PF & Policy Coach @ The Potomac School since 2021,

W&M '24, GMU '22 - 8 years policy debate

I have a masters in marine science and currently work in the field of Arctic policy.

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

FOR HARVARD 2025

PREFLOW, SET UP EMAIL CHAINS, FIGURE OUT WIFI WHILE YOU ARE WAITING FOR THE ROOM TO OPEN UP!!!!!!

Universal hot (lukewarm) takes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

Policy v Policy

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

K v Policy Affs

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

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

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

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

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

K Affs v Policy

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

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

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

K v K

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

Four years policy debate at George Mason

Yes I want to be on the chain - Email: bbigbiggs1@gmail.com; please also add: masondebatedocs@gmail.com

General Notes

- PLEASE treat everyone in the room with respect, especially your opponents

- I flow straight down, it's in your best interest to keep it as organized as possible

- More familiar with policy args, but have and will vote for critical args

- Inserting re-highlighting is good if you are pointing out specific context that is left out and in small doses, not if you are essentially making a new card out of it

• These are my general thoughts but things can obviously change on a debate by debate basis depending on how the round goes

- This paradigm is geared towards policy debate since that is what I judge most frequently. If I am judging you in a different format; do no stress about the nuances here, I adopt to the norms of whatever format I am judging without bias to the best of my ability/knowledge

Notes for Online Debate:

- Please be conscientious of speed and clarity. I never will negatively impact your speaks because of mic issues but I can only vote on what I hear.

- If my camera is off assume I am not there.

Policy v Policy

- I will look through the evidence so a card doc would be useful; however, good evidence shouldn't be a substitute for poor explanation.

- Please make sure to extend full arguments. If you just say there is "no impact to US-China war" in the 1ar with no explanation for why, I will not vote for it in the 2ar even if dropped in the 2nr. That is just a phrase not an argument.

T:

- Limits/ground is the impact I find most persuasive. It will take more work to go for precision or other impacts but I can be swayed

- I tend to err on competing interpretation but actually can be persuaded by reasonability IF explained properly

Theory

Condo - tend to be neg leaning though more than three starts to push it. More open to condo args if the CP's are particularly abusive or if they've read multiple with no solvency advocates

PICs - I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends. Not the judge for word PICs (unless they say something absolutely egregious in their plan text)

No solvency advocate CPs - I probably don't think this is a reason to reject the team, but I will likely be annoyed and lower speaks if you don't have one. Exceptions if you're against new affs or it is a very niche CP to answer a specific impact.

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

Clash

Top Level: I've found myself judging more of these debates than I expected so I want to update this portion of my paradigm. I tend to have a higher threshold for 2ar re-articulation of arguments than most judges so I find myself voting neg more often in these debates than other rounds I judge.

Policy aff v the K:

- I tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff vs the alt, key to fairness, etc. are all args I tend to find more persuasive. Impact framing is the portion of the debate you should focus on. Make sure you're answering all the nuances of the util v structural violence (or any other framing) debate

- Be careful with the link debate. Even if you win that your case outweighs the neg can still win a link turns case arg that can make it tough for you to get my ballot.

K's v Policy Affs:

- Impact framing will essential. You will have a hard time persuading me that I should just reject the aff for some reason, but can definitely persuade me that your impact outweighs/is more crucial to discuss in the debate space.

- Specificity of the link is going to be important. Generic state bad links aren't going to be as persuasive as links to the specific action of the plan.

- Simplify the debate. Don't spread yourself too thin, try and pick just one link for the 2NR (unless two are very poorly answered but I'd cap it there) and really impact it out.

- I find embedded turns case args on the link debate very persuasive if it is a specific link to the aff.

- Clarity on the alt will be important. This is an area of the debate that I feel like gets under-explained throughout the debate. I like some explanation of what your alt materially looks like and how it resolves the link.

F/W v K affs:

- Fairness can be an impact, but I generally find the way teams explain it is more of an internal link to education (a pretty good one at that).

- When the aff is reasonably in the direction of the topic - I tend to place a lot of weight on the TVA and need explanation of lost ground and why the ground you lost is good.

- When the aff is blatantly anti-topical or an aff that is meant to be a personal strategy, go for clash good. I don't believe you need a TVA in this instance (or should extend one) as long as you have a good reason why the discussions that happen under your model of debate are good.

K affs v F/W:

- The easiest way to get my ballot is if you win your impact and win the "limits/clash means they can't access the aff's benefits even if it is theoretically good" arg you are in a very good place so long as you don't royally mess up the TVA debate or SSD. Having said that: I am open to other strategies, do your thing, but just understand that I will need more explanation than your typical judge.

- We meet probably not ideal unless the neg messed up the interp.

- If you are an aff that is in the direction of the topic, counter-definitions should be your friend.

- If your aff is outside the scope of being able to do so, you need to impact turn their model of debate. I am not gonna be persuaded by a counter-interp that was clearly designed to include your aff. Obviously extend your interpretation, but don't use it to try and mitigate their offense.

- Things to avoid: I do not find blanket stating "k debate is predictable" persuasive. Give me a reason why your specific aff is predictable for the negative to debate if you want to go that route.

K v K

I will not be as knowledgeable in K literature as either team is going to be. The best thing you could do to get my ballot is to make the debate simple. I may not be familiar with a lot of your terminology - and I am not going to vote on something I do not understand - so you may benefit by clearly explaining certain terms or at least having evidence that is clearly highlighted to define abstract terms/concepts.

Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

Langley '26 | PF for three years

Setup an email chain before round and add me chunconnor@gmail.com

TLDR

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

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

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

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

5. Do not send a google doc for evidence exchanges - a pdf, word doc, or in the email itself are fine with me. I will vote on theory arguments against this.

General

tech > truth, not good for extremely blippy debates.

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

If an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there.

If you want to win, weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we outweigh on probability because their argument about is stopped by X," that's new defense I won't vote on. I will evaluate try or die/risk of solvency weighing.

Analytics can be very persuasive when they aren't two-second blips. If you tell me an argument lacks a warrant, it's best to give a counter-warrant as to why it's untrue.

Cross concessions are binding. Bring up relevant points in speech.

Defense isn't sticky.

Theory

I enjoy good theory debates and have read a lot of positions. Disclosure generally is good. Other pre-existing opinions of mine will have little to no effect on the round.

Utilizing comparative weighing between standards and voters will make it easier to win.

I am likely more receptive to "reasonability" arguments than most judges.

ivi's are probably fine, but I'm open to theory positions against them.

K, Phil, Tricks, etc.

I'm not a great judge to evaluate these positions but will try. I've read tricks, hit a lot of K's and some very confusing phil. The more unique the position, the slower and more explanation required.

K's should be clearly impacted out.

Callouts and arguments requesting 30 speaker points will result in an L20.

Misc

Open cross, politely asking questions after the round, and asking spectators to close their laptops are fine.

If I look confused I probably am.

I strongly agree with Sahil Gubbi's paradigm.

Sahil Gubbi, he/him - Langley GC

tech > truth -- with some obvious exceptions

I have been debating, judging, and organizing debates for over 6 DECADES. I have taught my CHILDREN, my GRANDCHILDREN, and THEIR CHILDREN to debate with CLASS, RESPECT, AND STRENGTH.

I judge on THREE PRINCIPLES:

1. Body language
   - Posture, facial expression
2. Perceived effort
   - Energy while speaking, emphasis in cross-examination
3. Hand gestures
   - Big waves, using your hands as scales, counting on fingers

If you see me with my eyes closed, I AM NOT SLEEPING, I am merely resting my eyes, and I am FLOWING EVERYTHING in my mind.

I demand everyone bow as they enter the room. The round is a place of RESPECT, and BOWING signifies that YOU ARE SERIOUS, and that THE DEBATE IS SERIOUS.

I start speaker points at 0, and every action you take will be scored and tallied. Often, my round is the decider for speaker awards, and I have had many rounds withNEGATIVE SPEAKER POINTS.

I ONLY flow cross examination, as I believe DISCUSSION to be the MOST IMPORTANT action within a debate.

actual thoughts:
- Will not vote on any type of exclusionary/harmful arguments

gubbisahil@gmail.com - email chains

Brentwood '23 | UPenn M&T '27

Email: hongwil@wharton.upenn.edu

Debated for 4 years in PF. Most notably, I won the 2022 Gold TOC. Used to private coach a handful of teams, but now I spend most of my time running Libertas Debate Academy.

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

TLDR: Typical tech over truth judge that enjoys weighing analysis and warrant comparison.

For reference, the main people who taught me debate were Siva Sambasivam, John Nahas, and Nelson Rose so feel free to check out their judging preferences as they are very similar to mines.

With that said, a few general points (too lazy to write up a super long paradigm but feel free to ask questions if you need clarification):

1. Please weigh. This means I want in-depth comparative analysis between the links and/or impacts. Also respond to the opponent's weighing as well otherwise the whole debate just gets messy

2. Final focuses should be consistent with everything in summary. Extend links (not 7 second blips), focus on warrant comparison, and sign post please.

3. I can handle speed decently well but I would prefer if you do not spread. If you do choose to spread, please always send docs beforehand just to be safe.

4. Be nice in round and don't read anything that is problematic.

5. I am open to theory and Ks but I do preface that I am not an expert in progressive arguments. I will try my best to evaluate them but no guarantees that I will always make the right evaluations. So run these arguments at your own risk.

6. If you make me laugh or make the round entertaining for me, I will give you high speaks. I hate when rounds get tense, debate is about having fun.

Reach out to me whenever if you need anything!

McLean 26'

Email: ryan.jkg10@gmail.com

3 years of PF, was alright

WACFL

1) Slow down! Prioritize quality over quantity--I have no problem ending speeches early If you're going to repeat yourself

2) Collapse! Choose your SINGLE BEST contention in summary and final focus

3) Weigh! Explain why your arguments are more important. If both sides have the same impact, explain why your argument solves the impact better/faster

I care about your arguments 100x more than your presentation and speaking skills. I only vote off things said in the round.

High speaker points if everyone is chill during cross and the round runs smoothly

Please please please start speeches and prep time on your own. I can't focus on judging if I have to step in and ask to start speeches.

sherrylin1004@gmail.com, she/her, junior at richard montgomery, 2x gtoc, put me on the chain!

ask me anything before round :)

*

the most important things:

-TIME YOURSELVES AND KEEP YOUR OPPONENTS ACCOUNTABLE. i probably won't be keeping time - keep the round running by itself. i am probably ready for your speech when you are, take my silence to "judge ready" as a yes.

-what will win you the round: clearly collapsing --> extending a clear link chain & impact --> clear & comparative weighing. write my ballot for me in summary and final.

-please have clear and full extensions. my threshold is probably higher than most. this means uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. ALL of these are necessary for a baseline extension. a lot of the debates i've seen have had poor extension quality on both sides. this inherently means i have to intervene in my decision, and it might not be in favor of you. save everyone the stress and either pre-write extensions or just extend effectively.

-weighing needs to be comparative. address both your argument and your opponents'. saying "magnitude" and then repeating your impact isn't weighing. PLEASE respond to your opponents' weighing and break the clash. metaweighing is great. also, you have to win your case to win your weighing.

*

other important things:

-under 225 wpm would be great! (900 words/4min) & please send docs if possible. i can comprehend faster than that but if you don't send a doc it's your fault if i miss something.

-i prefer strong analytical arguments over regurgitating evidence. i really like when effective analytical implications are supported by evidence. i.e, reading a card and saying "x implications"

-2nd rebuttal should frontline AND respond to their case. 1st summary should extend defense.

*

theory:

-i like theory. open sourcing all evidence is good, anything regarding accessibility is good. but obviously these are not auto-wins. if you win on the flow, you win the ballot. (paraphrasing is a gray area for me)

-if you are planning to run theory, please run it in a shell format: interpretation, violation, standards, voters

-if there is a close open source vs. full text debate, i will almost always err open source good. i truly believe full text disclosure is useless - at that point you should defend nondisclosure.

-i am impartial to spirit vs. text. i can be persuaded either way

-friv is okay but the sillier the shell means the sillier the responses can be. the best strategy against a friv shell is turning it as many times as possible

-make rvi debates clear -- otherwise, i lean yes offensive rvis (ocis), no defensive rvis

-clearly warrant why an ivi is a reason to drop the debater. no implication means no ballot. one example - discourse shapes reality is just a tag, it needs a warrant.

*

Ks/phil:

-"k-ish framing" is fine (rotj, anything pre-fiat)

-i'm probably not the best judge for ks proper - i've hit baudrillard, queer, and fem. i'm most experienced with securitization - the only one i've run before

-i don't know how to evaluate most phil. ethics confuses me, but always trying to learn!

*

other:

-i am extremely generous with speaks (you can check my record if you want). so don't worry about that

-i'm usually not listening to cross, but it should be binding. if there is a major concession, bring it up in speech.

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (QL, RC, SG, BG, LJ), BASIS, and McLean. traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

he/him

Tech >>> Truth.

Send docs to debate.vishwarakasi@gmail.com. Weigh, warrant, and extend. Do you and be nice!

my biggest debate inspiration is payton shen

For WACFL 3 (12/14):

Hi! I'm excited to see you guys debate. In terms of more specific preferences, this is what I look to in order to adjudicate the winner:

1. Which value/criterion wins the framework clash
2. Who articulates why their arguments tie into the framework that remains at the close of the round

Here's a list of things that don't matter to me, in no particular order:

1. Speed
2. Speaking style
3. Dress

I'll be keeping time but I'll probably forget to start my timer or something at least once per round, so time your speeches, your prep, and your opponents' speeches and prep. I put my pen down when the timer hits 0 -- feel free to finish your sentence, but I won't flow any new argumentation after that time.

Most importantly: "Do you and be nice!" means exactly that. I am happy to judge the debate you want to have!

jonahpsah@gmail.com, put me on the chain

First year out, did PF for 8 years, semifinaled the prestigious 2018 middle school tournament of champions

I'm a flow judge, tech > truth etc. Everything said in a speech is true until someone says otherwise.

have fun/be funny; it's high school debate; I think rounds should be relaxed. that being said, I will do my best to take the round seriously. debate takes a lot of work and I know what it feels like to have judges who aren't trying their hardest, so I will do my best to match or exceed your effort.

Collapse (for your own good)

When deciding the round, I will look to the following: I'll evaluate weighing, then look if there is any extended offense being won off of the weighing, then to any other offense.

If it isn't in summary and final, I won't evaluate it (so extend case/whatever you're going for). Don’t just say “extend this argument/card,” you need to re-explain the argument/its warrants. I'm not really afraid to drop a team that is winning bc they screwed up their extensions. The one caveat is that I'm ok with the weighing debate unfolding kind of late: if there is new weighing in second summary, you can respond in first final.

Regarding speed: I can flow just about anything under 300 wpm if you are clear. Please slow down for tags tho. Significantly, like there should be a really clear difference between tags and card text… like even in policy they do that, it barely takes more time

If it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, it's dropped. (This applies to offense and defense, but not weighing.)

It's not 2017, defense isn't sticky

cross is binding? obviously? what is the point otherwise? obviously bring up anything important in a speech. I will pay at least some attention to cross though so don't lie, it's kind of obvious

I don't care about presentation: wear whatever, be silly, swear if you want. this also means that the whole jostling-for-perceptual-dominance in cross stuff is unnecessary (in fact it kinda pisses me off). I'll give speaks based on how good the content of your speeches is, not how pretty you say it.

Unless evidence is a) going to decide the round and b) contested in a way that I can't resolve, I won't call or look at anything. I think evidence debates are the same as any other argument: something is true unless it is responded to. If someone indicts your ev, that indict is true until you say otherwise, and I'm not going to check it to make sure. The only time I will look at ev is if teams can't agree on facts about the evidence itself (eg. the date it was written, author quals, etc.).

An argument with evidence obviously carries more weight than one without, but I like when teams make a bunch of analytics, especially in rebuttal.

I'm ok with postrounding, if you disagree with my decision you don't have to dance around it with polite questions (as long as you aren't rude). It is entirely possible that I screw up a decision. I will say 2 things though: first, if I screw up it's probably at least partially on you. anything that can decide the round should be clearly laid out for me. second, you may convince me that I'm wrong, but that won't change anything. I can't change the ballot, so all that will happen is that I will feel kinda bad and you will still have lost. So by all means, go ahead and prove that I'm wrong, but it will only do so much for you.

FW: two thoughts: a) a group being underprioritized is not enough a reason to prioritize it: explain why there are fewer intervening actors or it leads to better real world policy etc. b) read it in case or rebuttal... I'm not gonna evaluate framing in summary, that's obviously so unfair.

Ks: I think Ks are awesome, I wrote/read some in high school (cap, securitization, orientalism). That being said, I was still in PF, so I'm not that familiar with most K lit. I also think Ks can be read kinda poorly, so make sure you have at least a link, impact and alt in your case (and that you extend them). It's pretty clear when people read args that they don't really understand themselves, and if you can't articulate your argument and I don't get it I won't vote for it.

theory: I will not lie. I find most theory rounds tedious and kind of boring and not that important. I learned a lot in debate, but I don't think I would have learned much more or less if everyone did or didn't disclose/paraphrase/whatever. That being said, I ended up having a lot of theory rounds, and I'm comfortable judging it. However, if anyone feels actively unsafe/uncomfortable, you don't have to whip out a shell: just tell me/message me on FB and I will stop the round.

I'm not a fan of reading progressive arguments on inexperienced kids -- it will not lead to better norms/interesting discourse, it's just kinda mean. If you are being a jerk I'll tank your speaks so just use your judgment. -Maya sachs

If you read dumb stuff (you know exactly what I mean) you're getting like 0 speaks. I just don't think friv theory/tricks/whatever are that funny, and beyond that I have no idea what benefit anyone gets from them.

shoutout to my boo thang george tiesi #thepartnership

Hi! (Langley SG) - if you are creating an email chain add me: school.ahaanshah@gmail.com

tech > truth, Tabula Rasa

I've debated for about four years now in PF. I'll vote solely off the flow and can handle decent speeds but please send a speech doc for anything like >250 wpm. I also probably won't flow off of a doc so basically if I can't understand you it won't be on my flow (it helps if there's a doc in case I miss something so still send one but don't rely on it)

Make sure to weigh in both summary and final focus and anything that is in final should have been in summary as well -- also goes for extensions (I can't vote for something if it's not extended throughout the round)

I don't have much background knowledge on any K's but I'll vote on them if properly explained -- same goes for theory (basically run anything as long as you explain it well)

I'll give pretty high speaks generally just don't be a jerk -- if you make me laugh mid round i'll give you 30s

Other than that, have a fun round, and make sure to be respectful!

!!! After judging a couple rounds, I have realized I have a VERY HIGH THRESHOLD FOR EXTENSIONS. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EXTEND THOROUGHLY WITH WARRANTS

Hello, my name is Leon Wang. I am the parent of a current Public Forum debater, and I am a volunteer judge. For some background information: I work as a statistician by day (which means I would love if you use numbers to back up some of your arguments) and a cellist by night. English is not my first language so please speak very slow (remember slow and steady wins the race! < 300 words per minute. Be aware, I will yell clear). Below are some of my preferences for the debate round...

1-larp & theory

2-topical K

3-non t K

4-phil/tricks

Please send all evidence in an email chain that is set up prior to the start of the round. My email is leondebate@gmail.com

I love to see weighing, and I hate not seeing weighing. Weighing is the number one thing I look to when evaluating the round, it will most likely be the number one factor on my ballot!

If you are ever in a sticky situation, you can always use your sticky defense. The only exception is if your opponents respond to your responses, then noooo!!!

Persuade me. Utilize pathos to it's fullest extent. This will make it a lot easier for me to determine who is a winner. Perhaps debate is a game of strategy, but it is also a game of persuasion.

I like to believe I am rather generous with the Speaker Points I assign to each debater following the round; I will always start this number at 28.5. If you are polite and persuasive, the number will go up. If you are rude and not persuasive, the number will go down.

This is my biggest critique of debate: a human judge is the one who makes a decision which means a winner is inherently chosen subjectively. Please feel free to ask me any questions after the round.

Last but not least I understand how much time debaters put into this lovely activity, so have fun. Enjoy yourself out there. I look forward to listening to your debates.

PF

if you’re a middle schooler i’m judging don’t worry about all this, just debate your best :)

add tobin.wilson8@gmail.com to email chains, format it Tournament—Round—Teams. my inbox > your speaks

tech>truth

TLDR

1 - LARP

2 - Theory (but these are normally boring debates so please dont)

3 - K

4 - Phil

5 - Trix

win weighing win the round, unless implicated to the weighing debate mitigatory defense does not matter if offense is won

I flow, i can evaluate tech, prog, k's, wtv. I've ran topical and non-topical k's, friv, etc. but pref substance

make it easy to evaluate---give me comparative weighing and collapse on good arguments not many arguments (not saying don't go for more than one arg or smth just quality over quantity)

outright bigotry is an L20

be fast I don't want to be sitting in the back for 2 minutes waiting for an ev exchange to happen

prefs

spreading send speech docs, if you're going to do the same gargling marbles pf spreading most people do TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE GOING OFF THE DOC OR MARK IT IN THE DOC

have headings for your tags and please have organized docs---this affects your speaks

i'll clear you because debate is still a communication activity, just a fast one.

no new args in back half, please collapse

explicate kicks---be explicit in how conceding a piece of defense kicks smth

don't like judge kick, not a fan of CPs in PF but will evaluate it

on weighing first thing I look for is a pre req with timeframe, you should do good analysis on these things as always. but i'll look to wtv weighing mech you tell me to look at first. uniqueness matters a lot, unless you have good answers to try or die I think that link defense alone makes it difficult to pull the trigger for the negative

probability is normally fake, if you have the same impact and have good comparatives go for it but i don't just buy "this argument is not probable so you shouldn't vote for it." that's just link defense. only time you could go for probability and make some sense would be if your arg is conceded and there is ink on theirs but my threshold for responding to weighing like that is low.

Prog

I can eval theory

don't read disclo or other theory on people who don't know how to answer it that's just sad

threshold for good answers to theory is pretty low

for k's I can generally eval k's, i'm familiar with some lit but assume I'm not.

I mainly flow/watch and read decisions from NDT/CEDA K rounds, all that really means is that my standards for k is going to be pretty high and that a lot of the k debate that goes on in pf isn't something I want to judge. if you're going to read a k you should have a genuine good understanding of how to do it and especially your lit.

this doesn't mean you can just say a lot of word salad and expect me to understand it

you should have good alts and have solvency cards unless you have a reason why it's not needed and you read it in round

tell me how to eval the k vs k or policy or wtv, eg "weigh the impacts of the plan against the k"

DO THE LINE BY LINE THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES

when it comes to non-topical i'm good to evaluate them but when answering t-fw:

I enjoy creative counterinterps

you should do the work to answer whether procedural or structural issues come first

update for k debates: I do not want to sit in the back listening to a two minute overview and blippy crossapps and implications, i will have a high threshold for contextual explanations.

other prefs

please postround---i think it's important pedagogically to go hard in the postround and I will never doc speaks for the postround

pre-fiat "discourse" is silly, you don't get the ballot just for bringing up a certain problem especially if you're losing the rest of the flow. why am I voting for the neg who read a fw when the aff proved they're policy is better than the neg for those groups?

i presume first unless told otherwise

extend whatever you're going for, this rlly shouldn't have to be said...

dml good paradigm

good reads: https://the3nr.com/2012/10/16/kids-today-2/#more-2747

"1 good card >X bad ones if X is ANY NUMBER EVER."

https://the3nr.com/2011/11/28/kids-today-part-deux/

https://the3nr.com/2012/10/08/common-mistakes/

"Pay attention for your partner. Make sure they don’t drop things, answer arguments in the speech doc that weren’t read etc"

if you remind your partner of something during their speech it's not a matter for how I eval your speaks, I think it's a normal that should be in PF more

some thoughts (will add on as time goes on):

reflexive fiat is interesting, go for it if you want and i’ll do my best to evaluate it

I will evaluate topical k’s even when there’s a perfcon. eg: reading sec k after reading a bunch of escalation scenarios. why? the role of the neg is essentially to test the policies of the aff. if there is an alt when i vote neg on the k i’m not endorsing the neg but rather, if they’re winning the k, i’m endorsing the alt which solves securitization or wins them enough offense under the fw and it at least proves that the aff is bad. impacts of the k do not become non unique as that would mean that every impact of the k is non unique no matter what (which is an argument you of course can make but a perfcon will not be evaluated as defense by me unless you do a lot of work). subject to change depending on rounds ofc but just be warned if you don’t have perfcon stuff prepped (eg the perfcon takes out k warrants) you will have to do more work.

I will read your evidence and I will read evidence particularly if told to, too much PF evidence is of poor quality

Oakton '20; I will flow (not off a doc tho thats weak asf); keep speech speedlimited; all offense must be weighed; cross-fire will count for speaks; no progressive arguments I won't understand; I prefer quality>quantity in responses; ngl i think my truth > tech at this point lmao