as to why probability matters in SUMMARY
That is to say, don't just pull up in summary and FF and say, "We outweigh on probability because (new reason their arg isn't probable)."

Speed

I am good with speed, send docs
You will generally benefit from slower back-half speeches or at least slowing down a bit on weighing and implications
I am reliable on the flow but have some common sense. If you spread through presumption warrants or even just weigh without any delineation, I will miss something (the same thing is true of theory standards).
don't mind spreading through extensions or evidence if I have it in front of me

Theory

I can evaluate theory, make sure you can debate it. Theory becomes hard to resolve if not well executed.
I will not bring a single pre-existing opinion on good or bad norms into the round. I won't hack for any of these issues and will truly vote against you if you are behind on the flow, even if I rock with the norm.
I will give you incredibly low speaks if I get the sense you are using theory to purposely make a round inaccessible, I will vote for you if the flow is won, but if you want speaker awards, watch it. Also, if you're a good debater, you should be able to win a round I'm judging without resorting to making it inaccessible to your competitors, win on merit not tricks.
Drop the debater, and other paradigm issues aren't a given so you need to make those arguments, you absolutely can lose a round where you are ahead on the theory level but don't extend dtd
Clarify if your no rvi warrants apply to offensive responses to the shell, defensive responses to the shell, or both

I can handle them, make sure you're doing good work on the interaction between the k and their case or and responses
I would be honored to be the judge you try new stuff on just remember the same stuff from the speed section applies, be clear and delineate arguments
I don't like when judges say what lit they are familiar with, it's not my job to know, it's your job to explain even if it's fast
good with non-topical/performance just beat the prep out
if you don't follow speech times, I don't need to abide by the procedural fairness of the flow

Fun Stuff

villager has just asked me to remove my last fun thing
there used to be more things here, I guess I'm not that fun anymore :(
please test quirky stuff on me, this is not me saying you'll win, but you'll get lots of feedback and good speaks

Misc

30 speaks theory isn't worth running on me for a couple of reasons 1) I give good speaks 2) I don't believe speaker points are on the flow, the Win/Loss is up to the flow but speaker points operate outside that jurisdiction to me, I reserve the right to use speaks to dissuade debaters from doing things I don't like. This is very unlikely to happen, if you are chill, you'll get great speaks (you can check my judging history to see that).
In the absence of a presumption claim, I will genuinely flip a coin. I don't like saying I'll presume for the first speaking team or anything like that because that is me inserting a presumption warrant into the round
I'll lowkey evaluate a counterplan in pf, the responses to it should come in theory form and not just "its against the rules", explain why following rules matters as well.

For LD

I am still tech over truth
I still expect speech docs with evidence to be sent
I'm still not a super experienced LD judge but I was very technically competent in PF
I maintain that I can evaluate anything, but it is still your responsibility to make the argument correctly
extend in the 1AR 2NR and 2AR (extensions in the 1AR can be brief)
Weigh under your framework if you both access impacts under it or weigh frameworks against one another. If both teams just assert I should value one thing more than the other without any reasoning, I won't know which to prefer
if you want more about my judging prefs the PF paradigm is still probably useful

Suman Annambhotla North Gwinnett High School 3 rounds

Timothy Averill Concord Carlisle High School 12 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:24 PM EDT

I have coached debate since 1971, beginning at Manchester (now Manchester Essex) from 1971-2005, and recently at Waring School from 2005 -2025. I have coached national champions in both policy debate, public forum debate, so I can flow a debate. I also coached the 2024 NSDA National Champion in International Extemporaneous speaking, although I take scant credit for his success, but that fact may explain why I favor fact based public speaking over debate jargon, tricks, and games. I am a "tabula rasa" judge, meaning that I believe that the debaters (and not my personal opinions or delivery preferences) will determine what issues and arguments should win the debate. I grew up in Kansas and debated for Topeka West High School (1962-65), where all judges were citizens of the host community. All of our debate was conducted in front of "citizen judges." That's what I believe is most important in PFD. The event was designed so that it would be persuasive to an intelligent and attentive member of the "public." For that reason, I feel that the delivery, argumentation, and ethos of the debaters should be directly accessible to such an audience. I do agree that dropped arguments are conceded in the debate and that NEW arguments in the final speeches should be ignored. I love it when debaters are directly responsive to the arguments of the other side, letting me know on a point by point basis where they are on the flow. I also honor those debaters who show courtesy to their opponents, who have a sense of humor, and who tell the truth about what they have said. I expect that all evidence will be ethically researched and presented in the debate. I will penalize (with points) any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, or social class. I will always be happy to talk with you about any decision I make as well as to show you my flow and explain how I assessed the debate. I will do this AFTER I have submitted my ballot. In recent years, I have been spending more of my time in tab rooms than judging, but I truly enjoy the time I can spend in the back of the room. In these trying times, you debaters are our hope for the future, naming FACT-BASED arguments about important issues.

Tim Averill (timaverill@comcast.net) 978-578-0540

Sohan Bellam Hire 6 rounds

Alexandria Bergman Research Triangle High School 3 rounds

Brooke Blanton Delbarton School 5 rounds

Matthea Boon Hire 6 rounds

Jamie Brashear Avenues: The World School 3 rounds

Christopher Breuer Brentwood High School 5 rounds

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 5:16 AM EDT

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning, not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event, so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

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

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

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

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

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

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Isaac Chao Bellaire High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 7:47 AM CDT

*TFA STATE NOTE: No PDFs or cards in the body; Word docs only. Also, I will aggressively dock speaks for teams that don't have their timer go off and exceed their speech time.*

Coach at Bellaire High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Heights High School, Archbishop Mitty SM, Cypress Ranch KH, Woodlands SP

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me.

If I'm judging you in PF: bellairedocs.pf@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in LD: bellairedocs.ld@gmail.com

If I'm judging you in Policy: bellairedocs.policy@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, spent 10 years coaching LD, Policy, and WS at Heights High School, am currently a teacher at Bellaire, and coach a variety of debate formats: my program competes through the Texas Forensic Association and the Houston Urban Debate League.

Pref Shortcuts

Policy: 1
T/Theory: 1-2
Phil: 2
Kritik (identity): 2
Kritik (pomo): 3
Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
Tech > Truth
I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them.Please don't send cards in the body of emails; Word docs only. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

I spent much of my career coaching policy debate, so I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations.
I default to no RVIs.
You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters do not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or teams who are genuinely unaware of the wiki.
"If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
I don't judge a terribly large number of clash debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
I default to epistemic confidence.
Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
I don't disclose speaks.
I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:

I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.

If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Phoebe Chung Midtown High School 6 rounds

Ben Coleman Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 12:27 AM EDT

General:

L C Anderson '23, Georgia Tech '27

I competed in PF for 3 years on the national circuit

add me to the email chain: benjamincoleman05@gmail.com

For Emory 2025:

read whatever you want

set up a chain and send speech docs, if you don’t you won’t get above a 28

**this means send whatever you read from in addition to your cards if you aren't reading directly off of your cut cards**

the best debates are fun and interactive. if you’re gonna read stock i especially like when teams put their own unique spin on it, if you want to go for something creative this is probably the round to do it in

if you’re gonna go fast idc but 1) CLARITY is so so important 2) don’t paraphrase 3) actually read your taglines 4) if there’s a lot of short cards pls number your arguments

here’s how my rfds usually look in stock rounds: i vote ____ because they have a risk of link on x argument but the other team conceded x piece of terminal defense so i don’t care if you outweigh. PLEASE don’t do this.

General Things:

tech > truth

do whatever you want as long as you’re not being a horrible person

speed is fine but be clear and don’t spam one sentence cards it’s annoying

i’ll always disclose - feel free to ask questions after i’m done!

SEND DOCS and if you cut out a lot of stuff send a marked doc after your speech. (a google doc does not count)

absent warrants otherwise, i presume first speaking team in pf

speaks will be good. i want you to break

if i'm judging ld or cx just do whatever you normally do but be clear. there is a difference between spreading (clearly) and mumbling, if you can't spread then just don't.

Prefs Guide:

1: substance if you make it fun / interesting / unique

1: T / non friv theory

2: most K (topic specific)

3: performance / non-t aff

4: friv

4: the same debate 6 rounds in a row

5: tricks

Specifics:

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky

i won't evaluate new in the 2 and will attempt to protect first final if necessary

weighing is important but usually optional and i generally don't care as much as some other pf judges that just say oh look weighing let’s vote aff! you need to win the link to win the weighing

link weighing > impact weighing > no weighing

i don't care too much about extensions especially for conceded arguments but you obv still have to do it

impact turns are v fun but you should be extending your opponents link if going for them, if you don’t link i will be very sad :(

super blippy frontlining is impossible to flow especially if you're spreading so try to actually explain things. i have won rounds solely by doing this tho so obv it has its place, do it if you want just make sure i can flow it. also if you say things like "no warrant" i'm holding you to your response, you can't go up and explain why their warrant is false later

i don't flow cx, anything important should be brought up in speech but i do think cx is binding

if both teams agree i'm down to skip gcx for 1 min of prep (doesn't apply to novice pf or split panels)

Evidence + Ethics:

I don’t care about what your evidence says. I do care that both teams are able to engage with it.

if you insist on paraphrasing, at least be honest about it. own it. just fully paraphrase your case. be ready to debate theory though.

a case with 59 bracketed phrases including things like [for third-party moderation] and [unlawful activity] and “to p[reserve] profits” (yes i’ve actually seen this before) is paraphrased. a rhetoric doc with no cards anywhere to be found is paraphrased. i view those things as worse than paraphrasing because you’re being dishonest about it. please don’t lie.

taglines are not one word transitions like “currently” and “thus”, i can’t flow that. these kind of nitpicky things don’t matter as much when you’re going slower but if you’re spreading i need to be able to flow your arguments. saying “and” or “next” between cards or numbering arguments also helps

“rhetoric docs” are stupid and invite clipping bc your cuts usually don’t match the rhetoric. if you read off one of these i’m now requiring that you send both the doc you read from and the carded case to avoid things like this.

do not send me hyperlinks please i can’t look through that and neither can your opponents.

tldr i’ve only ever given one team 25s and it was for doing everything i listed above in one round. if you insist on doing any of this PLEASE strike me.

Progressive Arguments:

my general rule of thumb is: if you're competing in varsity at a real circuit tournament, you should be able to handle progressive debate. anything else and you'll prob lose anyways bc you should get better at subs first

theory: default CI, no RVIs, spirit > text, DTD - read whatever shells you want, i'm very comfy evaluating

i won't inject my personal preferences about debate into theory rounds so you can have a bit of fun with your shells

with that said, here are those preferences (sorry for the wall of text): disclosure is good, full text or cites box only is worse than no disclosure, idc about round reports but i guess if you’re on the bubble you probably would, rebuttals probably should be disclosed as well (every card you read goes in the os doc), spreading theory is really hard to win bc if you’re capable of winning it you’d probably rather just spread some random K you found online, email chains are good, paraphrasing is bad, hyperlinks are bad, bracketing is bad, trigger warnings are bad, opt outs are bad, i have mixed feelings on condo advocacies in pf bc of the time constraints, spec is probably fine unless it’s really abusive (or you can just add some blip probability warrants), i don’t lean either way on T and will listen to plan/counterplan debates in pf, in the past i’ve leaned aff on T-fw but that’s just bc you guys are badly prepared, i’ve also seen some pf teams read non-t stuff on the neg

“but i go to a small school” and “it’s my team policy” are definitely my least favorite theory blocks of all time

theory arguments need voters and some way to deal with paradigm issues, this is why the short blip IVIs are kinda useless imo. reading your theory in paragraph form is fine though

**offensive counterinterps circumvent the RVI debate**

read theory immediately after the violation and answer your opponent's shell in the speech directly after it was read

for theory extensions, bc i get asked this a lot- i don’t require u to extend the entire text of the interp/violation etc in rebuttal like some judges but you should be frontlining and extending specific standards so i at least know what you’re going for

you usually need a brightline for reasonability but if their shell is frivolous it can work

I do not require trigger warnings. i will obv vote on a shell (for either side) but i do not think they improve debate in any way and are just used to exclude certain types of arguments. also it’s the real world triggering stuff happens just don’t be excessively graphic

K: fine just don't expect me to know your lit.

please line by line!!!!

don't spam jargon you don't understand because i likely won't either.

this should be pretty obvious but don't paraphrase your k, you should also def be open sourcing these after they’re read bc they can get super unpredictable and shifty in pf

don’t spread random theory blocks off policy backfiles (you know who you are).

i really like topic-specific k's like cap or sec with big stick impacts but anything is fine as long as you warrant it out. after judging enough shallow pf k rounds i’d like to say i’m a pretty good judge for them so do with that what you will.

k affs are fine but please don't get too heated, i want the round to be enjoyable.

tricks don’t deserve their own section especially because i get put in the pf pool but i hate when teams use truth testing to justify some stupid paradox that makes the world false. also for your opponents’ sake please put them in the doc

to everybody: just have fun. i get it stressful rounds happen just try not to take it too seriously. after judging last year at emory i realized i actually care a lot about how you guys do so i always put time into my decisions and love when teams ask me more questions after round. if you want any advice feel free to contact me whenever and i’ll be happy to help :)

Asema Anna consolini Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 2:48 PM EDT

I used to compete in Congressional debate, HI, DI, Informative, Extemp, Impromptu, and BQD back in high school for four years. I have been judging PF for 5 years now. keep up with prep time

PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose. If you spread I will just stop listening. If the only way I can understand your case is to read it, you have already lost. If I have to read your case then what do I need you in the room for? Email it to me and I can judge the round at home in my jammies - if you are PRESENTING and ARGUING and PERSUADING then I need to understand the words coming out of your mouth!
Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card and please actually connect it to the case.
Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules.
Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind.
Questions? - if you have a question ask me.
I don’t judge based on the cross
consolini1002@gmail.com

El Contreras L C Anderson High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 11:22 AM CDT

Judge, Judge Contreras, or just Contreras are fine

pronouns: they/them/theirs (don't call me miss/ma'am)

Head Coach at LC Anderson HS in Texas

Email chain: theedebatecoach@gmail.com

Order:

General Comments
PF
LD
Congress
Miscellaneous

General Comments

Trigger warnings are a norm you should be taking part in. Allowing competitors the chance to opt-out is not only encouraged but extremely important for making this activity safe. This is true for every event but more true for some- DI, looking at you!

I will not rank a triggering performance first. There’s no need for you to vividly reenact violence and suffering at 8 a.m. on a Saturday morning (or like, ever). Triggering performances without trigger warnings will have their rank reflect the performance. Use your talent to tell a story, not to exploit pain. I have a "you should do a different piece" mindset on this issue and if you can't reenact that narrative without exploiting suffering, something is wrong.

If I'm judging your round and another competitor triggers you, you are welcome to quietly get up and walk out during their performance. I will not dock or punish you for this, your mental health is the most important. Please take care of yourself and each other!!

Respect and safety are crucial to speech and debate. I will not tolerate racism, sexism, transphobia, or any other kind of discrimination in or outside of round. If another competitor or participant is making you feel unsafe, you can always bring it to me. That behavior in round will be reflected in your speaks and on the ballot.

I love novices, I love fundamentals of debate. I will answer any questions after round to the best of my ability if we are respectful and wanting to learn. That also means do NOT dunk on novices in front of me. Reading 6 off on a novice might win you the ballot but I will tank your speaks.

I don’t disclose speaks.

Number responses!! the art of a clean flow/speech seems to be lost or at least elusive.

Broke: is anyone not ready?

Woke: Is everyone ready?

2. Public Forum

I’m fully flay. While I will evaluate most things, a K in PF is an uphill battle. I’m used to LD-style K’s and they have the advantage of longer speech times that PF doesn’t have. My flowing is strong, if I miss an argument it’s because it’s blippy. I don’t use the doc in PF because you should not be going fast enough to necessitate that.

My least favorite trend in PF is how cards are cut. Please include at least a paragraph of context. Your tagline should be an actual claim! “Furthermore” “concerningly” and “luckily” are NOT taglines. This is bad evidence ethics and if it comes down to a card v. card debate, yours will lose.

My second least favorite trend is insufficient extensions.

Extensions mean: tag/author and warranting. You don’t need to reread the card, you DO need to restate the claim and warrant.

I like theory. TFA rules allow tournaments to decide if judges can vote on disclosure. If allowed by tournament hosts, I will evaluate it.

3. Lincoln Douglas

I’m much more lay in LD. I will use the doc to flow but only if I’m in outrounds on a tech panel. In prelims, you should adapt. Many debaters believe they can spread, few debaters can achieve those speeds with clarity. Lay appeal is important, persuasiveness is important, style is important. If I’m your judge, that’s a great opportunity to improve upon those skills! I will reward adaptation with high speaks.

I like stock/policy arguments, theory/T, counterplans and am most comfortable with these arguments. I love framework debate.

Ks are really interesting to me, you will need to do more judge instruction and comparative to win on one but I will absolutely vote on the Kritik.

4. Congress

I love judging congress and don’t get to do it often. I listen just as much to content as I do to presentation and both factor into your rank. I appreciate a full buy-in to the congress LARPing (AGDs about your interns and time on the floor) and tend to prefer those to personal anecdotes. Intros are important, they need to be relevant to the topic, concise, cleanly delivered (ideally memorized), and impactful.

2 points, 2-3 sources per point.

Clash!!! It’s called congressional debate for a reason!

Good questions are everything! Being active in the round sets you apart from your fellow representatives.

I reward strong PO skills with high ranks in prelims. In finals, I do my best to fairly evaluate the PO vs. the speakers.

5. Miscellaneous

I occasionally judge World Schools Debate. In Worlds, I don't have as much technical knowledge about the nuances of WSD but will flow, watch for extensions, responses, and weighing/worlds comparatives. I will evaluate the round based on the argumentation, evidence, and logic. Prepare to do judge instruction and explain WSD jargon. Be so explicit about why your side and your world is better than your opponent's.

One time at a national circuit tournament, a PFer asked me if I "could evaluate complicated arguments"- don't do this. I will evaluate the most complex argument if you, the debater, can simplify, explain, defend, and weigh said arguments in the round. If I can't follow your case, it's either: a) so tangentially related that it's irrelevant, b) not clearly explained, or c) lacking links in your logic or evidence chain that would make it make sense.

Justin Cooper Hire 6 rounds

Malcolm Davis The Nueva School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 12:19 PM EDT

Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Strath Haven and Edgemont. I have been judging quite 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

REJOICE, FOR THE BAKER-WARRIORS OCCUPYING SPEECHDROP HAVE WITHDRAWN! I will be happy to usehttps://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 you insist your opponents mark a doc, it goes on prep time. you do not gain free prep time from skipping cards. Feel free to not mark a doc for your opponents, they should be flowing, and can make a theory argument if they please. If the doc and accurate marking thereof are an accessibility issue, I am happy to change the way this is timed given both teams agree and practices are reciprocal.
also if you clip cards I will drop you.

I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) by listening rather than following along on the doc. I expect you'll be able to tell if you've lost me. Clear =/= slow down , it means clear ! Some debaters are clearer at quicker speeds.

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. PDFs are not acceptable forms of evidence sharing. If using google docs, save as .docx : also, if you need word, raise the jolly roger and avast! https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Script mac:https://massgrave.dev/office_for_mac

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 emory 25):

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. Additionally, I think weighing that doesn't explicitly compare arguments is hardly weighing. We lack standard units in a debate round, so we must place two things on the scale rather than just one. See the excellent McClean 12 ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42663583?seq=3 ) for more on this !

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 flow by ear and will generally only read evidence if I am interested to, told to during the debate, or need to verify a fact assertion like a post-date.

I am happy to evaluate a k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. If your critical approach makes interesting and careful use of difficult literature, I will be overjoyed to judge your round and happy to give high speaker points. If you engage a critical argument in good faith and do so meaningfully (ie, setting aside most procedurals, reading some competing evidence on methods questions, making a more robust permutation claim than 'pdb') You will similarly enjoy high speaker points. One day, interesting KvK throwdowns will happen in this activity, and we will all learn lots from these different sides of the library. I think the K is at its best when it at least has something to say about the topic, but what that means from an affirmative perspective is certainly up for debate. I don't think links of omission are enough.

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am largely 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. I am historically a bad judge for theory, but I love a good T debate.

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! I tend to assign speaker points based on the quality of your strategic choice making rather than the quality of your oration, but I am happy to reward effective orators with higher speaker points as well.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 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. I enjoy a good Kant debate, but I think these debates are at their best when they are comparing relevant warrants from pieces of well-cut framing evidence, rather than going for dropped analytics that are in the connective tissue of your framework argument.

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 very much enjoy judging critical arguments, and think that this activity is at its best when the approaches to thought from different slices of the humanities are robustly compared. The aff probably needs to react to / have some relation to the topic but what that means is certainly in the round. Make good use of cx to identify points of interaction between your perspective and the AC, and I expect your debate will be a joy to judge.

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.

---

Michael DePasquale Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 4:18 PM EDT

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com, put me on the email chain please

Background:

Debated policy on the Nat circuit for 3 years, currently the head PF coach at Pittsburgh Central Catholic

Public Forum

*If you want to policy spread, read theory or Ks strike me.

*I consider myself a flay judge that can handle some speed. If you do go faster and I miss an argument thats on you

*Easiest way to win my ballot is impact weighing/comparison, reading link takeouts, turns, extending case links and impacts, writing the ballot for me in FF

*To win a round, you obviously need to have extended, fully, a piece of offense, meaning link warrant and impact need to be extended throughout summary and FF. Weigh, and weigh well. If you don't weigh, I have to weigh, and that makes me sad. I'm going to look first to clear offense at the end of the round, and use the weighing that is done to decide the round there. An effective summary and final focus should mirror each other, and they both should be doing weighing.

*I love a good overview, and love a consistent narrative in case

*You need to tell me why your impact is better than your opponents, not just repeating what your impact is

*Even though i did policy in HS i never went for Ks or theory. Always case and DAs

*If you are going to go for something in FF, it needs to be extended in every speech (Case does not need to be extended in first rebuttal if you are speaking first, if you are speaking 2nd extend case)

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Veena Devarakonda Emerald High School 6 rounds

Ishan Dubey Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 4:44 PM EDT

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.

General

In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.

When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.

*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.

Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.

Evidence

Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.

Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.

Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.

If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so when asked by me or your opponents is a loss.

Please read the applicable evidence rules for your tournament. I will enforce them.

Avoid paraphrasing. The introduction of any paraphrased evidence will cap speaker points at 28.

Expect me to have topic knowledge.

Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.

Defense is not "sticky."

Second rebuttal must frontline.

Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.

Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.

Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.

That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."

The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.

Text and function are probably good standards for competition.

Theory

I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.

Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 10:16 PM EDT

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, debated national circuit pf for 3 years, semifinaled the TOC, won some stuff, and got 16 gold bids. i've been coaching + judging since. now junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.com to the chain.

if you're looking for coaching or interested in national circuit debate from a school without a robust program, check out national debate club! please feel free to ask me/email me about it at the email above if you have any questions!

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid judge for theory, bad judge for anything else. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. debate is competitive but be kind. i change my paradigm a lot, please ask me questions if you have them.

if you have a question about whether i will like evaluating an argument simply ask me

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
theory: 3
k aff (non-t k): 3/4
IVI: 4/5
tricks: strike

in divisions rather than varsity ask permission from your opponents before reading anything but substance, if you don't i'll be super sympathetic to "what even is this/i can't respond to this"

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. i love good defense, but you gotta implicate it properly for me to care. a defensive argument can either be terminal (if you implicate D as terminal, i will eval it as such), or it can be mitigatory. unimplicated defense is automatically mitigatory. mitigatory defense should be implicated as weighing. feel free to ask qs about this if you have them.

3. carded + warranted > warranted analytic w/ no card > carded claim w/ no warrant. i love smart analytics.

4. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

5. extensions of all types are important to me. if your extension has no internal link or no impact is extended i will notice. i do not generally autodrop in an otherwise competitive round for crappy extensions, but i will do so if the opponents point them out. consistency in the backhalf is important to me. if your responses are shifty between summary and FF, they may as well not exist on my flow and my decision will reflect that even if the opponents don't call it out. this includes changing the warrant under the same cardname.

6. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

7. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

8. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at. EDIT: i have judged a lot of rounds recently where there is a noticeable tradeoff between how much offense teams go for and how well it's won. it is easier to win my ballot by going for no more than two offensive arguments in the FF and winning them well.EDIT EDIT: IT DOES NOT IMPRESS ME WHEN YOU FRONTLINE YOUR FOUR CONTENTIONS IN ONE MINUTE IN 2ND REBUTTAL. PLZ WARRANT. PLZ WIN YOUR OFFENSE.

9. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

10. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

11. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. there are levels of evidence problems. if you just want me to cross something off of my flow, tell me to read it + cross it off. if there’s a serious and persistent power tagging/misrepresentation problem, that’s a voting issue, give me warrants why & i will likely vote on it. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.opportunistically levied challenges pmo. if there’s a challenge, and your intention is to call it, do it immediately after abuse.

12. i don't mind if you postround, i take a long time to make decisions because i write long RFDs and think about each part of the round before voting (even if the decision is very simple i'll write about each argument extended through FF on my ballot). but i am also human and my tolerance for disrespect is low, so be polite.

** theory:

i am so bored of judging disclosure debates. i get that sometimes it’s the best path to the ballot and i can’t fault you for it, but your speaks are capped at 28 if you read disclo in front of me in prelims. elims - do what you will for the panel.

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, text over spirit of interp, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs do not apply to arguments which garner independent offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.if your CI is an OCI, tell me. if you think their CI is a DCI, tell me.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. unverifiable claims like “our coach doesn’t let us meet the interp” are very difficult for me to vote on. you either need to produce evidence in some manner, or find a different way to engage.

6. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do more.

7. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice. i cannot be bothered to pretend i care about author quals. that being said i think there's very little relationship between what i personally care about and will vote for in a debate round,there is no interp i will on face hack against/i think for me to deem certain interpretations "frivolous" based on my personal opinions would be arbitrary & interventionist.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.i dislike you link you lose arguments, this constitutes "k debate done poorly" to me. clash is important and methods testing kritiks is what makes a good k debate. as the team who introduced the kritik you should defend the kritik and aim to win on the k sheet.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. won't hack for T, will vote for k aff if T is beat, but if T is competently defended i generally think it is convincing.

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

5. i don't personally think pf speeches are long enough to do any justice to ontological claims about the genesis of existent societal structures (settler colonialism, anti-blackness, etc), but if you think you can prove me wrong go wild.

Zach Dyar The Bronx High School Of Science 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:29 AM CDT

Lakeland Note: My camera is not working for an "unknown reason" on NSDA campus. I am in your round if I'm in the room, just assume I'm not going anywhere.

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

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com . Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science

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

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

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you slow down on taglines. Send a speech doc if you are going fast or have bad clarity.

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

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad norms in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

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

- You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

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

Summary & Final Focus

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

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

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

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

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

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

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

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

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

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

Progressive weighing

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

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

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

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

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

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

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

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

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

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

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

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

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

- Tricks: Nope.

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

Joshua Enebo The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 4:36 AM CDT

Blake '21, UChicago '25

I did PF on the national circuit for 3 years, and now am an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minneapolis.

Tl;dr

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- Please read paraphrasing theory in rounds where the opponents are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is an awful practice, evidence is VERY important to me, and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs before each speech in which cards will be read.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, Ellie Singer, and Shane Stafford.

- Please add both jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedebatedocs@googlegroups.com (THIS IS A NEW DOMAIN, FOR THOSE WHO ALREADY HAD BLAKEDOCS SAVED) to the email chain.

- Feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Paradigm

Rules

I will time speeches and prep, though you are encouraged to do the same. I will enforce excessive and flagrant intentional violations of speech time rules with the ballot, if necessary. In most cases, this is not needed recourse, and I will simply stop flowing once the time has elapsed.

Speeches

Roadmaps: In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are more than 2 sheets, then I will ask for a roadmap.

The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense. Any arguments dropped by the second rebuttal are considered dropped in the round.

The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or in any way going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me. See below for a caveat.

Sticky Defense: In almost all scenarios, defense is not sticky. It is completely incoherent to me that the first summary does not need to extend defense on contentions that the second summary might go for. However, the sole exception to this will be if a team does not frontline to any arguments on a contention in the second rebuttal. The first summary can consider that contention kicked. This is already pretty solidified as a norm, and allows second speaking teams to kick arguments without literally saying “there is no offense on Contention X.” An extension of this contention, that was clearly kicked in second rebuttal, by the second summary will allow the first final to extend defense from the first rebuttal on that contention specifically.

Speed: I am comfortable with all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak at 400+ WPM, and I can understand every word. Likewise, I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear. I will say clear if I can’t follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). If you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

Speech docs: Please send speech docs with cut cards. This vastly decreases the amount of wasted time in rounds sending various individual cards at different times.

Weighing: The team that wins the weighing debate is nearly always winning the round. I start every RFD with an evaluation of the weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions without making the round a total mess. I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

Collapse: Please collapse. I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

Abusive Delinks: I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself to get out of turn offense. This does not mean you cannot bite defense read, or make new frontline responses to turns, rather it means you cannot overtly contradict your initial arguments with a piece of defense your opponents did not read to get out of offense they read. This applies in situations as clear cut as the aff saying X, the neg responding with X is actually bad, and the aff responds with “not X.” This almost never happens, but is astonishingly abusive when it is attempted.

Framework: If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it, or make arguments as to why they get responses later in the round. I don't know where I stand on this technically yet, but this is where I am leaning now. In general, if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, I think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

Advocacies/T: In general, I will evaluate the flow without prejudice on what ground the aff or neg claims to have. Because the neg doesn't get a counter plan in PF, the aff advocacy does not block the neg out of ground. Both the aff and neg can make arguments about what the aff would most likely look at, and should garner advantages and disadvantages based off of those interpretations. I will evaluate whose is more likely to be correct and go from there. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages unless it is argued that troop deployment is not a feasible implementation of the aff. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works.

Safety issues: I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

Housekeeping: I take the important parts of the debate incredibly seriously, but there are aspects that I find frivolously pretentious. Be nice and respectful, but keep it somewhat light and casual if you can! Debate is supposed to be at least somewhat fun, so lets treat it as such. I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence

Disclaimer: I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. This section is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Evidence is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an argument as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point.

Bottom line: Evidence is the backbone of the activity. I do not fancy fast paced lying as a debate format. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will certainly call for cards if docs are not already sent. Evidence quality is exceedingly important, and I will have no qualms dropping teams for awful evidence. This applies regardless of if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it.

Paraphrasing: The single worst somewhat prevelant practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Luckily, it seems on the decline! Regardless, it is bad for the quality of debate, it is bad for all of its educational benefits, and it ruins fairness. Please cut cards, it is not difficult to learn. If you insist on making me upset and paraphrasing, keep the following in mind:

1. You must have a cut card that you paraphrased from. It is an NSDA rule now.

2. Your opponents do not need to take prep to s ort through your PDFs, and if you can’t quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

3. Paraphrasing does not let you off the hook for not reading a warrant. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank.

4. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you can’t find it when asked and you make the argument to "just evaluate as an analytic," I will also give an L25. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

5. Don’t be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 28.5 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

Producing evidence: If reading the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence. If you can’t produce a card upon being asked for it within reasonable time frame given the network or technical context, your speaks will tank.

Evidence Preference: Even if not a full shell, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me.

Author Cites: This is yet another thing I should not need to put in my paradigm. You need to cite the author you are reading in speech for it to be counted as evidence as opposed to an analytic. If you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of evidence, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. It is blatant plagiarism and extremely unethical. In an educational activity, this should be exceedingly obvious.

Progressive Paradigm

Debate is good: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative in the best possible way. Arguments that say debate is bad and should be destroyed entirely (often this is the conclusion of non-topical pessimistic arguments, killjoy, etc) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. This does not make them unwinnable, but probably not strategic to read.

Disclaimer: I'm receptive to all arguments, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting very low quality recently. I worry about the long-term impact about some of these in the activity. I beg of you, think about the model you are advocating for, and think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it. The impact you can leave on the activity could be positive or negative and will outlast your time as a debater.

Theory

CI/Reasonability: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this section. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate the flow normally.

RVIs: I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this is an RVI on an IVI.

IVIs: These are really bad for debate. If there is a rules claim to be made, make it a theory shell. If there is a safety issue, then stop the round. Almost all of the time, IVIs are vague whines spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. My threshold for responses to these is near zero.

Frivolity: I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. This does include spikes and tricks. I don't like them, please don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round. I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments. It has become more common these days to read WPM interpretations (i.e. cannot be more than 250 WPM). I think these are pretty stupid, to be entirely honest. It is not clear to me why disclosure doesn't solve or why being a more efficient speaker doesn't solve. Not saying I wouldn't vote for it in the right round, but its probably more an uphill battle in front of me than most.

Introduction: Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as there’s some offense on the shell. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a paraphrasing bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

Disclosure is good: Disclosure is good, but how you disclose matters. These days I prefer open source disclosure, where tags, cites, and highlights are all included. "Open source" with no highlights or tags, where teams put up walls of unformatted text and expect people to do precisely anything with it, is a huge pet peeve of mine and interps that punish teams that do this will be received favorably. I have decided the activity should probably start moving in the direction of disclosing rebuttal evidence as well, so do with that what you may. I will listen to reasons why that is bad, though I struggle to see the conceptual difference between a link turn and a case link from a disclosure perspective. I used to feel less strongly about disclosure than paraphrasing but now I feel about as strongly. We should be disclosing, and not doing so should absolutely cost you ballots.

Trigger warnings: I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that don’t need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You’ll find Elizabeth Terveen’s paradigm has a good section on this that I generally agree on. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically. Obviously, egregiously graphic descriptions are an exception to this general belief, but they are almost never run in PF. The mention of something is not a good enough reason for a trigger warning.

Kritiks

General disposition: I am somewhat comfortable evaluating most kritikal arguments, although I’m not as experienced with them as I am with others. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well. I am quite comfortable with capitalism, security, and fem IR.

Disclaimer: Blake 2021 made me think about this part of my paradigm a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. The proliferation of identity, pomo inspired kritiks that vaguely ask the judge to vote for a team based on an identity and nothing else is not good. Moreover, methods that advocate collapsing the activity are unlikely to be well received. In any case, please articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing to improve the activity. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

“Pre-fiat”: No one thinks fiat is real, so let’s be more specific about how we label arguments and discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument.’

Discourse: I am pretty skeptical that discourse shapes reality. If you go for this, you best have excellent evidence and good explanations.

Phil:In the 24-25 season there has been a massive increase in the number of circuit LD phil arguments. Note that my bar for garnering offense is probably higher than it normally is, mostly because I think these arguments as a matter of truth are probably not very useful in debate and almost never is solvency articulated. I have voted on them, probably will again, but I won't be thrilled and would prefer not to.

Speaks

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy because I never give speaks that high almost ever. I will not give a 30, there are no perfect debaters.

Andrew Fostiropoulos Delbarton School 4 rounds

Eli Glickman College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 5:54 PM EDT

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

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

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. 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.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; 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 must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Blaire Gray Auburn 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 9:07 AM CDT

Hi everybody! My name is Blaire and I am currently attending Auburn University and am getting a bachelor's in public relations. I competed for three years at Auburn High School and competed at NSDA 2023 in OO.

For all rounds - Don't be homophobic, racist, sexist, or spew any form of hatred. It will be noted and reported.

For PF rounds -

1. I will not flow cross so if you want to use something said you'll need to bring it up later in round.

2. I appreciate good public speaking skills, but I am anti-spreading. If I can not hear you clearly, it doesn't matter how good your argument is. I like arguments that are clear and packed with evidence.

3. I'm not going to cut you off if you go over time but I will stop flowing and I won't take anything said after the timer ends into consideration for the win. I ask that y'all not interrupt the person speaking if they go over time for the sake of respect.

4. Please do not bring up anything new in Final Focus, it will not be flowed.

5. Signpost! Don't forget to weigh in summary!!!

For Speech events -

1. I love topics that are creative and unexpected.

2. Passion is an important component and if I can tell you don't really care about what you're talking about it won't land as well as it could (This is specifically for events like OO, POI, INF, SW, etc.)

3. Be confident, not cocky.

4. If you mess up DON'T STOP! I'll only be able to tell if you let me. Just keep going.

5. If you want time signals, please ask!! I don't do them automatically because I don't want to throw anyone off if they don't usually use them, but I have zero problems doing them if you let me know.

For Congress

1. Be articulate and professional.

2. Please do not be aggressive towards other congress members.

3. PLEASE be aware of the procedure and rules of Congress before arriving.

If you have any questions for me please don't hesitate to ask, my email is bcg0040@auburn.edu

Good Luck!

Samuel Grinberg Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 7:15 AM EDT

I debated 4 years (2019-2023) for BergenTech (shoutout Akil, Avital, and Eli)

Email Chain: samgrindebate@gmail.com

TLDR

Tech > Truth,debate is a game you play to win

Speed is fine as long as a doc is sent (or if I yell clear)

Docs are expected for case and rebuttal, but I only flow what I hear

All post-rounding is fine - I debated for a while and I understand how frustrating this activity can get - but there is never an excuse to be rude to your opponents, your judges, or your coaches.

Specific Stuff:

1AC/1NC:

I find myself enjoying creativity more and more, but you should read whatever you are most comfortable debating well(i.e. do not sacrifice quality in order to read arguments you don't understand or won't be able to properly extend in the back half).

Evidence quality matters a lot to me. Having cut cards for your evidence is an NSDA rule, and with the existence of resources like the wiki (and weeks to prep your positions before a given tournament) I don't really understand why you wouldn't be reading cut cards. I think a lot of the problems that exist in this space would be solved if both teams disclosed previously read positions, read cut cards, and shared docs before every speech where evidence is introduced.

2AC/2NC:

The second speaking team is responsible for responding to all offense and defense, otherwise its conceded moving into the backhalf

I never really understood the whole "Sandbagging DAs" is abusive line - I feel that either rebuttal can read whatever new offense they want. In my opinion the whole point of first rebuttal is to time crunch second rebuttal with new offense.

1AR/1NR:

I would guess that 85% of RFDs I have given out in the last two years involved weighing that was introduced during a summary speech. People tend to over extend offense (unweighed and uncontextualized turns and blips) and under weigh contentions they spent months perfecting. The best way to win a round in my opinion is to collapse on a single piece of offense (MAYBE two if a turn is conceded / super damning for your opponents case) and spend as much of summary weighing as possible. This makes my RFDs super simple and ensures I don't miss something on the flow

I never really understood the idea of sticky defense. I think that while it probably made sense when summary was only two minutes (when I was in middle school lol) I don't understand why first summary gets a free pass to not extend defense. For that reason, if first summary doesn't extend defense on a contention, I consider the contention conceded (assuming the defense was previously frontlined in the second rebuttal).

2AR/2NR:

No major comments here other than 1) I know the rules of PF so don't try anything silly with new stuff (or be willing to say bye to your speaks) 2) The best FFs usually mirror summary in structure

Once again - good general rule of thumb here - extend less than you think and weigh more than you think

Prog

******UPDATE FOR IVY RR '25

I am happy to judge pretty high-level prog debates (I've always considered RRs the perfect place to challenge community norms and test out new strategies). However, please keep in mind that its been a while since I've judged a KvK round (or even theory for that matter) so my biggest recommendation is that you 1) try to slow down on tags/ROTBs/standards/whatever 2) send a doc and 3) use CX and the back half to contextualize your arguments to a point where I am clearly indicating I understand. Don't let this discourage you, but be warned

Please feel free to reach out to me (email me, pass me a note, ask in round) about my understanding of a specific strategy you want to go for in round. I tried to make this section as specific as possible, but its impossible for you to understand my exact views without asking me. I will never punish you for trying something creative out

Prog stuff I personally have read and am familiar with (in order of my comfort judging it): Disclosure, Paraphrasing, Topicality, TWs, Cap K, Set Col K, Academy K

So in general:Theory > Reps Ks > Friv Theory > Identity Ks > Tricks

what is theory [--------------------------o---------] average college policy debater

what is a kritik [-----------------o------------------] average college policy debater

what are tricks [-------o----------------------------] average college policy debater

Theory Specifics:

Default RVIs, reasonability, and drop the argument. Dont kick a shell w/o winning no RVIs

K Specifics:

I think discourse is a terrible alt and I would be happy to explain why in detail if you are curious but don't wanna spend time typing out all my views on why here

Perms dont really make sense in PF (since counterplans are banned) but if your opponents alt is a plan (which they usually are) (wait isnt that also not allowed?!) then I guess its fine? Everyone is just reading policy lit anyway so I am open to hearing perms and plan-ish alts as long as no one is giving me a reason I shouldnt

Trick Specifics:

I wont vote for "the roto is lose" but if you drop in a silly warrant why I can only evaluate the aff or the first speaking team or something, thats fine.

If you win my ballot on tricks its a LPW

Speaks:

+ if you bring me crunch, sour patch (watermelon), twix, or peach snapple

+ if you sneak in the phrase "no debate" in a speech

Have Fun!

Michael Hansen Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Katie Hellrung Denver East High School 6 rounds

DH Henderson Westwood 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 17, 2024 at 4:54 PM CDT

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

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

Doc Sharing

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

Speed

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

General Principle

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

Speaker Points

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

Policy

Theory

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

Kritiks

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

Performance/Pre-Fiat

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

Competition

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

Condo

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

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

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

Disads/CPs/NCs

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

Philosophy/Framework Debate

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

Public Forum

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

1. Debate

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

Synthesis

Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.

2. Speech

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

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

Theory

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

Framework

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

Finally Word for All

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

Alex Huang American Heritage Palm Beach HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 5:53 PM EDT

I’m Alex. I debated for Durham Academy in North Carolina for four years, and won the TOC in 2023. I am now a freshman at Swarthmore College and coach for American Heritage Palm Beach.

PLEASE READ — TL;DR

*Tech>Truth to the best of my ability.

*I prioritize high quality analysis over high quantity lack of analysis. I will not vote on blippy turns with no warrants, and case arguments with no internal links.

*Please send an email chain to alexander.huang@ahschool.com (no Google Docs), and label it properly: Yale Round 1: Durham HH (Neg) vs Taipei CW (Aff). Send docs before every speech and send them quickly.

*Every part of an argument must be extended for me to vote on it, and anything I vote on must have a warrant.

*I will vote by first looking to weighing and then links into the weighing, but feel free to make arguments for why I should vote otherwise.

*Second rebuttal must respond to first, and there should be nothing new past summary.

*Theory note: If you are initiating theory against novices/a team that clearly does not know how to respond, I won't evaluate under competing interps.

*Be nice please. Everyone is trying to learn, and everyone is trying to have fun. Don’t be a prick.

SPECIFICS

*Do not sacrifice analysis for speed and/or shenanigans. While “tech” in place of “truth” means that I try to limit the influence of my own personal beliefs to the maximum extent, it does not mean that the need for your analysis to be technically persuasive is absent. Smart analysis is always going to triumph over bad, unwarranted evidence. Tech debate that is in-depth and full of smart analysis is so much fun. Tech debate that is fast blips that are unwarranted misconstructions of bad evidence is boring and noneducational.

*Speed is fine, but be clear. Slow down on tags and in the back half. Use speed strategically. 3 slow minutes of the best argument in the round is always going to beat 18 mediocre arguments read at lightning pace.

*Cross is binding, but must be brought up in speech

*Implicate good defense against weighing. There is a trend in PF where both teams try to find the quickest link into extinction, and all defense goes out the window. I am not a fan. If you are winning terminal or near terminal defense against an extinction outweighs + short circuit, tell me why I shouldn’t look there first. A 0.00000000000000000001% chance of something occurring rounds to 0, after all.

*Theory: It must be read in the speech after the violation. For your information (because I think there is inherently a little more intervention in theory debate, since we are debating about debate, and the persuasiveness of certain responses is going to be based on what I have seen in debate), I think paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good, but I would be willing to vote any way on theory.

*Ks: I have a relatively high threshold for a quality K. I think a quality K is very educational, and also fun to watch. However, to be a quality K, a K should be treated like a research project – high quality work that is clear, done yourself, and disclosed for others to interact with. I have a very low tolerance for Ks that are stolen from LD or Policy, read against teams who barely link, and are generally unintelligible. Such Ks will lose very quickly to “no link/alt doesn’t solve/no impact” responses.

*Non-starters: no tricks, no speaks theory, no friv theory, and no ad-homs.

*Post-rounding: Post-rounding is educational, but be polite and curious. I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

Merrick Hunter Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 1:45 PM EDT

NOTE FOR BFHS: Consider me a lay judge. I have experience judging, but I have little to no experience with kritikal or the theoretical arguments. I can handle some speed but please send the speech docs. I will not be able to understand spreading or top speed. Sticking to substance/topical arguments is probably your best bet with me, but also I will try my best to adapt to YOU.

Pronouns: he/him/his

merehunter2002@gmail.com - Please include me in your email chain!

Hello! I am a fourth year undergrad student at Emory University. I greatly appreciate when debaters share their pronouns, so please feel free to do so! While I am not a debater myself, I have been judging Policy for the Atlanta Urban Debate League since August 2022 and have spectated and judged countless rounds in Policy, PF, and World Schools. I strive to make debate a safer and more inclusive/respectful space. Have a great round!

** Please note that any sexism, racism, homophobia, and/or transphobia in an argument will automatically result in the loss of the round.

My PF Preferences:

Weigh, weigh, weigh! (magnitude, timeframe, risk, etc.) The earlier weighing is introduced, the better!
I will vote off the flow but it must be warranted (meaning if you extend your argument but it lacks explanation, I will not vote off of it). I am mostly a tech = truth judge.
If it's in final focus, it should have also been in the summary.
Signposting is required for good speaks. Please signpost so it's easier for me to flow.
Please frontline in second rebuttal!
I prefer when teams collapse in later speeches, giving you more time to better warrant your arguments (quality > quantity).
I am not super familiar with Ks, theory, etc., but I will try my best to adjudicate them within the round as long as the warrant/impact is well-explained.
If you take prep, please time yourself and report what you have remaining when you are ready to proceed in the round (I will also time, but I prefer that debaters do so as well).
Be respectful in crossfire; do not be condescending.

Clear and comprehensible speaking will result in higher speaks; also note that spreading is not required. I can handle medium speed.

Cherie Ideus Ravenwood High School 3 rounds

Ben Jacobs Canyon Crest Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 11:54 AM EDT

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history, and public policy. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now coach/judge PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Email me if you have any accessibility concerns before round.

My paradigm is too long. If you are just doing a trad/JV/Novice round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

TRAD>TOPICAL Ks> THEORY> NON TOPICAL Ks> ANYTHING ELSE

WEIGHING❤️-

Weigh early and intentionally. Be creative and comparative rather than just namedropping STIMP. I'd really like to hear a strong narrative with your weighing rather than spamming mechanisms like turns.

I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args or shorthand impacts- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom.

SPEED ❤️-

The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be. I can probably flow your spreading but I cant promise I will be able to pick up the full effect of your analytics. I don't want to flow off a doc but like when they are sent. I would almost always prefer an average paced round to something faster.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.
Make explicit strategic choices. I want to see you collapse and build a late round narrative. If you choose your path to the ballot with a minute left in final you probably won't win.

Framing -

If you establish a framework, your opponent has every right to coopt the framing. I am completely okay with collapsing into a framework or dropping links to fit a framework. Framework is not offense, it only establishes a filter through which I evaluate the round. If you want to garner offense off of underlying assumptions of an argument then just run a K.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much. Feel free to run whatever, but my threshold for DTD/DTA gets high when theory gets frivolous.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am an okay judge for these as long as you explain your lit well.

The Non Topical K

I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I just need a really valid reason as to why you are choosing not to be topical in the K.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are needlessly complex. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is hard for me to vote.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been). I love answering questions and will stick around as long as I can so don't be afraid to ask.

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

Ethan Jacobs Canyon Crest Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 12:41 PM EDT

Hey, I’m Ethan. I debated as Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit for 4 years. I am now a sophomore at Emory and coach for Canyon Crest Academy.

Add me to the chain- ethan.jacobs@emory.edu

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy email me before the round.

TL;DR- Run anything you think will win. I adapt to you but have some quality-of-life preferences.

Speed- I don’t flow with docs but you can read as fast as you want. Any PF speed should be fine. Please enunciate. Many debaters are spreading in my rounds (which is fine) but do not fully enunciate each word (not fine) so I miss things on my flow. Additionally, having 5 sheets in a round is not an excuse to mumble through your cards to get through them as fast as you can. It only hurts you if I am flowing poorly, so try your best to follow these preferences :)

Evidence Exchange- Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely.

Trad Stuff

Weighing- Comparative weighing is critical to win. Teams should be creative about link-ins, prereqs etc to avoid being “nuked” out of the round by large impacts. I think framework debates are underutilized in PF and appreciate teams that use them. I say that not to encourage you to add a framework to your case but to think about the way you are weighing in the round and consider if it would be better if it followed a certain theme ex. Structural violence, extinction etc

Presentation- Be persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. You will lose a lot of speaks if you doc bot the whole round. Read your good prep but you should be using your head in the backhalf to make strategic choices. Good analytics>bad cards every time.

Prog Stuff

Overall- I am enjoying judging prog a lot more. If you have a cool K or want to try out a good shell, this will probably be received well. Do your thing and have fun.

Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Try to keep your shells below 250 WPM.

Biases- I don’t think disclosure is necessary (I didn't disclose bc I wanted to read a CI when I debated) but most disclo rounds I judge go to the team that initiated the theory. Paraphrasing is bad, but I think debates about the norm are fun and I will not hack for it. I think most warrants for TW's being bad are not emotionally intelligent. Anything else I do not have strong feelings.

Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. I do not like when teams use policy cards that don’t form coherent sentences. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that K literature is not my expertise.

Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. Please justify why you are non-topical in the first speech. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to achieve that change. I am very receptive to vague alts bad arguments. Tbh the more I judge the less I worry about the norms that these arguments break. Have fun and do your thing.

I encourage you to post-round me. The best way to learn from your mistakes is by having conversations with judges. Additionally, I will never be perfect at evaluating rounds and I appreciate hearing thoughts on my decision from the debater's perspective.

Andrew Johnson Carrollton 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 12, 2024 at 4:40 PM EDT

Intro:

Hi, I’m Drew, a first-year student at Georgia Tech and PF coach at Midtown High School. I debated 4 years PF at Carrollton High School on the GFCA and TOC circuits (Carrollton JK). I won PF GFCA Varsity States my Junior and Senior year and qualed for TOC my Senior year.

Please start an email chain before the round. Please put me in it: andrewbjohnson06@gmail.com

Preferably send both Constructive and Rebuttal docs, but at the minimum, Constructive.

__________________________________________________________________________________

TL;DR: Tech Judge, I will evaluate everything. Vote off the flow. Please weigh. Don't make me intervene.

Lay x--------------------------------------------O-----x Tech

__________________________________________________________________________________

PF:

General:

I am a tech judge. 100% tech>truth. I believe that debate is a game. Go for whatever you want to, but this means that every part of the argument has to be extended--including the link chain, warranting, specific evidence, and impact. I will vote on absolutely anything if it is developed well.
Because you have to extend all parts of the argument, collapsing is often helpful.
I will not flow off speech docs. I only look at evidence if a team calls it out.
I think speaks should be based on a 28.5-30 scale with 0.1 increments. I will only drop below that if you say something offensive or give up in round. I am not afraid of low-point wins.
Go as fast as you want, but don’t sacrifice clarity. I debate quickly and can handle speed, just don’t spread. If I can’t understand, I will say clear up to three times and then drop my pen.
I don’t flow cross, but I do listen. A large portion of your speaks will be determined based on how you handle the pressure of cross-fire.
Time yourselves, please.
PLEASE SIGNPOST. I also prefer going down the flow line-by-line in rebuttal and summary.
Paraphrasing is acceptable. It is cool to say the card name and then paraphrase what the card says. Just have a cut card ready when called for.
I like analysis arguments as much as evidence-based ones, so if you use logical responses that make sense to me, I will not value them less than evidence unless the other team has a card disproving your analysis.
Weighing is essential. You should do the weighing for me as early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be “we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me.” Give me analyses as to why you’re winning the round, which should be adequate. If the weighing is left to me, it might not be considered as you want it to be.
Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary.
Be respectful in a round or I will tank your speaker points and drop you. Debate is a significant educational opportunity; I believe that learning is why this activity exists. Disrespectful and discriminatory behavior kills this, so I think the punishment is warranted.

Theory:

If you run theory, ensure that it is not abused in and of itself. I don’t think a formal counter-inter is necessary to respond to a shell; give responses like you would a standard argument. If it’s frivolous and the opposing team says that, I will drop you and give the lowest speaks possible.
Do not run disclosure on the Georgia Circuit (Talking to a specific school here. You know who you are.). That is not the norm and is abusive.
Feel free to run it at TOC bid tournaments, though. I disclosed and probably prefer it as the norm (Doesn't mean I'll auto-vote on it, though).

K's:

I will evaluate K's, but don't expect me to vote on it just because you run it. I think K debaters are either lazy or smart so you need to prove why you are the latter.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Post-Round Info:

I disclose. Usually, I will give my RFD in rounds with a few main things posted on Tab.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me using the above email.
Post-round me, please. I love good discussions about the round. Don't expect it to change my ballot, though. I've already submitted it before I give my RFD.
Please ask for my flow if you would like. I flow on excel and will be happy to email it to you. :)

Kate Johnson Brentwood High School 4 rounds

Anaya Joshi Lexington HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 7:33 AM EDT

anaya1joshi@gmail.com

Debated circuit PF for Lexington for 4 years (toc and nsda if that means anything to you), currently do policy at NYU.

Strike me if you plan to read tricks or friv.

A quick note: Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socioeconomic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate allows you to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals to their individuality when presenting arguments, I'll drop anyone who reads arguments that may be sexist, racist, or discriminatory in any way. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament, and most importantly, respect yourselves.

Novices:

- Weigh weigh weigh, I evaluate weighing above all link-level clash.

- Make sure that your cards have WARRANTS, and if you don't have a card for a particular argument, be brave and give me an analytic. The more you can rely on your logic and quick thinking as opposed to reciting cards, the better at debate you'll become.

- Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win than "the government is run by lizards".

- Have fun, you do you!

Everyone else:

Housekeeping:

- Please come into round preflowed.

- Set up an email chain with a subject line that is clear. Something along the lines of "Tournament Name-Rd#: Team Code (side/order) vs. Team Code (side/order)".

- You must send cut cards and rhetoric if you choose to paraphrase case. I will call for carded evidence if I feel like it is necessary for my decision, but in general, I do not care much for calling evidence beyond case if you are not spreading. If you are going faster, do not send evidence in the form of a Google doc. Do not send evidence as a link. Please send evidence only as either a word document or a PDF.

- Try to know the names of your main authors. I flow all author names so it's really helpful for me if you just say "extend the Biden evidence" because then I know exactly what you're referring to.

General:

- Read whatever you want.

- I'm a bit of a stickler for proper extensions, so please read blippy extensions at your own risk. I will be very receptive to "bad extension" claims made by your opponents.

- Do a lot of weighing/meta-weighing (not just for me, it's also strategic if you're lost/have time) and make sure it is all COMPARATIVE (i.e. don't say "we outweigh on scope" without actually taking the time to compare the # of ppl affected by your impact vs your opponent's impact). This is the most important part of the round for me, so please be thorough and don't treat weighing as an item to be ticked off on a checklist.

- Please start collapsing as early as possible in the round because quality>quantity especially considering short PF speech times.

- I'm good with any speed, so you can spread as long as you: make sure your opponents are okay too, slow down on authors, taglines, and analytics, signpost clearly, and always send speech docs before the speech. If you get too fast, your opponents and I reserve the right to clear you.

- For framing, util is probably true-til, since it links into nearly every other framework and overwhelms them. That being said, I'm pretty receptive to other framing mechanisms when they are argued correctly. I would recommend a very deep understanding of your framing and embedded weighing (a prioris, link-ins, and any pre-fiat impacts). Please read framing in constructive.

- Defense is not sticky. I do not even know what that means.

Theory:

- No friv.

- I don't have any other specific preferences when it comes to theory- it's your round, so whatever is determined to be "in-round abuse" is to be determined by you only.

- My one exception to reading theory is when it is clear that you are using it as an easy win rather than because you genuinely believe some in-round abuse has occurred. I'm looking at big school varsity debaters reading crazy shells on novices from small schools.

- I guess I default to CIs and no RVIs

K Debate:

- I'm quite familiar with most garden variety Ks -- cap, sec, fem IR, set col, etc. -- but try not to read anything beyond this range of literature. If you do choose to do so, please be very clear.

- Please please please actually tell me what the K does aside from "reject the aff/neg". If you read that as the full extent of your terminal impact, I will be very sad and will probably dock your speaks a little.

- Po-mo stuff (Baudrillard, Foucault, etc.) is also cool, I'll evaluate it.

Misc:

- I presume for whoever lost the coin flip.

- If both teams agree to debate a previous topic, you can totally do that.

- Feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I think it usually helps you learn how you can improve

- For speaks, I default 28.5 for novices and 28 for varsity

Sohail Jouya Poly Prep Country Day School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM EDT

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Tech guided by Truth.All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Bill Kearney Dunwoody High 6 rounds

D'Layne Kelly Winston Churchill HS 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 24, 2024 at 5:59 AM CDT

Please email your case ahead of the round to dlaynekelly@gmail.com If I can preflow ahead of time, it will help me during the round. I want to know your contentions ahead of time. (I'm also okay with using Speech Drop or an email chain at the start of the round instead of email if that is preferred by the teams).

Please do not spread; I want to understand your words and ideas clearly.

I appreciate logical, sequential arguments. Make sure throughout the round you are clearly explaining to me what your argument is and why it matters.

Present clear framework.

State impacts clearly.

Make sure during your speech, you are sign posting. Otherwise, I will have a hard time following your argument.

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant.

Don’t run theory or k; I tend to vote for logical, warranted out evidence.

Make sure you convince me in your final focus why you should win. I will weigh heavily on that. Basically, your FF should write my RFD

Be respectful in words and actions to your opponents. If you interrupt, cut them off, or speak over them, I will dock speaker points

Do your best and have fun!

dlaynekelly@gmail.com

Speech Events:

I value your ability to communicate your ideas in a well organized structure. A good speaker is one that is able to keep the audience engaged but also has good ideas and argumentation that flows with good transitions, sources, and analysis. There shouldn’t be any holes in your speech where I’m able to question the credentials of the author or their research or their analysis or any other number of things.

Tuyen Le Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 3:17 PM CDT

*conflicted with BREAK LD (May ‘24-Nov ‘24), 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. The first constructive (not the tester email) should be sent by start time. If you cause the round to start late I will dock your speaks.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), Seven Lakes HS (Assistant Coach ‘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.

I will not be happy if you purposefully make the round inaccessible or do not make an effort to let the other debater engage (ex. you hit a novice/local debater and you spread 4 Ks at top speed and a-spec is hidden in between the cards). I will not hesitate to dock your speaks and/or drop you.

Try to minimize excessive noise during speeches and while the ballot is being written. This is basic etiquette, but it is particularly important for me since I tend to get overstimulated.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

TLDR: primarily a policy judge, but you can do whatever as along as you do it well

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

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. I think the judge's level of preround knowledge becomes less relevant in front of debaters who know their arguments well.

Tech > truth in most cases, but truth determines your burden of proof. Arguments that are less true will naturally require more explanation to be persuasive. A statement without a warrant is not an argument.If your primary strategy is to make as many terribly warranted args as possible in hopes that your opponent drops one then you should strike me.

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 it 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 occasionally 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, condo good, disclosure good, debate good, competing interps

-------

Specific Args:

LD, CX, PF are combined below. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it. Everything that is here is easily changeable via technical debating.

I will always try my best to evaluate every argument objectively, but it would be dishonest for me to say that I have not historically been more likely to be persuaded by certain arguments over others.

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 judge these rounds often, but I have not read enough specific lit to know more than what debaters have explained to me in rounds. I am often unsure of what the alt to these Ks do ex. I have no idea what death drive, black ontology, etc means as an alt.

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 its 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.

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. Explanations that lean into the Ks interactions with the aff on the fiat-ed consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive primarily from proximate violence impacts.

Theory (excluding T) ---

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I tend to err towards the team answering theory. 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 and I’m more likely to err towards reasonability.

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.

if you go for a turn it must be weighed like any other piece of offense

Prioritize articulating full arguments - If you blip through arguments and don't finish your sentences I will have no idea what you are saying and it will functionally be as if you have said nothing.

Signpost when youre answering different contentions and moving between flows

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.

No prep if there is not a timer running.

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 there is no clash on weighing. PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not contextualize the weighing to the rest of the round or do meta weighing. Please do that.

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 and frontline. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.

LD ---

I don’t judge LD as frequently anymore which means that I may be unfamiliar with various norms and arguments. You should slow down when reading multipoint blocks of analytics since it will take me time to process arguments I am unfamiliar with. Take care to implicate and explain more than usual if you are reading anything besides policy or Ks.

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 tend to 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. This means that you may have to slow down a bit and do more explaining. 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.

________________________

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear and signpost, 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

Crawford Leavoy Durham Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:36 PM EDT

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Jen Lee Langley 3 rounds

fiona Li American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 6:51 AM PDT

zero topic knowledge for the Jan topic treat me like someone who has no idea what’s going on.

if there are any ways I can make the tournament more accessible or less stressful for you, please feel free to email me before or after round. Good luck and have fun with it !

updated TLDR for Emory: (read bold for important stuff)

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TREAT ME LIKE A FLAY WHO LEANS TECH > TRUTH. I did debate for like 3 years in HS, some nat circ and local circ (Skipped senior year) I have been extremely out of debate for a while however and am on the SLOWER SIDE. (I am also not aware of the new random debate meta like what ev ethics challenges are available or what weird weighing has changed) I’m probably especially not good for the trend of spam a gazillion args and speak super fast in pf. If you are speaking fast (230 wpm is pushing it for me) do so at your own risk by slowing down at tags and important parts. I’ll yell clear three times and if it’s still unclear you gotta just hope I understand it somehow. I don’t require docs neither will I flow off them. if a gazillion things are going on I will probably miss smth and make a terrible decision and then we will all be sad. If I miss something bc you’re spreading too fast then I’m not flowing it yipeeeeee!

Pls ignore my facial expressions and do not do ur collapse strat based on it I’m literally tweaking usually just doing random nods
TO AVOID ME INTERVENING

a) in ff and summary, if your defense is terminal, implicate it as terminal. If it’s mitigation, weigh with the mitigation from your defense. I will never vote on a one sentence blip as terminal defense.

b) Fully extend your arguments. Especially for turns. I need fiat -> link -> impact at the very LEAST.

c) warrant as much as you can. I’ll buy warranted analysis > unwarranted card in a lot of cases.

That’s it thank you have fun <3 <3 <3

I aspire to judge like and hold similar beliefs to Musab Chummun. In fact please just pretend as if I am Musab. Shoutout my boo thang @Annie chen.

Alsop cool paradigm: Daniel GH

Nvmind no speaks boost for Emory we r sticking to the tourney average

Pf stuff.

Yea put me on email chains: Fionayli1004@gmail.com

I rarely look at the email chain it's just to incentivize faster ev sending

please come to rounds preflowed.

Basic boring stuff:

If the ev is egregious (i.e. no cut card) and you know they definitely do not follow nsda conventions, please call an ev challenge (so we can all leave the round early) for a list of what is acceptable as an ev challengecheck here I'll follow exactly what it says. Update for this: internal ellipsis says that any found use of someone putting “…” should be penalized. I’m not going to drop someone for highlighting a title like the sunvite round so please don’t stake a round on it.
For novices: feel free to disregard any parts of this paradigm or ask me questions. I will adapt to you
Tech >>>>>> truth, I will try very hard not to intervene even if I hate a response/argument you're making so go for the wildest strat you want. This also means you can’t just tell me “this argument is silly” and hope I buy it in response to an obviously false argument. I still need responses.

With the exception of first constructive, anything not answered in the next speech is conceded. That means frontline everything you will go for in second rebuttal, defense is not sticky. I think even if something is not frontlined at all in second rebuttal first summary has to extend defense on it unless someone goes “oh we’re dropping this contention”
Any offense u want me to vote for has to be extended from all the links from fiat to a fleshed out impact. THIS IS IMPORTANT. I won’t evaluate insufficiently extended offense like a one sentence blip that’s like “affirming deports migrants which causes a famine” (this is especially true for turns if u want me to vote on it there should be an impact and link at minimal)
Any offense and defense I vote off of must be in summary and ff. I think first ff having new weighing is fine and second ff responding to first ff new weighing is fine too
How I vote: weighing first -> whoever’s winning weighting’s offense, if they win their offense they win-> if they don’t I go to other offense -> if neither team has offense I will presume for who has better weighing unless I get presumption warrants alrdy -> absent presumption warrants, weighing, and offense I will flip a coin to presume
Pls do not make ev exchanges take forever :( I don’t wanna make round stressful for u but minimize calling for ev unless necessary or just send a doc. The longer ev exchange takes the more likely you’re going to get a bad decision from me because I’m rushing to write rfd instead of thinking things through
i will (almost) never call for evidence unless a team explicitly tells me to. If neither team does I’m probably just gonna do warrant comparison. I’ll call for ev if I’m really confused
I don’t flow cross. If it’s important bring it up in a speech
pls weigh.you should answer your opponents' weighing whenever possible.
If u point out an argument has no internal link or warrant, I consider that sufficient defense if there’s actually no internal link/warrant.
i don’t flow overtime. At all.
feel free to post round as much as you want although most of the times I’ll take a while to come up with an answer cuz I’m a lil tired
how I evaluate weighing absent being told how to evaluate between diff types of weighing: short-circuit/pre-reqs/link-ins > magnitude/scope> timeframe > strength of link > probability

Non-topical debate/Prog

I kinda quit before Ks and trix became the meta in pf. That being said I will 100% try my best to evaluate what you give me but just be warned.
if you're in varsity these are fair game. I unfortunately will never vote on “we don’t know how to respond” arguments. Pf forward has some good resources to look at before and after round.
Prefs:

Larp: 1
Theory: 2
Topical Ks: 5 (strike)
Non-topical Ks: 5 (strike)
Performance: 5 (strike)
High theory: 5 (strike)
Phil: 5 (strike)
Tricks: 5 (strike)

Theory: probably chill here (if there's an egregious violation especially feel free to read theory. Way prefer to evaluate that over a substance round) friv is chill. I default yes rvis, reasonability, and text over spirit. I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is good, rrs are good, and cw is good. Feel free to argue otherwise on any of these takes however 100% down to vote on things against common debate norms. Don’t extend a shell in rebuttal, and only extend dtd if it’s contested.
ivis: these are silly and often very under warranted. I’ll evaluate them but I have a low threshold for responses
Side note, unless a team tells me explicitly losing no RVIs means I should still vote for a turn or OCI, winning no RVIs means I won’t vote for a turn or a counter interp either. All the warrants for why RVIs are bad still apply even if you’re winning a counter interp or a turn.
Ks: I take half this section back. i AM NOT the best judge for Ks mostly because throwing buzzwords at me usually confuses me. I understand the structures and how I'm supposed to vote in a k round but fast rounds with tons of indicts and stuff thrown around will confuse me (which is literally 90% of k rounds I've seen). I’m never going to drop you for running a K but i will need you to stay under 225 wpm in summary and ff and honestly I still don’t trust myself to make a good decision.
Tricks: I mean I won’t drop u I also just don’t think I’m the best judge for these but try them if you want to.

Ld stuff.

ermmm pretend as if I’m a trad judge who doesn’t intervene. Don’t go fast pleas

Congress:

I hate this event.

Jianjun Liu Lambert High School 6 rounds

Eden Long Carrollton 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 4:28 PM EDT

Hello! My name is Eden (he/him), and I am a former PF debater from Carrollton High School and a current first year student at Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!). I debated 3 years on the Georgia and national circuit so I'm familiar with the event.

Add me to email chain: edenlong42@gmail.com

Summary: Tech>Truth. Arguments need to be extended through every speech (besides 1st rebuttal) and evidence must be used to support your speeches. I will always vote off the flow.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Impacts: Link strength comes before your impact. Basically, I won't consider your impact weighing if I don't think you've proven that your impact is going to happen. Please weigh your impacts. I'll vote on any framework as long as you win it on the flow. If the link chain is strong and you defend it well I'll vote for your impact.

Structure: I think rebuttals need to respond to everything in constructive. I don't want to hear a new response to case in summary and I probably won't flow it. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No new evidence in 2nd summary and final should only extend what's in summary. Don't be abusive in 2nd final. I don't flow cross so if you want me to note something, bring it up in speech.

Evidence: I'll only look at evidence in the chain if you ask me to. Don't be hesitant to call for cards in the round. Evidence sharing is critical to debate and I won't be annoyed if you ask for cards.

Timing: Please keep your own time and use running prep. Don't really care if you go over a little bit just don't be hypocritical. Also, please try to refrain from calling time for your opponents. Trust that I know how much time they've taken and I stopped flowing when they reached the time limit.

Theory: I'm willing to vote for theory arguments just make sure you actually win the warranting. I'm not going to vote for you the second you start reading theory just because your opponent doesn't format the argument the way you think they should. Whoever warrants the best gets my vote. RVI's and IVI's are fine.

Disclosure: I'll vote on disclosure at TOC bid tournaments only. I ran it a few times and know how it works. Same theory stuff applies about warranting. I won't vote on jargon alone. I probably won't vote for disclosure at a non-bid tournament.

K's: I have less experience with K's than I do with theory so keep that in mind but I am willing to vote on it if you warrant it. I don't have an issue taking debates outside of the topic as long as you prove to me why we should. I enjoy when debaters read K's they truly care about and I think it brings important discussions into our event.

Tricks: I really, really don't like tricks. I think the only time we should take things out of the topic is when we really need to. I hate when debaters want to be lazy and read out tricks to confuse their opponents. If you decide to run friv theory just be prepared for my rfd.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I would love to help you get better so please feel free to ask me any questions about debate or the topic after the round. I'll probably be flowing on computer and I'd be more than willing to send you my flow after the round. Good Luck!

Satvik Mahendra Plano West Sr High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 9:45 AM CDT

email for email chains: satvik.debate@gmail.com

important: i need both teams to send me all docs/evidence that you will be reading in your speeches and please send it in the body of the email

i presume for whoever lost the coin flip unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls. also, if there isn't comparison between different pieces of conceded weighing, i will just intervene for what i think is most important. it will probably something like: link in/prereq w/ timeframe > link in/prereq > magnitude/scope > probability. however, if certain weighing is less comparative than other weighing and there is no comparative between the two pieces of weighing, ill probably just prefer whatever is more comparative.

DONOT read tricks!!!

good with any types of substance arguments and most theory arguments. prob not the best evaluating anything else. if i dont understand the arguments the way you explain them in your speech, then i will not do the work to try to understand them by reading your evidence. that's your job, not mine.

i will not vote for risk of solvency/try or die arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency" or "it is try or die for the aff". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

PLEASE READ: However, I would MUCH MUCH rather you paraphrase all your evidence or read only analytics and have it make sense than read cut cards that are grammatically incoherent, underwarranted, extremely wordy, or incomprehensible. You will be much happier with my decision and the speaker points that you receive as well because if I don't understand the card, I will not be able to properly evaluate it. This will also allow you to be much more efficient by actually explaining your arguments concisely rather than through lengthy, unclear cards, which will let you slow down, implicate, and break the clash, making me even more likely to vote for you.

Summary should not be making new responses to case that were not in rebuttal but frontlines in first summary are fine. Additionally, second summary should not be making new frontlines that were not in second rebuttal. No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

You definitely should briefly summarize your argument when extending it but I am not super picky about how in depth the extensions are as long as all parts of the argument are brought up, and especially the link and impact

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

Do whatever you want in crossfire, I'm probably not going to be paying attention. Just please be nice.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

Sasha Masson The Harker School 3 rounds

email for chain: sm2926@cornell.edu

Debated PF as Harker ML/LM, qualified to toc and quartered '23 stoc

SPEECH

I did debate in high school, so I am not as familiar with speech.

Just some general tips:

- extemp: Do not make up stats, I will fact check you. I like creative points and arguments. Have clear transitions and roadmaps for your points.

- impromptu: Speak slower rather than use many filler words. Same as above- I value creativity a lot with what you bring up. Incorporate hand gestures and be mindful of the tone you use depending on the topic.

- interps: Be creative with your character work while staying true to the piece. Add your own twist on it- pause in unique areas, move around, etc. Be dynamic and keep me engaged.

- info/oo: I value unique topics but even if it's something I've heard about before, it's all about how you deliver it in your own personal style. Make sure your tone and gestures match the topic of the speech.

PUBLIC FORUM

generals

- BE POLITE. I will dock speaker points if you are rude to your opponents during cross or during the round. You can be right and be nice- they are not mutually exclusive.

- DO NOT post-round. You can ask me questions for improving an argument or stay for feedback, but I will not tolerate post-rounding.

- Send speech docs before every speech and add me to the email chain for ev.

- Give TWs.

specifics

tech>truth

You can spread. just be mindful if your opponent calls clear. I expect everyone to send speech docs but ESPECIALLY if you are going to start spreading.

Don't use niche acronyms for a topic without explaining them.

I'll give a 10 s grace for overtime. Don't abuse it.

2nd rebuttal NEEDS frontlining. I encourage starting to weigh here too.

Extend your defense in every speech.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. People in pf need to weigh more and if your opponent weighs, you must counter it or I'll evaluate it as dropped. Start weighing in summary. Starting in final makes it harder to collapse.

Please collapse. I'm not trynna follow 4 contentions. Make it easy for me to vote for you. 1 good contention > 2 messy ones.

I'll presume the squo if there is no offense on either side.

theory/prog debate

PF was created with the intent to not be prog like LD and that's why speech times are so short. I personally don't think K's are suitable for PF which is why I never ran them and rarely debated against them. I would generally avoid reading K's in front of me as my standards for winning on a K are very high- so do with that as you will.

However, I do think establishing norms in debate are important. I am open to evaluating theory on disclosure, abusive highlighting, paraphrasing, etc. I don't think running this on very new debaters is entirely fair unless the abuse is insane on their behalf.

I never ran trix or friv theory. I'm pretty firm on my stance that trix in pf are quite abusive due to pf's time constraints, so I would generally avoid reading them in front of me as well.

I will end on this, be demure. Don't be reading 7 off, don't fake your evidence, don't read an overview disguised as a cp. I ALWAYS fact check, especially if I'm voting off a stat.

BE KIND. too many people quit debate because of bad experiences.

Quinn McKenzie Trinity Preparatory School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 2:40 AM CDT

This got too long, I wanted a summary. The full thing is below.

Do what you want in round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, email: mightybquinn@gmail.com, backup: mckenzieb@trinityprep.org

Speaker points are for speaking well (eg. clarity, speed, civility, etc), Wins and Losses are for winning the arguments in the round. They almost always agree (unless this is WSD, then they do always agree, obviously).

I am a wizened old soul flowing in a cooky lil spreadsheet, judge instruction is important.

If there are specific arguments or preferences you want to know about, or if you have unlimited time to scan through paradigms, go look at the stuff below.

Have fun go wild

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers, not out of spite or anything, I just can't summarize it. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3. Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you should probably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply to all the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I will not flow off the doc, but I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Counter Interps: I think that counter interps are latently defensive unless you tell me otherwise. Honestly, I don't even need a warrant, I just want it specified when you read it that you're trying to gain offense. IMO if it's a "counter" interp it's structured to be defense within the game, if you're styling it as a different, unrelated interp, that just HAPPENS to be about the same thing as the interp they read, I will assume that's offensive. If that's the case though, then it will come down to a model comparison, which is probably what you wanted anyway. This is not like, a carefully thought out assertion or meta-theoretical opinion btw, this is just how my brain will work when I'm flowing what you say at speed, hence I need you to clarify.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure (including rebuttal docs) is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea. It's been a while since I've seen someone read a role of the ballot on a theory shell tbh, bring it back.

RVI's: I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI. If we get into a "no RVIs" vs "Yes RVIs" debate I'm probably presuming "No" but like, if that's not extended or warranted or if the "yes" is conceded then it is what it is.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me, though it may need to be warranted more clearly than a post-fiat alt would. Why does the ballot matter to your advocacy?

Other progressive case-ish positions: I'm interested to hear them. I'm traditionally susceptible to de-dev arguments, but tend to be predisposed to disliking "death good" style claims. I'm not intervening to vote up or down either way, just making you aware of preferences.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link and an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Abhijeet Mehendale Ravenwood High School 3 rounds

Ara Mehran Fairmont Prep 6 rounds

Arnav Mehta Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 6:15 AM CDT

I debated for four years on the national circuit for Seven Lakes, and am a FYO

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: arnavm.218@gmail.com

If you have any questions please ask.

For ivy street plz keep arguments less silly ty!

add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

I can flow any speed don't worry just please send doc!

Post-Round as hard as you want(I did a bunch as a debater idrc) - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I like impact turns and think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

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.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

I prob am zoned out during cross so just if something is conceded in cross make sure to like emphasize it CX IS BINDING.

Part III - Weighing

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).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

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

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. 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. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I do not think people know how to read theory at all but u can read it on me

DO NOT READ IVIS JUST READ SHELLS IVIS DONT EXIST PLZ

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

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

*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

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

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

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

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

FW:

Util and soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the neg team then 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 as best I can

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

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. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

Nicholas Melamed Stoneman Douglas High School 6 rounds

Noah Mengisteab Durham Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 6:07 AM EDT

Background: He/Him; 3L at NYU Law; previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC) 2024 - Present.

*Tarheel States Notice*:You should consider striking me if you don't cut accurate cards or won't use an email chain. It won't be an auto-loss, but I will consider arguments by opponents if they call out the lack of formatted evidence. The rest of my paradigm will be the same "technical" paradigm.

Email Chains:Please addnmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies to rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards. NSDA rules state it's definitive to highlight or mark for identification evidence read, and you need to highlight/mark for paraphrasing (p. 37-38)

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.
Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.
Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.
Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).
New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary. 2nd final can respond to 1st final weighing if it's new.
Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.
Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
Don’t crashout in cross. Put cross-analysis in ink with your speeches.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I'm open to the following arguments at any varsity / national circuit tournaments (please not in JV or Novice):

Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). These will require in-depth explanation throughout the round.
Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, as well as their derivatives/CIs, are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think theory with legitimate violation stories is good, open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene on the flow. However, if your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I am more likely to believe you did not disclose in good faith (open to this as a debate response). Other interps are fine, but if it's frivolous theory (i.e., don't say good luck, shoe theory), I am more likely to intervene.
Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4-5) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

Cut card evidence ethics and email chain apply.

I've judged LD only a handful of times, but debate is debate. You probably shouldn't go full circuit style, but you certainly don't need to go full-on traditional mode either. However, in either debate style, I will still care about the line-by-line, so consistently respond to defense from prior speeches, crystalize offense, and consistently weigh your link or impact stories.

LARP/T/Theory>Trad > K/Nontopical Ks/Non-T AFFs > Phil/Tricks

More specifics if helpful:

Policy - Advs and DAs are great and what I most prefer. Any Plans/CPs should be specific with their solvency advocate. Very open to spec if any argument is too vague. I think the 2nr is more about crystalizing existing offense than dumping new evidence / impact scenarios, but new answers to 1ar defense make sense. Condo is fine but if it gets too silly then I'm open to hearing the shell.

T - Need to make sure there's good interp weighing/comparison here.

Theory - see PF section above. I am open to judging other interns, too, but the less serious the violation/more friv, the more likely I am to intervene.

Non-T/Planless AFFs - Again, open to judging it, have voted on it before in PF, but there's a risk of losing me, especially in K v K debates.

K - IR, Cap, Securitization, Afropess, Killjoy are fine, but any high theory lit will need significant explanation. Most important is contextualizing your offense while extending -- can't just ignore defense by extending through ink.

Tricks - Strike

Phil - Judged 3 phil rounds in PF, so overall not familiar with most lit; again run at your own risk or be ready to explain it well

Questions? Ask before the round.

Jeffrey Miller Marist School 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 3:12 PM EDT

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- Institute for Speech & Debate (2024-present), National Debate Forum (2015-2023), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 10/8/2024 for 2024-2025 season

Overview

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is no another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does.

I wear a lot of hats as a debate coach - I am heavily involved in argument creation and strategy discussions with all levels of our public forum teams (middle school, novice and varsity). I work closely with our extemp students working on current events, cutting cards and listening to speeches. I work closely with our interp students on their pieces - from cutting them to blocking them. I work closely with platform students working with them to strategically think about integrating research into their messages.

I have been involved with the PF topic wording committee for the past eight years so any complaints (or compliments) about topics are probably somewhat in my area. I take my role on the committee seriously trying to let research guide topics and I have a lot of thoughts and opinions about how debates under topics should happen and while I try to not let those seep into the debates, there is a part of me that can't resist the truth of the topic lit.

As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable and I probably err that they silence a majority of debaters.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers and "our coach doesn't allow us" is not an answer.

I am not your judge if you want to read things like font theory or other frivilous items.

I am also not persauded by many IVI's. IVI's (like RVI's) are an example of bad early 2000's policy debate. Teams should just make arguments against things and not have to read an 'independent voting issue' in order for me to flag it to vote on the argument. Implicate your arguments and I will vote.

Do teams need to advocate the topic?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves.

Links of omission are not persuasive - teams need to identify real links for all of their positions.

In terms of the progressive debates I've watched, judged or talked about, it seems like there is a confusion about structural violence - and teams conflate any impact with marginalized group as a SV impact. This is disappointing to watch and if reading claims about SV - the constructive should also be explicit about what structures the aff/neg makes worse that implicate the violence.

Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order).

Rebuttals should also probably be emailed in order to check evidence being read.

When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

Evidence should be attached in a document, not in the text of an email. It is annoying to have to "view more" every single time. Just attach a document.

If you send me a locked/uneditable google doc, I will give you the lowest points available at the tournament.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Bruce Missell Richard Montgomery High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 11:25 AM EDT

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years. I do a bit of collegiate policy now.

tech > truth unless you’re physically violent or bigoted

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

All ev is silly but i’m a big ethan roytman guy so go for it

Yang Gang

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

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or bigoted pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on ICC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

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

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need NEED to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

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

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

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

Progressive Args

Ks:

I did a bit of K debate last year in collegiate policy, did a bit of K debate while still on the HSPF circuit, and coach K teams, so I'm cool with it. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to.

I do like K's that pertain to the debate space (eg some versions of fem, orientalism, afropess, etc) as I'm persuaded by the whole "if debate can only operate through bigotry it probably shouldn't exist" but approach debate bad or debate broken arguments however you feel so inclined.

Generally I think that T-USFG is smarter than a lot of framework arguments in PF mainly because no plans/cp means less room for teams to meet in a way that is reasonable but I've voted on both so go for whatever you think fits better for the round.

My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is usually not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it). Note that this still means that the team going for the RVI needs to warrant why losing the shell is a reason to lose the round.

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing/Decision Criterion in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

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

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

Repeatedly cut your opponents off
Be rude to anyone in the round
Taking super long to pull up ev
Extending through ink
Not signposting
Calling everything dropped when it's not
Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

Efficient LbyL
Having fun with it
Good argument explanation
Signposting well
Good weighing
Smart strategy
A super clean win

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

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhat honest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then be VERY certain about the violation.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

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

FAQ

Can I use speed?Sort of but I have audio processing issues so under three conditions.

a) Don't take it above about 275wpm (the slower the better)

b) You’re clear

c) You send me docs including analytics

d) probably not a smart idea to go fast and read a k

I’ve been doing this for years, have spread many rounds myself, and do policy now but that doesn’t mean I’ll always be perfect, especially considering my API. So while not a huge risk, the faster and less clear you are the more you risk me missing something.

Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
Can I read new weighing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
Is cross open? Sure we ball
Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
Does a split panel change my judging prefs?

nah probably not

Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

Izzy Morris Marist School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 8:36 AM MDT

bio: I debated in both PF and LD in high school and I'm now a freshman at Emory University studying economics and philosophy. I've coached at PFBC and I currently help coach for Park City and judge for Marist.

for new debaters: tbh ignore most of the stuff below and just do your best! extend arguments, tell me why I should vote for them, and have fun!!

General:

- Add me to the email chain!! izzy.morris@emory.edu

- tech > truth

- speed is fine, however, clarity>>wpm. I'll say clear if I can't understand you

- don't be mean/offensive. bad vibes = bad speaks

- send speech docs

Some things I like to see:

- signpost because we both want that argument on my flow!

- weigh. the earlier the better, and warrant your weighing. also consider indulging in some metaweighing—OR match/respond to all of their mechs.

- I would say that have an average threshold for extensions—extend all parts of the argument you're going for (uq,link,IL,impact)—and a relatively high threshold for extending warrants.

- warranted evidence > warranted analytics > anything else

- i love fws when they are run well! I think the more specific the warrants are the better, and there should be a warranted ROTB.

- evidence comparison!

Some things I don't like to see:

- the blippier the argument, the less impact it'll have on my decision

- paraphrasing (and improperly cut cards in general) :(

- defense is not sticky; extend or it didn't happen.

- please don't read "cost benefit analysis" as a framework—that's silly. framework is supposed to frame your opponents out of the round, CBA does nothing and is the assumed universal rule of public forum debate.

- I'll stop flowing at 5 seconds over time

- please don't waste excessive time on sending docs, finding cards, pre-flowing, etc. be efficient in the round.

K/Theory rounds:

- I'm not the most qualified person to judge a K round, however, I'm not decidedly anti kritical arguments and sometimes quite enjoy them! I'm most familiar with cap, set col, fem, and identity Ks, but the nicher the K is the more slowing down you'll have to do in the back half because I'm pretty unfamiliar with most of the lit. Run at your own risk haha

- I'd much rather judge substance than theory, especially in prelim rounds. Please don't run frivolous theory, I won't vote for it and your speaks will probably tank. The shell should be run in the speech immediately after the violation. If it helps, I'm pro disclosure, anti paraphrasing, and I think that trigger warnings are probably bad.

- IVIs are silly and lowk dumb

- don't run tricks.

Denis Mrkva Palm Harbor University High School 3 rounds

Sahana Nellian Emerald High School 3 rounds

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage Broward HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:11 AM EDT

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 1/11/25

For PF - I am sick of seeing people read nonsense to win rounds. Please read educational arguments. I don't care if your opponent is wearing shoes and IVIs are getting really overused. There are obvious instances where you need theory, but I am sick of people using it to avoid learning anything about the topic.

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Pritesh Patel Vestavia Hills High School 3 rounds

Les Phillips The Nueva School 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 1:09 PM CDT

-- Paradigm

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in topical research (from any part of the library) rather than theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit), Daniel Guo (Strake Jesuit)

I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021. Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

-- Misc

I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

Gavin Poore Dreyfoos School of the Arts 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 28, 2024 at 8:57 PM EDT

Pembroke Pines Charter ‘24 | Emory '28

Hi, I'm gav -- I debated in PF for 3 years in high school (only 1 real yr on nat circ), qualled to Nats, TOC, FFL, etc. i also did some worlds.

TLDR

Average flow judge, Tech > Truth, debate is a game so play to win, go for wtv strategy you want (hidden links, kicking case, etc)

Cursing or wtv is fine as long as its not discriminatory/targeted/ad hominem in any way. Express urself however u want.

Speed is fine just send docs. Add me to the chain: pooregavin@gmail.com

im quite a big fan of impact defense and impact turns. also love squirrelly args of any sort since I read a lot of these in high school -- just make the round fun and we will all be happy

***I will only vote on an argument if it's fully functional. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ME and can justify "intervention". just extend everything. overextend warrants even. functionality matters more than u think, at least to me. ****

Prefs:

LARP/Policy - 1

Theory - 3

Topical K- 3

Non T K - 4

High Theory - 4/5

Trix - S

Speaks:

I usually give good speaks. I think speaks are a lil weird and definitiely arbitrary, so if you debate the best you can and show effort, chances are you will have good success with me. :)

ANY kind of ism/microagressions will not be tolerated -- it's an L 25. just be a good person, debate is never that deep.

Longer General Stuff:

*** Most importantly, I care a lot about warrants. Pls extend key warrants, esp impact scenarios. I think warrants can break the clash pretty easily for me, so I'd focus a lot here -- call out your opponents if they're lacking in this.

I'll vote on basically anyone arg that has a warrant and isn't inherently exclusionary/problematic.
I can probs flow most speed but dont be incomprehensible. Clarity is key.
****** NOTE FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: I'd slow down a bit. Emory wifi is buggy asf sometimes and the last thing I want to do is not flow something. Just be mindful

Pre flow before the round pls -- let's not waste time

Signposting is amazing

Go for whatever strategy/arg you want, feel free to experiment. I read lots of squirrelly args in high school, so id be happy to hear them.
Collapse pls and thanks
Slowwwww down on analytics and weighing.

Extend every part of the arg that ur going for (extensions of warrants matter a lot esp for impacts). offense should be explicitly extended in summary and ff, no new things in ff though. Yet, 1st ff can respond to 2nd summary weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing. defense isn't sticky
Be a nice person in round

Frontline in second rebuttal
Tell me how to break clash on evidence. Post-date, methodology, author, etc. Don't make me intervene pls

Real clash is appreciated

Pls weigh, the arg that wins the weighing is what ill evaluate first, but pls give me a reason to prefer your weighing (link-ins and meta weighing are great)

u dont need to extend opponents' link for an impact turn

i presume aff bc im progressive! (i presume neg)

Prog:

I'm comfortable evaluating most args. With that being said, I don't think prog is run the right way in PF, and because of that, I have a very high threshold for how I evaluate said arguments. So, yes, I would rather judge a substance round. Please! But here...

for theory: i default to competing interps and no rvi's. i wont hack for any shell, but i do think it's significantly harder to win certain interps (disclo bad, paraphrasing good, etc). weigh the voters pls. friv sucks dont read friv i will drop you if u read friv i promise ive done it before

for Ks: pls make sure to explain the lit. most comfortable with cap, security, and baudrillard (charity cannibalism). id slow it down here

plans are not rlly my thing

good luck! feel free to ask me more questions about my paradigm/preferences before round :)

Tamaryn Pratt Myers Park High School 6 rounds

Jordan Press NSU University School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 2:24 PM EDT

My name is Jordan Press. I debated for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, graduating in 2016. I was very active as a debater/judge/coach from 2012-2019. I now work at NSU University School as an educator and assistant coach.

jordan.press1998@gmail.com for email chains – also feel free to email questions.

POST EMORY 2025:I am sorry, but I no longer want to sit through any more bad K/frivolous theory/SPARK debates etc. Reading arguments to avoid doing real research and clash is antithetical to the purpose of Public Forum Debate. I can evaluate them, but I very much dislike the direction that PF is going. Read theory to check back real abuse. Other than that PLEASE read substance - my brain cannot tolerate going entire tournaments without hearing a substance round any longer.

The purpose of an email chain is to speed up evidence exchange, not to have the judge read off your doc during your speeches while you go incomprehensibly fast. I can flow most speeds but when PFers go fast they usually aren't clear, andif you aren't clear I can't flow. I don't want to flow off your doc. Prioritize being efficient over being quick. Also if you're going really fast I'm probably not flowing author names, so keep that in mind for extensions. The only time I look at evidence is if 1) there's an unresolved evidence dispute, 2) I feel like I'm forced to do so in order to make my decision (which means the debate was super messy/unclear), or 3) I'm curious

Back half strategy: I strongly prefer rounds where you make it clear to me what voting for you does. What does the Aff/Neg world look like and why is your world better? I want a clear, concise, cohesive, and crystalized narrative. Additionally, extensions require context and warranting that evolves around the events occurring in the round. The best rounds are the ones where debaters shape their extensions and warrants around the clash happening in the round instead of reading off a pre-written extension file. If you just tell me to “extend Smith” with no context, I probably won’t extend it on my flow. If you are going to read blippy card extensions in Summary/FF I am not the judge for you. Moreover, Depth > Breadth. I am much more likely to vote for a team extending 1 cleanly explained, weighed and fleshed out argument than a team extending 3-4 arguments that they are winning but are not explained in-depth in the back half of the round.

You should weigh early and often – it helps develop your narrative and helps me know what issues to look to first when filling out my ballot.

On Speaker Points – teams who do this stuff ^^ well will get higher speaks.

Defense isn't sticky. 2nd rebuttal needs to respond to 1st rebuttal.

I default to evaluating if I think the Aff or Neg world is better if I am not given judge instructions in the back-half.

My threshold for accepting responses to unwarranted arguments is really low.

I am generally tech over truth (this is a false dichotomy but w/e), but there is a threshold for offensive arguments. I will vote off ridiculous (in real world context) arguments if they are properly warranted, and easily not vote off things that are universal truths if they are not properly warranted. Warranting is key, which means it's generally much easier to have good explanations for real, truthful arguments anyways.

Progressive Arguments: By this point I'd say I'm decently comfortable evaluating theory and topical Ks. If your K is unusual or more dense (high theory/phil etc), you will need to overexplain and go slower, especially in the back half. I'm fine if you want to read a non-topical K but you'll need to overexplain even more. Ks and Theory weren't a thing when i was in HS so my beliefs are shifting as I learn and I have no preconceived notions on the args. I have literally 0 opinions on RVIs, IVIs, Ks, ROB, and Theory. You can shape my beliefs with the arguments you make in round, but I also would not expect a perfect evaluation of them.

On Disclosure specifically, I am pretty tab. I think there are both good and bad reasons for disclosure. However, if you email/upload to the wiki a giant block of text with no tags, highlighting or minimized text, my default interpretation is that you are not properly disclosed. At that point you are just being coy; either disclose or don't.

Tricks are a nonstarter.

TLDR;read what you want - if I don't understand it within the round, I won't vote on it.

In novice/middle school/JV rounds, I presume for the side I have to do the least work to find a voter for.

In Varsity/Nat Circuit rounds I presume Neg.

I don't care where you sit; if you stand while speaking, where you do crossfire, what you wear, etc. Do whatever makes you comfortable as long as I can hear you/your opponents.

Feel free to post-round me or ask questions – I want to help you learn and grow- just don’t be rude or belittling towards me and especially not towards your opponents. I am an adult; I can just leave if the conversation becomes unproductive. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but even more importantly it is an educational one. Be good humans, don’t let your drive to win rounds cloud your judgement.

Most importantly have fun and good luck! If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins or email me.

Ryan Qi Richard Montgomery High School 4 rounds

Millie Rana Westlake High School 6 rounds

Benjamin Redler Ransom Everglades 3 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:32 AM PDT

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

ICC UNLV/Stanford/Cal RR/Cal

As the topic committee member who helped shepherd this topic to fruition I would probably be more skeptical than others on anything that questions the fiat power of the resolution. The resolution was presented over six months ago irrespective of who won the election. The Presidential election for sure has implications on the topic in many ways but anything that says POTUS would never accede just rejects the premise of debate and its educational purposes imo. Of course you can debate probable implementation or how a Trump/ICC co-exist effectively or not all day.

*"the Rome Statute" or "Statute of Rome" (never 'the Roman Statute')

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 3

Non-Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives to minimize evidence exchange time but not required of course.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.
Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Maybe I am getting old but try to be on time, especially flight 2, like arrive early.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

Martin Seals Christopher Columbus High School 6 rounds

Bob Shurtz Hawken 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I am a flow judge. I find real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. Of course, it isn't the magnitude of your impact alone that matters. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but I would strongly prefer no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Ali Sidiqyar Irvine Palatine Independent 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 16, 2024 at 9:06 AM CDT

Brentwood 24, Vandy 28 - 3x Qualled to Gold TOC

Add me to the email chain: ali.sidiqyar@gmail.com

Big things if you don't have time:

Tabula rasa tech>truth etc.
Properly Extend and Weigh Offense to Win
Warranting is a necessity - I don't care what your evidence says as much as why it says it
Im ok with nat-circuit pf speed, but if you're going fast send a doc and if you're going really fast i'll probably miss stuff
Second rebuttal must frontline all offense and weighing or its conceded
No sticky defense
I'm a sucker for awesome rhetoric - especially persuasive phrases that I haven't heard before
Be nice, it's never that serious - any discriminatory or harmful statements will result in an auto-drop
Please feel free to reach out by email or otherwise with any questions/concerns before or after the round

Specifics:

Substance

In general, I'll vote for the cleanest link into the most important argument
I love link weighing and strategic implications of case - the flow is a toolbox and clever strategies in the back-half will be rewarded with good speaks (that said, don't do too much, the simplest path is often the best one)
Impact turns can be fun - but they can also be very messy - read at your own risk but enjoy a speaks boost if you do
Weighing is critical but it must be comparative, I don't just care that your impact is big, I care about how big it is relative to that of your opponent. Absent weighing, I don't know which arguments to prefer and will have to intervene in deciding who I think is winning their case/offense more cleanly which could result in a decision you won't like.
On that note - think bigger than simply magnitude or timeframe or whatever - give link-ins or truly comparative arguments of your impact scenarios themselves and use things like scope to take your link-ins to the next level
I forgot what I was going to put here - have fun
Signposting is crucial, if I don't know where you are things can get messy and I'll end up with a decision you won't like - off time road maps are cool but should be very short (i.e. aff, weighing, neg) or just tell me where you'll start and signpost well
Final should mirror summarycontent-wise but feel free to adapt to the round - the best finals have all the same ideas as summary but organized in the most persuasive way with just a little extra analysis sprinkled in to break clash and win rounds. Of course no cheesing second final, nothing new content wise outside of responding to new weighing in first final but really just focus on the big picture and convince me -even so called "flow/tech" judges are still human and can be persuaded
Extensions are necessary - nothing too crazy but extend the basic parts of your argument including warranting - if you can do it efficiently shouldn't take more than maybe 20 seconds
Warranting wins rounds - I believe the logical breakdown and comparison of the ideas behind your evidence is the best way to reach the higher levels of analysis necessary to come out on top consistently and I prefer logical warrant comparisons to repetitive evidence debates
SPEEDis OK but I'm not the best with the extreme end of speed we're starting to see in PF. Anything less than 200 words per minute (wpm) is fine, 200-250 will require a doc before the speech and anything above that risks me missing something. Great enunciation and tone inflection will definitely allow you to push my limits as well as slowing town for tagsbut, again, anything approaching policy style speed pronounced unclearly will quite possibly result in a decision you won't like.
I will believe anything if it is warranted even if it is stupid, including ways to evaluate the round - for instance, i think strength of link weighing is fake and dumb, but if you tell me why it isn't i'll believe it isn't until i am told otherwise with a reason as to why i should believe otherwise and a reason as to why that reason comes before the other reason
Backhalf speeches should be much slower- this is your time to filter down and prioritize - collapsing is key and at the end of the day all it takes is one weighed/implicated argument to win the round

Evidence

Please read cut cards or at least have cut cards with relevant context bolded/underlined etc. ready to back up evidentiary claims - if you don't know how to do this email me ali.sidiqyar@gmail.com
warranted evidence > warranted analytic > unwarranted evidence > unwarranted analytic
^^^ with the exception of straight up statistics/empirics or just factual claims perhaps related to uniqueness - but a good general rule of thumb
clipping is bad have good evidence ethics idk
rehighlighting your opponents evidence and reading it yourself is awesome

Prog

Default reasonability and no RVIs so read warrants
Theory is fine by me and I'm relatively experienced - in general I think disclosure good paraphrasing bad (again, reach out if you need help doing any of these things) but won't hack for anything - that said if you are reading theory on an obviously inexperienced team who you would probably beat anyways that is not a good look
If you make a more frivolous theory argument but it is warranted well/a strong argument and funny I will probably like it, but again, that's a bad look against inexperienced opponents
I don't like trix but maybe you can intrigue me
Weighing still has a place in theory rounds, compare your links logically and give comparatives or I may end up with a decision you won't like
Ks -I am much much less experienced with, I know how to evaluate them in general but run at your own risk - you'd have to explain everything very well and write my rfd for me and it is still overwhelmingly likely i'll come up with a decision you won't likeso again, run at your own risk

Speaks

PF is still (theoretically) for the lay-man, speaks will reward rhetoric and persuasion
bring me food i like
Speaks guide: 30 - practically perfect; 29 - very solid, minor errors; 28 - solid but needs work; 27 - average; 26 or lower - you assaulted me in round
Per Eli Gripenstraw's paradigm (linked below), if both teams agree to have a lay round, speaks start at 29 and will follow this paradigm

Miscellaneous

Ask your opponents truly thought provoking questions in crossfire for a speaks-boost - perhaps a moral dilemma
Some debaters I agree with - Sully Mrkva,
Eli Gripenstraw
I presume first speaking team if there is no offense unless told otherwise

Gabrielle Smith Gulliver Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 12, 2024 at 5:40 PM EDT

Background

I have experience in PF, Parli, Extemp, and Duo, with the majority of my judging in PF. I also coach PF. My goal is to evaluate rounds fairly and consistently, with an emphasis on clear argumentation, weighing, and impact analysis.

Before the Round

If both teams arrive before me, go ahead and decide if you’re doing an email chain (include me—my email is at the end of my paradigm).
Ensure your flow and prep materials are ready before the round begins.

In the Round

General Expectations:

Delivery matters! Persuasion is key in PF, and speaking style affects speaker points.
Utilize your prep time wisely.
Be clear in stating your contentions and framework.
Speed is fine, but don’t spread—I value clarity over speed.
I am flowing, so make it easy for me to follow. Off-time roadmaps should not exceed 10 seconds.
Rebuilding and extending arguments is critical. I need more than just tagline extensions to continue evaluating an argument.
Weighing is non-negotiable. Tell me why you are winning the round and how to evaluate the debate.

Argumentation:

I value logical and well-warranted arguments. Just because something is dropped doesn’t mean it’s automatically true if it’s poorly warranted or irrelevant.
However, I can’t make arguments for you. Logical responses to outlandish or stretched arguments will be accepted if explained thoroughly.
Avoid spending excessive time arguing over minor details, such as one source (there are some exceptions depending on the topic) or definition. Focus on big-picture clash and impact analysis.
Link debates are often more important than impacts. Without a solid link, your impact won’t matter.

Weighing and Framework:

Provide a clear weighing mechanism and carry it throughout the round. If your opponent’s mechanism goes uncontested, I will use theirs.
If neither team provides a weighing mechanism, I will default to evaluating dropped arguments, clash, and overall impact.
PF is different from Policy. Running most theory or Ks in this format is not optimal, especially given PF’s speech times. These are often used as “gotcha” strategies in PF, which detracts from meaningful engagement with the resolution.

Crossfire and Evidence Calls:

I don’t typically flow crossfire, so if you want me to consider concessions or notable points, you must incorporate them into your speeches.
Evidence should directly support your claims. Misrepresenting or cutting evidence out of context will lower your speaker points and may cost you the round.

Final Thoughts

Debate is about logic, reasoning, and engagement. Be creative, dynamic, and clear. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to ask before the round.

Remember to be considerate and respectful during the round. Disrespectful behavior or insensitive comments will lower your speaker points and can cost you the round. Debate may be competitive, but you are discussing real people and potential decisions that could have real-world consequences.

Most importantly, enjoy the opportunity to debate meaningful issues!

If doing an email chain please add me -gabri3ll30422@gmail.com

Shane Stafford The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 18, 2024 at 5:30 AM CDT

Email for email chains: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Update: 9/17/24

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I have coached the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1)Theory - Theory is not a game, it is for the improvement of debate going forward. I'm much more truth over tech on these issues. You will NOT convince me within the space of a debate round that paraphrasing is good or that disclosure is bad. In fact, as a squad, we are starting at Yale to disclose rebuttal arguments.

2)Understand what is theory and what are kritiks. IVI's are not a thing, pick a lane and go with one of the former arguments.

3)Presumption is a 1950's concept in debate. In fact, I would say that as a policymaker, I tend to favor change unless there is an offensive reason to trying change.

4) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

5) Read evidence (see theory above). I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

6) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce (email it) it in less 60 seconds.

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

9) Don't expect good points if you are blippy, you don't send out speech documents, or you send out a lot more than you actually read. Also, anything else that appears to be you trying to game the system or confuse your opponent. See #7 for good points.

10) Slow down, I'm not a lay judge, but flow judges need good signposting and good warrants, and not seven or eight analytic assertion arguments in a row

11) Weighing is comparative and needs time. Don't just talk about your argument.

12) If you read more than three contentions, expect your points to go down.

13) Ask me if you have questions

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

Emily Stegawski American Heritage Palm Beach HS 2 rounds

Please do not give me a handshake.

For the last several years, I have been a speech and debate coach and classroom teacher. At the middle school level, I have experience judging all Individual Events, LD, PF, and Congress. At the high school level, my focus is on Congress, Extemp, PF, and Impromptu events.

In all debate events, my preference is strong argumentation, respectful clashes, and a showcase of unique personalities. While a bit of humor is acceptable, and I appreciate some entertainment, the quality of arguments should be the highest priority. When questioning your opponent, be respectful by letting the student finish their question/answer, avoid laughing at your opponent, and be wary of your volume.

The sole focus of your speech should not be criticizing your opponent’s arguments; rather prioritize supporting your own arguments with evidence, warrants, and reasoning. Simple arguments that are organized and well-constructed are often more likely to succeed than over-complicated arguments full of technical jargon that the average judge would not know.

I also look for good oral delivery in all events. Making eye contact, enunciating clearly, using vocal variety, and gesturing naturally can be the things that set you apart from your opponents when there is a close tie. Your argument will be much more impactful if your delivery is engaging and effective.

For Congress:

Do not allow your legal pad to be a distraction, i.e. moving your legal pad from hand to hand, reading off of it the entire speech, etc.
Bring unique rhetoric into your speech, especially during the intro/conclusion.
All evidence should be presented with explanations that articulate your points. Arguments should have a clear warrant and reasoning tied to your evidence.
I enjoy professionalism from presiding officers. Though having a personality is good, being too humorous may be a setback. Being an effective PO requires a great deal of practice in efficiency and fairness. Thus, a successful PO can easily be in the top 4 if they have ran the chamber smoothly and fairly.

For PF:

Oral delivery: I flow as much as possible during the round; thus, speaking clearly and enunciating words well is essential to grasping your argument. I cannot handle spreading, so the faster you speak, the harder it is for me to flow.
Evidence: I don’t typically call for evidence. My assumption is that competitors are entering the debate with accurate and trustworthy evidence.
Crossfire: This is an important time for competitors to show that they know their arguments and that their side should be voted on. Lots of stuttering or repeating the same statements does not look good. If you need to think about a response, take a moment to think to avoid saying needless words. What is said in crossfire is binding; therefore carefully consider your answers/concessions.

Marge Strong The Harker School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:59 AM EDT

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating (ESPECIALLY) if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump. I am not asking for a conversation speed debate, I am asking for you to be sow enough that you are clear. If that is super fast, good for you. If that is slower, sorry but that's the speed you should go.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

8. AI-generated cards are an auto -2.5 speaker points. This is embarrassing. I'm open to hear it's a reason to reject the team.

9. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD

WARNINGS:

I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word.
When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way too hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Do not pref me if you don't want to disclose your arguments.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

No need to knock on the table when time runs out for the other team. I come from policy and I don't think it's rude to have a timer go off. I think it's more rude to have your time go over while speaking, than to tell someone they are over time.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

Anbu Subramanian Southlake Carroll 2 rounds

Alexander Sun Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 16, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my emails for the chain are alexsun6804@gmail.com

charlottelatindebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

-Tech over truth

-Go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter. If you're spreading, send a doc in the chain if you feel like half of the speech isn't going to be super coherent.

-You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

-Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal:

-Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
-First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

-Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary:

-Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

-This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

-Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

-General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

-Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus:

-Should be very similar to summary with the exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other Stuff:

-Have cut cards ready if something is called

-Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

-I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. In general, disclosure and paraphrasing theory are examples of shells that I will be happy to evaluate. No frivolous theory, there needs to be quality warranting for drop the debater or drop the argument that could potentially make the interpretation a norm after the round. For Ks, I'm familiar with identity K's, securitization, set col, but feel free to run other Ks if you think it's important. I've judged rounds that involve tricks, and usually, it gets crazy, so go for them only if you feel like it's necessary to win the round. I'll do my best to evaluate progressive arguments if it goes down in the round.

-Don't be rude or say something problematic. It could cost you the round.

Good luck.

Stella Sung Canyon Crest Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 3:12 AM PDT

JANUARY, 2025 UPDATE:I prefer to judge lay rounds as indicated in my paradigm below. However, in the last few months, I have judged K rounds, theory rounds, and elim rounds where one or both teams have spread. Please note that I have so far never squirreled in an elim round where teams have run either Ks, theory or have spread (though I ask for the docs)...and often I am the lay/flay on a panel with 2 tech judges. Coincidence? Who knows? But I feel like I should provide this information so that teams can decide what arguments they want to read. Good luck, all! :)

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

Ethan Tai Hire 6 rounds

Hui Tang Thomas S. Wootton 6 rounds

Yeqing Tang Montgomery Blair 3 rounds

Joey Tarnowski The Lovett School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 18, 2024 at 1:29 PM EDT

Updated for 2024 season. Yay debate! :)

If you’re at a local tournament/traditional LDer/PFer, please scroll to the bottom

Email: joeytarnowski [at] gmail [dot] com

he/him

I did policy at Samford (class of 2024), qualified 4 times to the NDT, and did 4 years of LD in high school.

I was coached by Lee Quinn, and some other judges/debaters who have influenced how I think about debate throughout college (non-exhaustively) include Brett Bricker, Erik Mathis, Ana Bittner, Ari Davidson, and Bennett Dombcik.

Debate is confrontational in nature so things sometimes getting heated is inevitable, but I really strongly dislike when teams make it a major point of their in-round ethos to be unnecessarily mean/hostile/condescending. We're all just here trying our best at a very hard activity we all (hopefully) enjoy.

General

Line-by-line, impact calculus, and evidence quality and comparison all matter a great deal to me. Well-researched and prepared strategies (regardless of ideological content) will almost always be a better choice in front of me than generic or poorly researched strategies. I think the aff should say some implementation of the resolution is a good idea, and the neg should say that the aff is a bad idea.

I generally consider myself tech over truth, but I also strongly believe that arguments start off only as strong as their initial warrants. I'm generally predisposed against arguments that are reliant on extremely sketchy/pseudoscientific evidence (i.e. climate change good), but if there's an argument you're confident you've got the goods on, go for it.

I think debate is first and foremost a game and believe in rewarding people who play that game strategically. I really enjoy when teams commit to bold strategic choices, whether that's the 1NR spending 6 minutes impact turning a 2AC add-on, a 1AR going all in on a straight turn/impact turn, or other similar things.

I will not vote on egregiously unethical impact turns like racism/sexism/other forms of bigotry good. Any other position is fair game (assuming it's well-researched and executed).

I flow on Excel, and I will generally follow along with the doc in the 1AC/1NC to ensure no clipping is taking place, and after the 1NC usually have the doc open but generally only look over at it because I like to have author names spelled correctly on my flow. I generally don't have a preference one way or another for analytics being included in the doc, but it's probably to your benefit to at least have CP/permutation texts in the doc and to slow down on analytics (maybe 80% speed).

**I have some minor issues with auditory processing, so I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also greatly appreciated.

Specifics

I will preface all of this by saying that virtually any preference I hold can always be overcome with sufficiently solid debating, but I also would rather be up front with my predispositions.

I tend to lean neg on most counterplan theory debates and usually default to reasonability and judge kick. I'm pretty unlikely to vote aff on condo bad unless something egregious happens (i.e. an extremely excessive amount of 1NC options, lots of condo planks, blatantly contradictory options, or 2NC CPs out of straight turns), or it is severely mishandled by the neg. I generally think most other theory debates are better leveraged as offense to help win the competition debate and likely a reason to drop the argument.

I would say I'm better for T debates than most and think they can be very strategically valuable. Evidence comparison is very more important to me in these kinds of debates, and I generally find specific visions of what the topic looks like under your interp (i.e. a well fleshed-out caselist) to be very helpful. Impact calculus is also important.

I generally am of the fairly strong predisposition that the aff should defend some material implementation of the resolution. The specifics of what that means can be debated out, but I'm usually not a huge fan of strategies that just choose to ignore the resolution altogether or don't have an explanation of what their model of debate looks like and how research/competitive incentives look like under that model. Fairness is an impact, but impacts still need warrants and impact calc.

Indicts to utilitarianism/consequentialism/cost-benefit analysis should also be coupled with an explanation of how I should evaluate impacts absent that framing.

---LD---

For the most part, all the thoughts expressed above should reflect most of my argumentative preferences, but I wanted to add a few LD-specific things.

I think my belief that arguments start off at the strength of their initial warrants is probably a bit more relevant in LD, as it means I’m generally less predisposed to voting on tricks/cheap one-shots/theory than most judges. Pointing out that an argument does not have a complete warrant is good and reasonability gets a LOT more compelling against theory arguments that rely hard on very marginal risks of offense/are just generally silly. I’m not afraid to vote down an argument because I didn’t think it had a warrant. Topicality has to actually define words in the resolution. I’m extraordinarily unlikely to vote on an RVI unless it's completely dropped or massively mishandled, and even then I will be very unhappy.

I would consider myself at least somewhat familiar with most philosophy read in LD (Kant, Levinas, etc.) but don’t have a deep understanding of more niche philosophies. I would greatly prefer positions to have a couple fleshed out warrants than reading a billion one sentence arguments and hoping one is dropped. Blippy arguments sounds to me like you’re not confident in the positions you’re reading. I know some nuance getting lost is inevitable given time constraints, but that’s also why I’d rather debaters pick a smaller number of positions and flesh them out. However, I really love when debaters actually flesh out their position and explain the nuances of how it interacts with other things.

---Traditional Debate---

This is what I spent most of high school doing, and I really appreciate good traditional debate. You should do what you’re most confident in rather than trying to read something you think I’d “like more” because I did policy (I promise you, I’d rather a great lay debate than a bad policy debate).

How I evaluate these debates is fundamentally the same as how I would evaluate any other debate, a piece of evidence or explanation doesn’t suddenly become good or bad depending on the speed at which it’s delivered. However, I think a lot of traditional debate can get caught up in what you’re “supposed” to do at the expense of substance. For example, I generally think reading definitions in the first speech is unnecessary, and often framework debates do very little and could be conceded as early as the 1NC. For the most part, the more time you're spending actually talking about the resolution, the better.

Evidence comparison is fantastic and you should do it. I would strongly prefer that you are reading cards/direct quotes from the original source and have the original source available. I also would appreciate an email chain being set up (be confident enough in your arguments that you don’t try to hide them!), but if you choose not to, you should have your evidence ready for your opponent or me to read.

Collapsing down to your best advantage/disadvantage/contention in the last speech is much appreciated, as is spending a lot of time on the aff case. A 1NC that concedes framework, reads one disadvantage they’re confident in, and spends 5 minutes reading good, case specific evidence against the aff’s contentions would make me very happy.

Noel Thomas St. Luke's School 3 rounds

Norman Tillero Sequoyah High School 6 rounds

Aaryan Tomar Plano West Sr High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:06 PM CDT

pf for 4 years

plano west '24 - georgia tech '28

email for docs/questions: aaryantomar12@gmail.com

tech > truth

procedural --

speed isnt inherently a problem if you send docs, but if you're mumbling and not saying words, i will clear you twice, after which i will stop flowing

speaks are ableist and bad so ill give pretty high speaks (29+) unless you go incomprehensibly fast (see above), you horribly horribly miscut evidence and are called out on it, or you are mean or exclusionary in some way

if your case is below 1000 words, substance, and you send cards and a rhetoric doc (just the text of what you say with no highlighting or anything) i will floor both of your speaks at 29.6

sending rebuttal cards is preferred as well

i'm not much of an evidence freak; i'll usually call for evidence after the round that was heavily discussed if i think it might matter, but ill moreso be looking at like dates and whether or not the cut was legit- ie surface level stuff, if you want me to dig deeper and find a specific content flaw with the evidence tell me what to look at in a speech

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE GIVE A ROADMAP, FOLLOW THE ROADMAP, AND SIGNPOST

strategy --

extensions should be slower and tell me every part of the argument sequentially, id prefer if you left out author names if possible

i like smart analytics, i can be persuaded to prefer an analytic over bad/unwarranted carded evidence

weighing should be comparative, there needs to be an explicit mention of both your and their impact as well as a mechanism, "probability weighing" is generally just link defense and probably won't be evaluated on the same layer as actual impact weighing;if your impact is poverty/inequality and their impact is universe-ending intergalactic alien space war, you probably won't "win the weighing" but if you implicate good enough defense as to why said space war is probably not going to happen, which is relatively easy, they don't get to link into the impact and you can win by just having access to your impact

i LOVE a good link in- carded linkins are super cool if done right but also obviously very hard, smart analytical linkins are just as good and make you sound super smart

impacts are better when they're terminal, which by default is only really lives so thats what i mainly look towards unless you give me some other framing, "economic growth" is not really a terminal impact unless you tell me who benefits from the economic growth and how (because growth is often unequal), or you link in to their impact

framing is fine but it is an extra layer that has the possibility to obfuscate the round for me, so if you run it, bring it up early (2nd constructive, 1st rebuttal) and make it VERY clear EXACTLY what is changing and what needs to be done by BOTH sides to win

"framing" later than those speeches is more or less just weighing, which is fine, but i probably wont evaluate it as framing

PLEASE COLLAPSE EARLY

spamming seventeen responses from the blockfile without implication or telling me how it interacts with the argument itself is not persuasive, always quality > quantity

terminal responses to everything you might go for in the backhalf must be fully frontlined in 2nd rebuttal/1st summary, you should probably frontline mitigatory responses too; if you don't know if something is terminal, just assume the worst and overexplain

prog --

generally not super familiar, debated theory a small # of times but nothing crazy and not much prog outside of that, and i've forgotten most of what i did know; if its warranted and weighed ill listen to anything but im not the most knowledgable prog judge you'll see

theory - im impartial to disclosure and paraphrasing being good or bad; i forget exactly the general accepted definition of an rvi but my definition is it means if you win yes rvi's then you can win off terminal defensive on a shell, otherwise you need some form of offense on the same layer to win, winning no rvi's means you can still lose to any weighed offense on the same layer; i default yes rvi's and competing interps; i dont super like friv theory but i guess ill evaluate it; an ivi is like another name for a theory argument (i guess the difference is you imrpovise it?), i will treat it the exact same way

kritiks - never debated it, spectated a few round of it; ive never heard a k well-explained in case and it seems like 90% of the cards are just never referenced after they're read, so please if you want to read this, read it good; if an alt sounds like its magic and unfair (they usually are) then im sympathetic to the argument of it being abusive, maybe thats bad but again i dont really know how k's work

im not like philosophically against non topical k's but ill be honest ive never been able to follow these debate super well, just explain it well and ill do my best; same goes for its responses

tricks: don't really know how to evaluate them because i usually dont get how they implicate in the round but i mean i wont stop you

if you want to know if a specific arg is chill just ask me beforehand- i would prefer to get a warning than find out when the speech starts

if you have any questions about anything here, please email me! and good luck!

Kate Totz The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM CDT

-- LD NOTE FOR 2024--

Speed is completely fine, but if you're going 90% full speed and up I will be a bit more reliant on the doc. I am fine with spreading (especially if it's clear) but am out of practice with flowing top speed LD rounds. I don't have a ton of topic knowledge, as I mostly coach PF now.

— FOR NSDA WORLDS 2024 —

Please ignore everything below - I have been coaching and judging PF and LD for several years, but evaluate worlds differently than I evaluate these events. This is my second nationals judging worlds, and my 3rd year coaching worlds.

I do flow in worlds, but treat me like a flay judge. I am not interested in evaluating worlds debates at anything above a brisk conversational speed, and I tend to care a lot more about style/fluency/word choice when speaking than I do in PF or LD.

—LD/PF - Updated for Glenbrooks 2022—

Background - current assistant PF coach at Blake, former LD coach at Brentwood (CA). Most familiar w/ progressive, policy-esque arguments, style, and norms, but won’t dock you for wanting a more traditional PF round.

Non-negotiables - be kind to those you are debating and to me (this looks a lot of ways: respectful cross, being nice to novices, not outspreading a local team at a circuit tournament, not stealing prep, etc.) and treat the round and arguments read with respect. Debate may be a game, but the implications of that game manifest in the real world.

I am indifferent to having an email chain, and will call for ev as needed to make my decision.
If we are going to have an email chain, THE TEAM SPEAKING FIRST should set it up before the round, and all docs should be sent immediately prior to the start of each speech.
if we are going to do ev sharing on an email, put me on the chain: ktotz001@gmail.com

My internal speaks scale:

Below 25 - something offensive or very very bad happened (please do not make me do this!)
25-27.5 - didn’t use all time strategically (varsity only), distracted from important parts of the debate, didn’t add anything new or relevant
27.5-29 - v good, some strategic comments, very few presentational issues, decent structuring
29-30 - wouldn’t be shocked to see you in outrounds, very few strategic notes, amazing structure, gives me distinct weighing and routes to the ballot.

Mostly, I feel that a debate is a debate is a debate and will evaluate any args presented to me on the flow. The rest are varying degrees of preferences I’ve developed, most are negotiable.

Speed - completely fine w/ most top speeds in PF, will clear for clarity and slow for speed TWICE before it impacts speaks.

I do ask that you DON’T completely spread out your opponents and that you make speech docs available if going significantly faster than your opponents.

Summary split - I STRONGLY prefer that anything in final is included in summary. I give a little more lenience in PF than in other events on pulling from rebuttal, but ABSOLUTELY no brand new arguments in final focuses please!

Case turns - yes good! The more specific/contextualized to the opp’s case the better!

I very strongly believe that advocating for inexcusable things (oppression of any form, extinction, dehumanization, etc.) is grounds to completely tank speaks (and possibly auto-loss). You shouldn’t advocate for bad things just bc you think you are a good enough debater to defend them.
There’s a gray area of turns that I consider permissible, but as a test of competition. For example, climate change good is permissible as a way to make an opp going all in on climate change impacts sweat, but I would prefer very much to not vote exclusively on cc good bc I don’t believe it’s a valid claim supported by the bulk of the literature. While I typically vote tech over truth, voting for arguments I know aren’t true (but aren’t explicitly morally abhorrent) will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.

T/Theory - I have voted on theory in PF in the past and am likely to in the future. I need distinct paradigm issues/voters and a super compelling violation story to vote solely on theory.

*** I have a higher threshold for voting on t/theory than most PF judges - I think this is because I tend to prefer reasonability to competing interpretations sans in-round argumentation for competing interps and a very material way that one team has made this round irreparably unfair/uneducational/inaccessible.***

norms I think are good - disclosure (prefer open source, but all kinds are good), ev ethics consistent w/ the NSDA event rules (means cut cards for paraphrased cases in PF), nearly anything related to accessibility and representation in debate
gray-area norms - tw/cw (very good norm and should be provided before speech time with a way to opt out (especially for graphic descriptions of violence), but there is a difference between being genuinely triggered and unable to debate specific topics and just being uncomfortable. It's not my job to discern what is 'genuinely' triggering to you specifically, but it is your job as a debater to be respectful to your opponents at all times); IVIs/RVIs (probably needed to check friv theory, but will only vote on them very contextually)
norms I think are bad - paraphrasing!! (especially without complete citations), running theory on a violation that doesn’t substantively impact the round, weaponization of theory to exclude teams/discussions from debate

K’s - good for debate and some of the best rounds I’ve had the honor to see in the past. Very hard to do well in LD, exceptionally hard to do well in PF due to time constraints, unfortunately. But, if you want to have a K debate, I am happy to judge it!!

A prerequisite to advocating for any one critical theory of power is to understand and internalize that theory of power to the best of your ability - this means please don’t try to argue a K haphazardly just for laughs - doing so is a particularly gross form of privilege.
most key part of the k is either the theory of power discussion or the ballot key discussion - both need to be very well developed throughout the debate.
in all events but PF, the solvency of the alt is key. In PF, bc of the lack of plans, the framing/ballot key discourse replaces, but functions similarly to, the solvency of the alt.
Most familiar with - various ontological theories (pessimistic, optimistic, nihilistic, etc.), most iterations of cap and neolib
Somewhat familiar with - securitization, settler-colonialism, and IR K’s
Least familiar with - higher-level, post-modern theories (looking specifically at Lacan here)

Erica Vatella Auburn 1 rounds

Uma Venkat East Ridge High School 3 rounds

Aadi Waghray Hire 6 rounds

Liz Weas Mountain Brook High School 6 rounds

Chase Williams Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EDT

Background

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

Update based on Emory 2025

Put the public back in PUBLIC forum. The jargon, the theory, the nonsense arguments…y’all are killing this event and as someone who has been a part of it since 2006, it makes me very sad. I understand that you want to win and want to do well - but what happened to best practices? When did we stop flowing? When did we stop responding to defense before extending our offense? Why is every extension through ink? Why are we not analyzing the evidence that our opponents are reading? Why are we reading evidence from 2015 in 2025 - has nothing changed in the last decade?

Yes, I’m probably a dinosaur. And maybe I’m in the minority in the judge pool. But I think if you listen to the conversations in the hallways at Emory this weekend, you’ll hear a lot of “what is happening?!” “Why is this happening?!” “Where did PF go?!” Etc. Ultimately, it’s up to y’all how you want to debate - but I’m done voting for the nonsense. I’m going to hold teams to a high standard going forward. Preserve the public in PF. Please.

Updated for Online Debate

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

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

Paradigm

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

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

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

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

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

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

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

Miranda Wilson Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 27, 2024 at 1:44 PM EDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

Hey! I'm a fourth year at Emory University, and I did PF for four years in high school (Myers Park) on the national and local NC circuit. I'm now a Policy debater on Emory's team. Debate is absolutely my favorite activity, and it makes me happy. Overall, I hope you enjoy the round/have fun.

Include me in the email chain! mirandawwilson@gmail.com

Policy:

-Ks: I do not think I am very good for the K because most of the literature is unfamiliar to me. Feel free to strike me. However, I will vote for the K if it is well-explained and well argued. I really value a detailed/comprehensive explanation of the alt and why that is better than the plan. If I don't understand what your alt does, I prob won't vote for the K.

Taken from @Emilyn Hazelbrook's paradigm (which I largely agree with in it's entirety):

-K Affs: Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

-Topicality: I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

-Theory: Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

-Counterplans: I lean neg on most questions of competition (minus consult cps). If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2nrs won't spend 2 minutes extending a losing cp.

-Disadvantages: Actually compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

-Case: Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Public Forum:

-For PF, tech = truth.

-The flow is important to me but so is narrative. When determining speaks, I will look at how effectively you combined evidence with rhetoric.

-I can handle any speed. I don't love that spreading has entered PF, but oh well.

-Please frontline in second rebuttal!

-I will not flow disads in second rebuttal. Rebuttal is not the time to add in a third contention or argument, it is a time for defense.

-The same cards/arguments/weighing need to be extended in both summary and final focus. Please give me a clear weighing mechanism and explain it! It will make my job much easier.

-Signpost!!!!!!!!!

-I find historical precedent extremely important and love when it's argued in round. I also love framework debates; I think good framework can be used really effectively.

-I love unique arguments!! However, I do not have much experience with theory, and I don't think PF is necessarily the place for it. I'm willing to hear it, but I can't promise you'll be happy with how I evaluate it.

-Please don't misinterpret evidence. I'm begging you. There are so many articles out there. Find a piece of evidence that says what you want it to say instead of misconstruing. Don't be surprised if I call for evidence at the end of a round, especially if it gets indicted.

-To extend evidence you don't necessarily have to extend the citation, just make sure the content of the card stays consistent.

Miscellaneous:

-Be respectful. I have dealt with a lot of sexism during my time in debate, and if you are condescending in anyway I will dock your speaks. Any racist, homophobic, or sexist arguments and you will automatically lose.

-If you don't know someone's pronouns in round (they have not explicitly said them), it's probably best to default to they/them. I do appreciate when debaters post their pronouns before round in the chat.

-I will disclose and give an RFD if both teams want/the tournament allows.

-If your opponent didn't drop an argument, then don't say they dropped it. Also, don't extend through ink.

-Feel free to ask any questions after the round!

-Have fun:)

Carol Wininger The Harker School 3 rounds

William Wu Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 6 rounds

Vivek Yarlagedda Southlake Carroll 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 11, 2024 at 5:37 PM CDT

Debated for four years at Southlake Carroll, now a freshman at Stanford and a head coach at Gunn.

Please use viveky@stanford.edu to send clearly labelled email chains; ie., "TOC R7.1 Southlake Carroll RY v. Seven Lakes LM". Keep in mind that I care more about the cleanliness of my inbox than the quality of your speaks

TFA Update

- I've researched and cut prep on the topic so feel free to run your squirrelly stuff

- Mandatory that you send all evidence read in-round in the email chain/speechdrop or speaks are capped at 26

- Gonna be more receptive to what might come off as nitpicking (e.g., "they didn't extend X part of the impact")

- Heavy emphasis on my preference for hearing theory/K/impact turns over a messy, below-standard substance debate

- Above all, be clear in the back-half, it's not a screw if your round-ending warrant was unintelligible, that's on you

TL;DR

I'm very tech over truth but feel that the shift of PF to "Policy-lite" is leaving much to be desired in terms of warranting, evidence ethics, clarity, and more. Aspects of that shift however—speed, progressive arguments, evidence comparison, etc—can be great when executed how they were originally intended. Moreover, I urge you to keep rounds (even high level/stakes ones) lighthearted, kind, and hopefully funny. Debate's a game and games should be fun. With that,

- I'll handle any speed you throw at me as long as I have a doc (before speech + marked after), but please slow down in the backhalf.

- I'll evaluate any argument you read but urge you to—at minimum—read the cheat sheet below and skim the rest of my paradigm.

- Judge instruction is key to my ballot; slow down, explain the round, and write my ballot for me.

- Extensions must include all parts of the argument, but I don't care if they are delineated, in order, or sacrificed in quality for the sake of efficiency.

- Cross-ex is binding; utilize concessions to your advantage in-speech and skip grand cross if it feels unnecessary (99% of rounds).

- I presume neg during policy topics to preserve the status quo and first during on balance topics.

- Speaks are determined off of strategy, norms, and vibes—in that order.

- Don't call me judge please.

Some people who influenced much of the beliefs below include: Coach Brown, Anbu Subramanian, and Nikhil Reddy.

Some of my favorite judges when I debated were: Gabe Rusk, Ishan & Ilan, Maddie Cook, P, and Quinn McKenzie.

‎

Cheat Sheet:

LARP - 1

Theory -1

Topical Kritiks - 2

Non-T Kritiks - 4

Tricks - 4

Substance

My favorite type of debate. I still actively cut prep, so there's a decent chance I will be familiar with the topic. Finding niche areas of topic ground was always my favorite part of debating, so I'll reward innovation greatly as a judge and urge you to throw your best, most squirelly positions at me. However, this also means I'm more attune than most to bad attempts at unique arguments, low quality frontlines, and overall subpar understanding of one's prep.

- I evaluate probabilistically, but will more than willingly vote on risk of a disad/solvency given sufficient weighing. Winning zero risk/terminal defense is key in lieu of very clean weighing comparison, which is rare nowadays. If a debate ends with both teams winning a risk of offense and there exists clashing/unresolved prerequisite/shortcircuit/jargon analysis absent clear metaweighing, then expect a decision far more grounded in truth than tech.

- Semantically, I strongly prefer timeframe and prereqs/shortcircuits over appeals to "probability" with regards to impact debates.

- Please signpost to some degree across side of the flow, contention name, and uniqueness/link/impact.

- The ultimate strat will always be quality hidden links; there's a chance I pick up on them, but clearly delineate which link you're extending and the fact that your opponent dropped a link in the backhalf.

- Smart evidence comparison will be more effective in front of me than most—I like to reward in-depth knowledge of your cards and such analysis is often the differentiator in high-level/close rounds.

- For framing, I think util is likely truetil, as it links-in and overwhelms most other frameworks when warranted correctly. However, I'm not an extinction first hack and find dense structural violence and the various sub-variations to be convincing when debated well. In front of me, I'd recommend a deep understanding of your framing evidence, embedded weighing (aprioris, link-ins, etc), and pre-fiat implications. These arguments should be read in constructive and I have a very high threshold for excluding link-ins by any team responding to them.

‎‎

Evidence

I cut a lot of evidence and will likely read a lot during round. However, outside of clipping, I will not let any indicts or issues I find in a team's evidence sway my ballot unless it was brought up by the other team during the round. Regardless, I have many many thoughts on the state of evidence in PF:

- Use consistent formatting with a single font, legibile higlighting, and proper bolding/underlining for emphasis. Ugly docs won't sway my decision, but may influence your speaks.

- Use an email chain or Speechdrop for evidence exchange, not a Google Doc that will inevitably be unshared after the 2AR/NR. Prep stealing is a question of I know it when I see it and I will call you out for it.

- I believe paraphrasing is a sin and bracketing is disingenuous, but won't punish either practice unless told to.

-Important evidence must have descriptive taglines; "Indeed," & "Empirically," are acceptable for filler cards, but not for your dense uniqueness claims or core link evidence.

‎‎

Theory

I really like good theory debates and I ran theory quite a lot. I'll vote on any shell with minimal bias creep or intervention, with one notable exception below. Beyond that, anything is fair game, even if some may call it "frivolous".

- DEFAULTS: no RVIs, yes OCIs, no Reasonability, yes DTD

- Here is my understanding as to how a RVI functions/implicates in round, please clarify any alternate definitions during speech: if a team wins no RVIs, conceded defense to a shell is not a reason to vote for their opponents, however, a conceded turn is still a reason to do so.

- I don't care much about shell extensions; a verbatim interp extension post-rebuttal and any semblance of standard + DTD extensions is enough for me to pull the trigger.

- I think there should be a lot more "conventional weighing" (think scope, magnitude, etc) done between voters and standards in theory debates that would make them far easier to evaluate.

- In close open-source v. full-text debates, I will err towards open-source good every time. Even if the team reading full-text convincingly wins on the flow,I will cap speaks at 26.Disclosing blocks of text negates any benefit of disclosure overall and the common standards in most full-text counterinterps are shallow excuses to prevent scrutiny of evidence and pre-round prepouts while trying to maintain an unfair advantage.

- A non-exhaustive list of interps I've hit/read/understand: topicality, disclosure and subsequent sub-variations, paraphrasing, round reports, bracketing, a-spec, womxn, vague alts, spec post/pre-fiat, spec framing, author quals, google docs, and comic sans.

- Trigger warnings should be a question of reasonability regarding violations.

‎‎

Kritiks

I will evaluate what I understand. That being said, I've ran and cut a good amount of topical Ks in my career and am decently comfortable evaluating them. However, given the docbot/backfile-dependent nature of most teams' strategies against these positions, I have a high threshold for the quality of evidence and execution of these arguments.

- I'm most familiar with set col, sec/militarism, fem/racial ir, cap, and eugenics. Don't go too far beyond these literature bases and if you do, over-explain.

-Proving a link and explaining solvency are the two most important things to pick up my ballot with critical strategies. Links are best when contextual to your opponents and unabashedly big-stick in nature. Alts should be thoroughly explained and should solve the entirety of what the K is critiquing. I don't believe ROTBs are entirely necessary, but do believe that some level of neg fiat is required to make Ks viable in PF (please no reject alts). K Affs should distinguish their solvency between fiating the resolution and having an additional alternative.

- For non-topical Ks,I truly believe that these arguments have a place in PF when done right by teams who know what they are doing. That being said, I am very convinced by disads to both the practices of using the ballot as a method of change and encouraging the insertion of personal experiences into debate.

‎‎

Miscellaneous

- Tricks and ad-homs are non-starters.

- Post-rounding is fine if kept short.

- Feel free to email me with any questions.

- vy

Sujith Yeruva Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 8:12 AM EDT

Note: I default to probability > magnitude if there is absolutely no meta-weighing done.

Westborough '23 | Emory ‘27

Email: sujithyeruva@gmail.com

Hi, I'm a sophomore at Emory University and I was involved in public forum debate in high school. I qualified to Gold TOC in 2022.

Please come to rounds on time and be prompt with getting set up and things like bringing up evidence. Don't go over time in speeches.

I'm a tech/flow judge(tech > truth), but be sure to read my whole paradigm(especially the bottom). Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm or how I vote before the round starts.

Evidence:

I'm not particularly picky about how you read evidence(you can paraphrase or read cut cards), but make sure to bring it up quickly. If you take an unreasonable amount of time to bring up evidence I will lower your speaker points. If you paraphrase, make sure to have the section of the article that you paraphrased from ready. If you misrepresent evidence I'll drop it from my flow and lower your speaks.

Crossfire:

I don't flow cross and won't evaluate it in my decision. If something important happens, bring it up in the next speech. Try to answer questions as directly as possible.

Rebuttal:

I don't require you to frontline defense(your opponent's responses on your case) in 2nd rebuttal but 2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense presented by the 1st speaking team by that point in the round(case, disads, turns). If 2nd rebuttal doesn't respond to defense, 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense and you can just bring it up in 1st final focus.

In general I like it when teams think creatively with analytical arguments. If you card dump make sure to implicate well.

Back Half:

Make sure to collapse in summary and/or final focus(choose just 1 or 2 arguments that should cause me to vote for your team). Summary should mirror final focus. The earlier the weigh you the better and I won't evaluate any new weighing in 2nd final focus. Weighing should be comparative and meta-weighing is appreciated.

Progressive Arguments:

I didn't run any progressive arguments in high school, but I did face them. Feel free to run whatever theory you want (paraphrase, disclosure, trigger warnings good/bad, etc.) — just understand that I don't remember much of the jargon surrounding theory (shells, RVIs, counter-interps). I will do my best to judge a theory round, but I am not experienced with it.

I don't have any experience with Ks at all but I will do my best to judge them.

Miscellaneous:

- I only flow what I hear; I won’t be reading any speech docs or email chains unless someone asks me to look at evidence. If you speak faster than 215 wpm I might miss some things.

-I'll default to the 1st speaking team if there's no offense left at the end of the round

-Please signpost(tell me what argument you're on in your speech; if I'm confused where I should write something down on my flow that's probably not a good thing)

-If you genuinely don't understand how I made my decision, feel free to ask as many questions as you would like about how I made it. I'm essentially ok with post-rounding if done in a respectful manner.

Susan Zana Mountain Brook High School 3 rounds

Austin Zhao The Awty International School 3 rounds

Lawrence Zhou Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 5:26 AM CDT

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: taipeiamericanpolicy at gmail.com

If I'm judging you at an online tournament, it's probably nighttime for me in Taiwan. Pref accordingly.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together, even better.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

NSDA Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

My ideal round to judge is a high-quality lay debate backed by evidence and strong rhetoric.

For the NSDA, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the NSDA Evidence Guide. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

My ideal debate is one in which each team reads one contention with well-developed evidence.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time (in other words, please don't just read a prewritten speech). I'll also cap your speaks at 28.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.

Login to Tabroom

Barkley Forum for High Schools

2025 — Atlanta, GA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges