Tabroom.com

Sunvite

2025 — Davie, FL/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Obi Assali Palm Harbor University High School 6 rounds

Sameera Bazaz Langley 6 rounds

Cade Blenden Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 10:28 AM CDT

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Cypress Bay High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 20, 2024 at 1:28 PM EDT

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

I only need to be on the chain if you are spreading

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 17 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 9 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

*Note: Because PF has such limited time, I am not huge on theory in PF especially if both speakers are not especially used to them. Please only run theory if it is especially egregious, even though I like theory debate. There is a big difference between when a debate has 7-8 minutes of speaking time vs 3-4*

Disclosure theory: PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU. IN PF IT IS AN AUTO LOSS TO READ DISCLOSURE THEORY I AM VERY SERIOUS. I WILL JUST NOT FLOW. PLEASE READ THIS. Either I'm over hearing this in LD and it's just done so badly in PF that it hurts my heart.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though! Reasonability is a good answer. Prefer competing interp.

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

PF: I get you want to be cool, but please make sure you know your opponent would be okay with it. Email or contact them ahead of time. As I said above with theory, it makes me really uncomfortable to judge rounds where only one side is familiar with this type of debate. I am happy to run k rounds so long as everyone is cool with it.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order for LD:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

PF:

Policy/LARP

Traditional

Theory

NO TRICKS WHATSOEVER ITS AN AUTO LOSS

I know this makes me sound kind of intense, I promise I'm not. I really love debate, but I also don't like messy debate that feels super one sided and could be avoided if we check in and make sure everyone is cool with the kind of debate we are having. In PF, if you can't get ahold of your opponent I prefer if you stick to lay and presume they are a lay team. In LD go to town

Spencer Burris-Brown Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 8:15 AM EDT

I debated PF on the Minnesota local + national circuits for 4 years, got a few bids, and am on my 3rd year coaching PF.

Please send constructive and rebuttal speech docs to spencerburrisbrown612@gmail.com

This should go without saying, but I'm not going to tolerate any in-round racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, antisemitism, etc.
Please read content warnings on graphic, potentially triggering arguments and provide a way to anonymously opt out.
If you have questions about my judging philosophies before the round, or about my decision after the round, don't be afraid to ask. Just be respectful if you're post-rounding.
I'm pretty tech > truth but, like all other judges who call themselves tech, I have lower thresholds for response if the arguments are under-warranted or objectively false.
10 second grace period and then I stop flowing.
Please time and keep track of your own prep, also prep stealing is usually pretty obvious and will hurt your speaker points.
I will only call for cards if there is unresolved clash on them AND resolving that clash is relevant to my decision.
On a related note, evidence ethics are important to me and I think teams get away with far too much evidence misconstruction. I won't intervene on evidence but I have no reservations docking speaker points for misconstruction.
While I think speech docs are good and should be sent no matter what, I'm not going to flow off of one if I cannot understand you so spread at your own risk — it's not on me if I don't catch something you say because you're too unclear, blippy, or fast. That being said, I can flow up to 250-275 wpm pretty comfortably if you're clear. I'll say "clear" twice before I stop flowing.
I require full extensions of any offense you want me to vote off of in summary and FF. "Extend our C1" / "extend Smith '20" isn't sufficient, I'm looking for a concise reiteration of whatever link story and impact scenario you collapse on.
Unless I’m giving a compelling reason otherwise, I default to not buying new defense past second rebuttal, new evidence or frontlines past summary, or or new weighing after first final focus.
Crossfire: humor is appreciated, rudeness and grandstanding will hurt speaker points.
There's a fine line between being efficient and being blippy, I appreciate debaters who avoid crossing into the latter category. The blippier you are the higher the chances are that I miss something you say.
If 2nd rebuttal drops a response I will treat it as conceded assuming it's extended.
The more comparative, the better. Hearing non-comparative and unimplicated weighing makes me very sad ("we outweigh on probability because nuclear war is unlikely" is not comparative because it does not engage with the relative probability of your own impact; "we outweigh on timeframe/urgency because our impact happens first" is not implicated because that's not inherently a reason why your impact is more important). Hearing good, comparative link and impact weighing makes me very happy. Please do not force me to intervene.
I will evaluate theory providing it's not frivolous (e.g. 30 speaks theory, stuffed animal theory, etc.) and try my best to correctly evaluate kritiks. I have experience hitting, running, and judging them but more out-there Ks will need to be explained very clearly if you want me to understand them particularly well. I think PIKs calling out offensive language/rhetoric and shells calling out exclusionary practices are particularly good for the debate space. I won't evaluate tricks or NIBs. Rebuttal doesn't need to explicitly extend the shell if it was introduced in constructive but it does need to defend the shell.

Vincent Chen Millburn High School 6 rounds

Mason Cheng American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon May 27, 2024 at 12:23 PM EDT

mcheng0602@gmail.com and lyh7@cornell.edu

for pf only - aarontian.debate@gmail.com and germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com

yes i want to be on the chain. yes put all emails on the chain. have the email chain ready. send stuff out on word.

i do not flow off the doc. i will clear and eventually stop flowing. i flow top down. go slower on analytics.

i do not like deadtime. "did u read x" and clarification questions of the sort are cross/prep. learn to flow.

i will vote on any argument - debate is a technical game which necessitates technical concessions and offense defense 101. all preferences can be overcome by good debating.

blips without warrants are nonstarters because they do not constitute arguments. this includes “eval after 1ac”, “no neg arguments”, and most paradox/apriori dumps. it also includes k/policy cards highlighted to nothing and theory arguments that merely assert standard names like “condo is a voter for strat skew”. at the very least they justify new responses.

my threshold for a warrant is much higher than you think. underlining or bolding something does not make it a warrant

arguments that violate my role as a judge are nonstarters.

i dont want to evaluate ad homs or rounds staked on evidence ethics

don't be excessive against novices. sit down early if ur winning

good spark speech = 30

("do you disclose speaks" ∨ 30 speaks theory) ⇒ 27 speaks

do NOT read “progressive” arguments for the sake of reading them. poorly executed strategies will be capped at 27.5 speaks even if u manage to win. this applies to 99% of pfers

i think disclosure is bad and paraphrasing is good. at the very least they can be technically won. winning them = 30

RVIs mean that even if you win a counterinterp, you still cant gain offense on the shell.

an OCI is a counterinterp that indicts the form level reading of the shell while answering the content of the shell ie "spec shells bad" or "disclosure shells bad". sticking "offensive" in front of your counterinterp does not magically gain you offense off of it.

Craig Claybaugh Pine View School 6 rounds

Jerry Crist Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Malcolm Davis Richard Montgomery High School 3 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.

---

Anna Dean Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 4:00 AM CDT

Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!

Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.

Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25

I currently debate at Harvard. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will vote you down, end of story. Your rhetoric and how you treat your opponents matter.

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain: annadean13@gmail.com

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

Be kind- to your opponents and partner!!

Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.

Don't clip cards.

If you're unclear I won't yell "clear" I just won't flow well...

Updated 2023: DO NOT GO FOR THEORY. Don't read tricks. I don't buy the bs. Win your arguments without tricking your opponents.

I do not like disclosure. I won't vote for it. You should be able to win without knowing exactly what your opponents are going to say(can't believe I have to even write this)

Policy:

KvK:

I like them if they're well done. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. In college, I've done Afropess, SetCol, and Fem stuff. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism/ race critical theory and loveeeeee these arguments!

Plans:

Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.

I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.

Framework:

I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.

DAs:

Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.

CPs:

I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 8+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.

Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

LD:

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.

I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks. Please just win your arguments and do not trick your opponents. It is extremely rare I vote on it.

I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

See above for more specifics.

PF:

Send your docs and create an email chain from the get-go! Every other debate style has managed to learn this. Stop asking for evd without taking prep, just send everything and be fair.

I'm not flowing off the doc and probably won't look at it unless I have to.

Act as if I don't know the topic

I'm good for speed/ more policy like args BUT I do think that PF is changing in a negative way, if you want to do policy why are you in PF...

Congress:

Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)

Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!

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.

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.

Roberto Fernandez Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:08 AM EDT

Cypress Bay High School

Wake Forest University

Baylor University

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny and/or just great debating.

I'll vote for anything, just turn up. What follows are my existing thoughts/biases on how to win in front of me in policy debates, please scroll to the bottom for LD and PF.

Email: robertofr99@gmail.com

CX Paradigm: NDT Updates 3/29/23

T: I don't hold strong enough opinions about topic wording and plans to stand by in a debate so judge direction on what SHOULD matter is critical. I don't judge many though and because of that I'd say I'm more likely to default to competing interpretations than not. It would have to be a pretty clear case for me to vote on reasonability. End of year thoughts: nothing is AI and everything is nature; T-subsets is mostly valid.

FW: You can go for it. Thoughts: Unlike other judges, I think to win you need to prove your model is strictly better than a model that includes the aff, which means you should probably be able to prove that a solely plan-based model would be better than the mixed status quo.

I default to thinking of these as debates about models and not about interpretations of the wording of the resolution. That means I prefer that the aff have a counter-interp, even if that counter-interp is totally unlimited. What matters is that both teams have a vision of what their model looks like. No counter-interp is also valid and often strategic so feel free to do that too.

I won't say whether fairness is an impact because that depends on what is said and won in any given debate, but what I will say is that proving that debate is a game does not, on its own, strongly imply that fairness is an intrinsic good. Fairness is also a sliding scale, so I expect nuance about the magnitude of the internal link between the violation or the counter-interp and the fairness impact.

I think that FW teams would benefit from incorporating some kind of uniqueness argument or warrant into their skills modules that substantiates why the skills we learn from plan-based debating are valuable in the current political moment. I often find that teams lose debates where they are winning their limits arguments by failing to justify the value of THIS fair game.

K: Do whatever, odds are I've read something you are reading or someone citing else citing the same people as your authors. That means jargon is fine as long as it's used meaningfully. Big words are meant to convey even bigger ideas in less time so using jargon precisely can really elevate the quality of your speech, but on the other hand, just stringing words together without much thought may really hurt your speech. Performance debate is great, all kinds of art can be evidence as long as I can see/hear/flow it (unless there's a reason I shouldn't I'm up for that too, but I won't stop flowing your opponents speeches during the debate even if you ask me to, that is up to them).

CP: I guess this is more about conditionality than anything, I'd rather not have to deal with more than 4 or 5 conditional advocacies or I might actually vote on condo. I think most counter-plans should have solvency advocates, I can't think of an example that wouldn't off the top of my head but I'm hesitant to say I wouldn't be convinced by ANY CP without one.

DAs: I think the spill-over DA is just a bad argument. If you win it you win it but I feel like I have to be upfront about thinking this argument is garbage.

LD Paradigm:

I'm down with anything, except for really outlandish tricks and some frivolous theory. You could still win "Topic auto-affirms/negates because of definitions" in front of me but my bar is as low as "even if that's true we should ignore it and debate a common understanding of the resolution for X, Y, Z reasons" for me to throw away those kinds of arguments. I have a very deep background in critical theory and philosophy so Phil, K debating, and Skep are all fine by me as long as you remember to explain why I should vote for you rather than just exposing on an argument and hoping that will translate to a win. I like evidence, but evidence can be poetry, music, art, memes, etc. as long as it's used to substantiate something and not just presented without argument.

PF Paradigm:

You should read my other paradigms to get an idea of what I think of different types of arguments, this section is mostly dedicated to what I think of PF norms.

I care about evidence more than most PF judges, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to reference current events to make points but I think having evidence prepared is definitely more convincing than listing off things that I may or may not have heard of to prove a point. I will want to receive any evidence you use in the debate, so that I can evaluate the comparative quality of evidence when deciding things after the debate. I will prefer low quality delivery of high quality arguments over high quality delivery of low quality arguments.

I will not deduct speaker points for superficial things like profanity or dress, I care about rhetoric as a tool of persuasion and information exchange not as a show of pageantry. Be intentional about what you are saying and why are you are saying it, and I will reward you based on the persuasiveness of that delivery.

Please be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me in debates, and that means being respectful of our time during prep and cross-examination. If people ask to see your evidence, don't make them waste prep time for you to send it to them, they should already have it.

If you have any specific questions about types of arguments in PF or norms, please feel free to ask me. As a general rule, if it exists in policy or LD I'm willing to vote for it but also willing to vote against it on the basis that these arguments are illegitimate in PF, you just have to actually win that.

Crystal Fu Richard Montgomery High School 6 rounds

Delon Fuller Hire 6 rounds

Jules Gibson Pine View School 3 rounds

Sebastian Glos Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 5:43 AM EDT

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com AND lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) Try to set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 4th year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu.

TLDR: tech > truth. I will evaluate anything on the flow as long as it's warranted and weighed.

How I evaluate rounds: First, I look to who is winning the weighing debate; if there is a weighing mechanism that is extended properly and comparative, it forces me to evaluate that case/argument first. From there, I evaluate whether that argument is extended properly; this should include the link, internal link, and impact at the bare minimum. Then, I look to see whether there are any responses to the argument; if there are responses, I hope you engage with the warrant of the response and respond to it and not just extend case evidence. I find myself calling a lot of debate washes simply because each team will just repeat responses from rebuttal and summary but not engage with the response itself. Thus, if I find that you are winning the weighing, case/argument, and extending properly, you should easily win my ballot. I would also like to preface that this is in the context of a case argument, but I have also happily voted on any type of offense that has followed this structure.

Some overall specifics:

Speed: I am good with PF speed, but it's more important that your opponent is okay with it rather than me. Also, if you are going to be spreading please just slow down on tags and author names, dont just go through it full speed.

Framework: I am cool with pretty much any framework read in PF, just nothing phil oriented. If a framework is read, and a counter framework is not read, I will default the framework read. Otherwise, if two opposing frameworks are read, I prioritize pre-fiat offense then post-fiat. I often find teams under prioritizing pre-fiat offense, you should go for these arguments instead of engaging with the post-fiat offense of the framework.

Weighing: Please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing turns in rebuttal makes everyone's jobs easier. Carded weighing > analytics.

Prog: I think if you are competing in the varsity division of any national tournament you should be prepared to debate a shell or K.

Theory: I am not insanely versed in the norms of PF, but I think disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad. I rather not judge a friv debate, if you wanna read one, i probably will not flow it. Otherwise, I have voted for disclosure, paraphrasing, and vague alts. As long as you win some kind of in round abuse, I will probably vote for it.

K’s: This is where I am more comfortable evaluating. I think K teams in PF don’t utilize the alternative to its full potential, please spend time explaining how the alternative resolves the link of the K. Otherwise I am somewhat familar in: capitalism, settler colonialism, psycho (lacan), virilio, and security.

Phil: nah.

T: please go for T more. So many PF teams get away with abusive things because of their interp of the resolution. Also a great way to respond to the K!

Evidence: I will not read ev unless explicitly told to evaluate evidence.

Presumption: I presume the first speaking team. However, if there is another warrant read in the round, I will evaluate that.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Message me on facebook if you have any questions!

Somethings I really enjoy:
- House music
- Tay-K
- Warrant comparison.

Somethings I dont really enjoy:
- Offensive overviews while speaking 2nd.
- Saying you outweigh on scope when you dont.

Cecilia Granda-Scott Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:11 AM EDT

Sunvite 2025: *have very little topic knowledge about Somaliland take it easy on me*

Hello! I’m a third-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about parli!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid
Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.
If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.
I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round
Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.
My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.
If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Ava Guerra Olympic Heights Community High School 3 rounds

Farrah Hashish Horizon High School 3 rounds

David Hobson Park Vista Community High School 6 rounds

Lauren Howard Ransom Everglades 6 rounds

Kate Hubbell Palm Harbor University High School 6 rounds

I am a former PF Debater in the National / Florida circuits and am now currently an IB English teacher & Debate Coach for Palm Harbor University High School.

This will be my first season as a judge/coach and I look forward to meeting all competitors from around our country and seeing how much debate has evolved since my time as a competitor!

Important Notes for Rounds:
As much as your cards and contentions matter - so too does your behavior. Manners and humility go a long way, and I believe are foundational to both a functional and productive debate rounds.
I don't believe in speed reading - if your contention needs that much explanation and evidence to be understood, then I'm not the judge for you. You should be able to speak at a clear and understandable pace - so that flowing your round is not impossible and I may actually keep track of contentions, rebuttals, responses, etc.
Pet peeves: excessive card calling (just for the sake of card calling :/ ), debaters who are rude or arrogant with opponents or judges, eye-rolling, sarcasm, personal insults (etc.). I know as much as anyone that debate can get heated, but it is still supposed to be fun & exciting!
I want you to extend in your later speeches, collapse contentions when advantageous and ALWAYS tell me where I'm voting & weighing in summaries and FFs.
I understand that this is an activity that you guys pour hours, tears, effort & heart and soul into - I've been in your shoes! Don't forget to have fun, enjoy the art of the debate and remember that every round is an opportunity to learn and grow more as a debater (even if you think you're amazing already - I promise you have room for improvement)
I will always give you an extensive RDF and disclosure - unless time is crunched or you don't want the feedback!
Don't try to misrepresent, misquote or misuse evidence - I am a coach. I have read much of the evidence on your topic and am usually familiar enough to know when you're using it dishonestly.
I will flow the round but I also won't extend or make arguments for you - if your opponent makes mistakes, errors or concedes, you need to mention it yourselves.
I am vehemently against theory - I will not vote in your favor on most theory cases/shells. Unless it is absolutely necessary for actual valid reasons, I don't anticipate sending my ballot for a theory case. Especially when theory is run against novices in a "gotcha" kind of move. Not cool. Not smart. Not interesting. It ruins an opportunity for younger debaters to learn and enjoy a true debate round. (Exception: If it is two experienced teams, and both are capable to run theory/ debate it - I will consider it for its validity)

Send all speech docs to hubbellkate@gmail.com

Looking forward to a great year!

Jamie Jaswell Cooper City High School 6 rounds

Sebastian Josef Lescher Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 3, 2024 at 2:29 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Sebastian Lescher, and I was a PFer at Cardinal Gibbons High School for three years and am currently attending UF as part of the honors program. I also work for Champion Briefs on the PF writing team. I love speech and debate and think it’s a great place to discuss important topics. During my time debating, I qualified for NSDA, NCFL, FFL States, and TOC. Tbh I also feel compelled to say that I’m first year out.

PUBLC FORUM DEBATE: Short Version

Add me to the chain: sebastianlescher10@gmail.com

Tech>Truth; however, I’m not gonna vote on your link chains that stretch from here to the moon and for prog args, justlook at the prog args section

Terminalize/Weigh your impacts

SIGNPOST!!!

Know your evidence

If you have a lay and a tech case, please read your lay case to me.

I WILL NOT FLOWW OFF A DOC

Don’t exaggerate your impacts.

I don’t care what you wear, sit or stand, etc. Literally, as long as I can hear your argument, I’m good

Don’t be mean/rude

Ask me anything/post round me all you want; and literally feel free to ask me about anything, debate, UF, life, etc.

Use all your time when speaking. If you run out of things to say, literally just start rereading your case.

HAVE FUN

WEIGH: MAKE MY JOB EASY!!!

Spectators: idc, but ask your opponents their opinion. Also spectators should put their tech away.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE: Long Version

Speed: I’m fine with speed. Personally, I admire teams that can read a well-reasoned series of arguments in a conversational speed or tone, but I understand strategy and time constraints (I, myself, am definitely guilty of going fast.) If I can’t understand you, it won’t be on my flow. I will not flow off a doc.

Impacts/Weighing: PLEASE weigh in final and maybe even summary! If you don't weigh, then I will have to weigh for you, and you might not like the outcome. In fact, you probably won't. When weighing your arguments, please actually weigh them. By this, I mean that you should compare your arguments to those of your opponents and tell me why I should prefer yours, i.e. greater scope, magnitude, timeframe, etc. "Our impacts outweigh because they are true" is not weighing, nor is simply restating your impact and tacking on "so we outweigh on *insert weighing mechanism*" without analysis.

Comparing worlds if the resolution is passed is honestly the most effective way to weigh. This can be even better if you are “strongman”-ing your opponents argument.

CLIMATE CHANGE CAN NOT BE YOUR IMPACT FOR EVERYTHING!!! (Well, it can be, but it’s probably nonunique.)

DO NOT EXAGGERATE YOU IMPACTS OR CHANGE NUMBERS. Adjectives tell me nothing, number of lives tell me a lot more. If your number is one million lives, don’t tell me millions of lives. This might actually be one of my biggest pet peeves in debate, and if I catch you doing it, it may not be an automatic drop, but I will be upset. If your opponent is doing it, CALL THEM OUT.

When writing a case, make sure to terminalize your impacts. Don’t just tell me that a trillion dollars in debt is created or GDP will increase by 10 percent. That means nothing in the round. Tell me WHY that thing is good or bad. What does it mean for the people? How many lives are saved? How does not being unemployed help someone? Basically, it should come down to who saves the most lives.

Cross: I like to think cross is for debaters to figure out stuff about each others arguments (clarify cases, knowing how the other person’s case works, etc.). I really don’t think you should be introducing new arguments in my decision, and I won’t be flowing them. However, they won’t have absolutely no impact on my decision, just less of an impact on my decision than an actual speech. Don’t let your opponent absolutely dominate you in a cross, but don’t turn it into a yelling match.

If you want make sure I evaluate something from cross, tell me it in your next speech and make me put it on my flow.

Prog Args: I have a growing relationship with prog args. I believe that they are used to gatekeep the circuit and are usually just a cheap way to get a W when run against teams from small schools, but then I also think they're kinda fun. My partner and I used to bait disclosure shells because we liked to run theory in rounds, and we literally just got bored at TOC once and wrote a disclosure bad shell (the other team put one of my absolute favorite round reports on the wiki).

With that being said, I do typically enjoy a good theory debate. However, if you introduce theory, you better be ready to defend it and whatever else gets thrown your way. Also, I'm sympathetic to RVIs, but you obviously still have to win the counterinterp to win the round if you're running RVIs. Also, no one needs to spec an RVI, it's self-explanatory. Also, friv definitely does exist, and I don’t really want to hear it. I do also think spirit of the shell arguments can be valid. Basically, I'm cool with shells as long as it's not in a novice pool, no prog args in a novice pool, that's final.

Side note, if this whole section is literally complete meaningless jargon and you want to learn more about theory, please just ask me to teach you at the end of the round. I will literally sit there for a half hour and teach you everything you could possibly want to know.

K’s are interesting to me. I find K’s interesting as a form of debate intellectually, and I recognize their importance. HOWEVER, I don’t think they belong in PF (or high school debate for that matter) because I don’t think that there’s many people who really understand the importance and complexities of the literature. If you so choose to run one, you need a very strong link, and I want you to be able to explain the literature like it is the back of your hand and like you're explaining it to a toddler as I will not understand it if you don't. Please don’t read a non-topical aff K, like pretty please. Also, make sure the argument is accessible as this is PF so it should be able to be understood by the public.

No Trixs. It will not be evaluated and will upset me if I even understand it.

Evidence: Don’t make up anything. If there is no card for something you said and you get caught, you will be dropped. I think lax evidence ethics is a huge problem in debate, and this really annoys me.

Paraphrasing is bad, but I won’t automatically drop you for it. Your opponents would have to run a pretty convincing shell for that. (Adding an “and” or changing a verb from “speak” to “speaks” is not grounds for a shell; if the whole thing is just like an essay with no quotes, that may be shell worthy.)

Make sure that your cards are in an organized doc. If it takes you over two minutes to get a card when it’s called for, I’ll probably just say to move on, and I won’t be evaluating that information in my decision. (Dw, I can understand bad wifi issues if that’s the case, but like, just have your cards organized.)

While this isn’t a must do in lower level rounds, knowing your evidence can be a great way to beat your opponents. For example, if you have conflicting evidence from your opponent but your evidence is a thirty year long Harvard study while your opponents evidence in a survey if 50 people on the street, I’m obviously gonna prefer the study in my decision. But in order for me to have that preference, you have to know the evidence quality and you have to tell me that.

If you want me to call for a card or look at a card and you think it’s important to your side, please tell me.

When you are giving any speech after constructive, don’t just ever say a card name. Tell me what the card actually says. For example, if you say, “Because of Lescher 23, we can conclude…”, I can’t remember what ever single card you read said. Tell me what Lescher 23 was. Contextualize the evidence.

Speaks: I don’t really love the idea of speaks, and I kinda think they’re pointless. Because of this, unless you do something horrible, everyone in my rounds will be getting 29+. Winner will probably get somewhere in the range of 29.5-29.9 and loser will probably get somewhere from 29-29.5 depending on how close the rounds are and how good everyone is. A 30 is gonna be rare, and only for debaters who truly shock me (in a good way).

General Round Behavior: The debate room should be a comfortable and safe environment. This means that I really don’t care how you look as long as I can hear you.

Be as comfortable as you want; you can take off your heels, tie, blazer, etc. Literally, put a hoodie on if you want, I do not care. I will almost definitely be wearing a hoodie and shorts, why should you be dressed any better. I personally believe dress codes are wrong for society and are used to punish people for not conforming (tbh I'm shocked I never ran suit theory). I only care about the arguments you tell me, not how you look while making them.

Sit or stand when you speak, I do not care; do whatever makes you feel most comfortable and lets you argue best.

I think everyone is old enough to time themselves. If it becomes a serious issue or you just want me to time, let me know, but I will not be interjecting naturally.

Please do your part to make debate a safe, educational environment. Don’t be sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, racist, ableist, etc. If you are, I will drop you and tank your speaks!!!

Please let me know if there is absolutely anything I can do to make debate a safer/more fun/more educational experience for you. I am happy to talk to you before/after rounds to support you in any way I can. Debate is scary and hard at times, but talking about it can make a difference. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at my email from the beginning.

Post round me/ask me questions. I’m happy to answer any questions you have about debate. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it with anyone who wants to.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be a fun and educational activity. Make sure you learn a thing or two and please please please HAVE FUN AND MAKE FRIENDS!!!

If you’ve made it down here, good job and good luck!!!!!

Quinn McKenzie Trinity Preparatory School 6 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.

Bill Mcnairy Myers Park 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 6 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.

Sully Mrkva Palm Harbor University High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 6:04 AM EDT

Sully Mrkva

“There is a house. One enters it blind and comes out seeing. What is it?” --- Tell me the answer.

add me to the email chain: Manlybros11@gmail.com

Brentwood High '22 / VT '26: Debated for Four Years - Won TOC, Auto-Qualed to TOC 2x and Nats 1x. I'm now the assistant director for the Debate Drills Club Team and NSD PF camps.

TLDR: Tech>Truth that will vote on anything that is not _ist.

I love debate. Take a deep breath, don’t be aggressive, and have some fun dawgs - I invested thousands of hours into this activity and know how important it is to some people - I GET YOU - leave it all on the flow and don’t be a chungus.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

-General-

It’s MY job to adapt to you - if there’s anything you need before round to help make it more accessible or have any questions - email me or ask me before round.
Don’t be a jerk - Debate Rounds can get very heated - try to maintain your composure and “pretend to be sincere.” ALSO - if you are absolutely COOKING a team - don’t add fuel to the fire - treat a novice team with the same respect that you would give the #1 team ranked in the nation, if you don’t, you’re in for a low speaks win.
Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD.
Feel free to postround (time permitting ofc). For newer debaters and anyone who wants help - ask me if there’s something better you could have done on argument x during the round to win my ballot - I will give my best critiques as possible to improve your skill into the future (I always loved judges who did this for me).
Second Rebuttal must frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined - i.e. if you are going for a contention with 3 pieces of defense and a turn on it - you must frontline all of that in one way or another for me to evaluate it in the back half. (during tech rounds I used to frontline entire case and then go vroom vroom on their case - I think this is very strategic and if you do it well - I’ll give a speaks boost)
No Sticky Defense. Even if it is conceded, extend it.

-Substance-

Extend Warrants. For offense you are going for - whether that be a turn, DA, case argument, etc. I need a warranted extension that isn’t some blippy 5 second extension - if it's FULLY conceded, my threshold for this is a bit lower.
Summary -> FF mirror. Anything in FF has to be in summary. Case arguments, defense, offense, weighing all need to be explained and extended in summary for me to evaluate it at the end of the round. Exception to this rule is if a team reads new weighing in 2nd summary, you can respond to that in 1st FF. Structure of speeches can be different between summ and ff - just no different content. 2nd FF cheese will not work on me.
Frontlining. I love when teams frontline entire case in 2nd rebuttal - that is, if they do it well, if you can’t reach the efficiency level and blip storm supreme through the first 1:30 of rebuttal, it’s not gonna bode well for you on the flow. More broadly, frontlines need to be directly interactive with the argument you are responding to, give me reasons why to break the clash, postdates, warrant comparison, etc - or it’s gonna make the debate wayyyyyyyyy closer than it needs to be. Lastly, cross-applying conceded frontlines from different parts of the flow to another in back-half speeches is perfectly fine, the flow is a toolbox, not a map.
Rebuttal Responses. You can go as fast as you want, as long as there is a warrant that I can pinpoint and explain back to myself during my decision. Do not spam DA’s that are masked as turns that aren’t actually responsive to the link, you can give an all offense rebuttal - but make sure you are interacting with your opponent on the link level. Respond to impacts - one of weakest parts of current circuit tech debate is teams focusing too hard on link-level responses and flat out dropping their opps’ impact scenarios in even the most high-level rounds. Do this in rounds I judge you and adopt this in future ones - trust me, it’ll make a world of difference.

-Weighing-

Carded weighing is GASSSS.

Make your weighing comparative. Just asserting that your argument is empirically proven or has a higher magnitude is the bare minimum and is the most basic way to grab a ballot. To be confident that you won mine, prove why your opponents don’t meet the weighing threshold, but you do - I.E your argument happened empirically, but their link was historically disproven. Most importantly, compare link-ins - just explaining why your argument link-ins to their impact doesn’t give you offense, it at best non-uniques their scenario - explain why you have a better link into their impact to generate round-winning weighing. META WEIGH - if two teams are giving different weighing mechanisms without any comparison, it’s gonna force me to intervene, prob over mag, visa versa, etc. makes the round ez for me to evaluate and by extension ez-ier for you to W.
Frontline yours and Respond to theirs. Don’t shuffle deck chairs on the titanic. If your opponents respond to your weighing, you need to frontline it in the proceeding speech and extend that frontline or otherwise you won’t have access to that weighing. This goes both ways - respond to your opponents weighing, or theirs is conceded. A really good “weigh” to win my ballot is to handle weighing at the top of your speech - it’s the most important aspect of the flow and crystalizes the round for tech judges.
Have Fun with it. Don’t be afraid to give strategic and smart link-ins, don’t stick to magnitude, probability, scope, etc. Link-ins and short circuits at both the impact and link level are by far the most effective forms of weighing. I like extinction outweighs or extinction comes first weighing - speaker boost incoming if you do this.
Fake Weighing. Strength of link weighing, Clarity of impact, Clarity of link is BS and not actual weighing - just analysis of the level of ink on your case that’ll be obvious when I look down on my flow. This weighing isn’t convincing - don’t waste your time reading it.

-Theory / Prog-

I’ll vote on theory - Default RVIS and reasonability. I didn’t read a single progressive argument in my debate career but had my fair share of rounds hitting Ks, theory, tricks, etc. So I know how to evaluate. BUTTTTT - if you are clearly reading theory to get an easy W against a new team expect your speaks tanked and if you are reading some friv stuff that is obviously just a 7-eleven quality shell I will have an extremely high bar for you throughout the round.
I’ll vote on Ks. I can evaluate Pf level K debate and vote correctly. I’ll evaluate everything directly off the flow and be completely tabula rosa - which I believe is of utmost importance ESPECIALLY in prog/K rounds.
I Like substance more. I’ve always been a substance guy - so don’t read prog just because you have a tech judge. If this is your topic strat, there is an actual violation, etc. RUN IT and I’m all ears.

-Speaks-

Be Chill, Be fluent, easy to follow, and strategically smart - that’s my recipe for good speaks.
Some of my favorite debaters are Sri Chilukuri, Anoosh Kumar, Anuraag Routray, and Max Wu - I vibe with these debaters’ style - this is meant to give you a gauge on what I like.
Be assertive in cross - don’t let your opponents walk over you and don’t be afraid to call them out if they are ranting and giving a mini rebuttal.

-Fun Stuff-

If you made it all the way down here - thank you!

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage Broward HS 6 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

Joe Pergola Newsome High School 3 rounds

Kimberley Peters Western High School 6 rounds

Judging since September 2024, my experience has expanded to include national qualifier, Sunvite, and after-school tournaments for several types of speech and the debate public forum.

When judging speech and debate, I focus on the rubric provided to examine the areas of the event. Whether it's the introduction, topic, arguments, crossfire, general expression, or closing. I watch for key clues to identify the preparation that students put into the event. Depending on the event, evaluate their ability to formulate opinions backed with evidence that makes sense and counters their opposing argument.

When providing feedback, I focus on what they did well and provide opportunities for improvement. For speech and debate, I listen for the development of their presentation, body language, confidence, and ability to work with their teammate, if apply. It’s also important that they express their views with sensitivity to diversity and to be respectful to their opponents and judges. Focusing on the education and growth of the students includes the support of a purely traditional debate as important and not using any theories or K’s as I am a lay judge. This keeps the debate honest and pure for the students who truly wish to argue the topic.

As a strong believer and supporter of learning and development, my professional career is well diversified with a background in both corporate and public education.

I enter each tournament with excitement and enthusiasm with a "clean slate" approach for each student, for each interaction to be positive, helpful, and encouraging. Every student has different strengths and areas of growth. By building up the student’s strengths with constructive feedback, I hope that their natural curiosity to develop their speech and debate skills will flow freely in the warm, accepting environment formed in interactions with both judges and peers. These students are role models who are building their education to become our future leaders and citizens. Whether it's through a speech and debate tournament, classroom or team event, I believe each student has the potential to succeed and pave the way for future generations.

Gavin Poore Palm Beach Independent 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 :)

Neil Press Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 10, 2020 at 10:07 AM EDT

My name is Neil Press. I did Public Forum debate for 4 years in high school, graduating in 2016. I coached PF from 2016-2019 and have not been involved in the activity since. I am a tax accountant in Chicago in the Private Equity and Hedge Fund space.

E-mail is npress19@gmail.com if we're using a chain. Don't contact me after the tournament please, I use this e-mail to pay my bills.

I am a 26 year old dude who has rarely judged a debate round or thought about debate in 5 years. I am rusty and washed up. Make my decision as easy as humanly possible.

Do not shake my hand.

If I deem your behavior in round to be excessively rude, belittling, or hateful, you will not win my ballot.

Please weigh your arguments for me or do some type of framing, otherwise I will vote off a random argument and you will not be happy. Weighing isn't just saying why something is important, it is saying why it is more important than your opponent's arguments. It requires a comparison.

I will not evaluate frivolous theory. I would prefer the debate to be about the topic, but I understand the need to read theory if there is a legitimate abuse.

I have little to no experience with K debate. I would very much prefer for you to not read these positions in front me. I won’t explicitly tell you not to run it, but please dumb it down for me. If I have no idea what your argument (and I have judged a few K debates and I have not understood a single one) is at the end of the round I will not vote for you off of it and it will be your own fault. Read these types of arguments at your own risk.

I am typically tech>truth if you aren't offensive and don't go severely beyond the limits of what I should expect to hear in a Public Forum round. If you are unsure if you are crossing that line, feel free to ask me before the round.

I can handle moderate speed, but if you go too fast I will miss arguments. I can not understand spreading. If you need to ask if you are spreading, you are spreading. I won't be mad if you go fast, just know you are taking a risk in doing so. I will not look at speech docs to find missed cards or arguments. If I miss it, that’s your fault for not being clear or going too fast. Reminder I have not judged or flowed a round in 5 years, so keep that in mind with speed.

If you are going to read an overview or off case position tell me before your speech so I can flow it somewhere.

All speeches should be signposted well. If not, I will miss arguments on my flow and it will be your fault.

Summary and Final Focus parallelism is important to me. If you want me to evaluate something as an offensive argument it needs to be in the Summary. Please make it explicitly clear as to why I should be making my decision. I only vote off arguments in the final focus.

Warrants need to be extended in both the summary and the final focus. If at the end of the round I don't understand why an argument you made is true, I will not vote off of it.

Try to be respectful in crossfire as decorum in round plays a role in how I distribute speaker points. If you aggravate me enough it could affect my decision.

I would like for you to respond to arguments after the constructive in the speech following them being introduced. This means arguments made in the first rebuttal should be answered in the second rebuttal if you intend to respond.

I would like for you to extend terminal defense against your opponents arguments in every speech once you introduce it to the round.

Erin Quinn Robinson High School 3 rounds

Isaac Ratzan American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Benjamin Redler Ransom Everglades 3 rounds

Ethan Roytman American Heritage Broward HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 5:36 AM EDT

Heritage ‘23 -ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com & evan.burkeen@yale.edu - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

Tech > Truth
Fine w/ speed
Did PF for 4 years
Flay Judge
I agree with Daniel Zhao on TKOs - half the rounds this tournament a team has just not extended an impact - call a TKO if you can TKO speaks only drop the longer the round goes on.

How to win with me/get good Speaks

WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory (all evidence included) and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30.
Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork. Update: I will have a higher threshold for explanations - I am not going to reread ur K link card - if your explanation and implication of your literature isn't sufficient you will not get my ballot.
Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
More efficient the round the better the speaks for both teams (GCX is skippable).
If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.
30 Speaks Theory = 27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

James Sacher Christopher Columbus High School 5 rounds

Sharan Sawlani Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 6:26 AM EDT

ALL TOURNAMENTS: I learned of the topic the morning of the tournament. PLEASE assume I know nothing. I havent judged a round in a year, I am a washed up cooked has-been. Treat me like a flay judge.

Background:

Competed in Public Forum @ Cypress Bay HS (2013-2017)

BA in Political Science @ University of Central Florida (2017-2021)

MA in Bioethics, Tech Ethics and Science Policy @ Duke University (2021-2022)

AML Investigator @ Goldman Sachs (2023-Present)

PF (If you have me for another event go lay) Paradigm

- Look, I know NSU is a tech school and all, but they hire me to coach lay debate i havent cut a card in maybe 8 years (but like ive been around the circuit so i sometimes know what's going on) . if you're spreading or speaking too fast i probably wont catch a lot of it and will probably look confused

- if possible, number your responses so i know if I missed anything

- Set up email chains/preflow before the round. I am a big believer in sending case docs to make it easier for everyone but I won't force yall to do so. You'll get a bump in speaks if you do. sharansawlani@gmail.com and uschoolpf@gmail.com

- Please don’t shake my hand.

- Please collapse. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

- READ and SEND cut cards. paraphrasing is whack. i wont penalize you for it but if the other team reads theory or tells me to evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics and not real evidence, and you dont respond, it's going to be a really uphill battle.

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to spend time thinking about how im voting after the round, you and i will both be happy (half of you at least).

- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me sharansawlani@gmail.com or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to Slam@jd25.law.harvard.edu and hold nothing back.

Jennifer Schraeder Battle Ground Academy 6 rounds

Hanna Shakarov Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds

Trisha Sharan Miami Palmetto Senior High School 6 rounds

Speech and Debate Experience: I did LD most of high school, briefly PF and Congress. I also did DX for a few years.

Judging Experience: I have not judged much since graduating (~ 2 years ago). In general, assume I am not familiar with the nuances of a topic.

Speech Paradigm:

Extemp: Confident delivery, using time well, strong argumentation.

Other Speech Events: For oratory, have a strong throughline and convince me on your stance. I am not very familiar with inform and interp events but will do my best to give a fair ranking.

Debate Paradigm:

I debated in South Dakota, so I am likely not familiar with the different nuances of style on the Florida circuit. I will do my best to keep up if something feels drastically new.
I will flow each speech in a round & go down line-by-line argumentation to help make my decision.
Voters/points of crystallization are very important. Tell me why you should win and which arguments are most important.
I will award speaker points on sportsmanship and delivery. Speak with confidence, speak clearly, have good argumentation, but do not demonize/insult your opponents.
Off-the-clock roadmaps are great for letting everyone organize your flow, but you will not be penalized/awarded for having/not having one.
Speed is okay as long as you are still clear when you are speaking. Avoid speaking so fast that no one can flow what you are saying.
Quality over quantity. Instead of reading several redundant blocks on your opponents point, take the time to impact out and show you understand each argument. I will prioritize the quality of your response over the quantity.
For LD: Framework is so important! Tell me how to view the round & I will take it to heart and judge arguments based on that framework. I am familiar with most common philosophers, so make sure you don't misconstrue their philosophy. But remember, you can win framework and still lose the round.

Congress Paradigm:

I have done Congress in the past but am not super familiar with the nuances of the format. Refer to my speech and debate paradigms for a general idea of my judging perspectives.

I know this can be hard to remember amidst all the stress of the competition season, but speech and debate is supposed to be fun! Take a breather to remember why you love this activity to avoid getting lost in the sauce. I am not too unreasonable of a judge & will be fair + give feedback for my decision :)

Sahil Sood Lake Highland Preparatory School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 7, 2024 at 11:06 AM EDT

tech > truth. please read the speaks section at the bottom of my paradigm :)

did PF for lambert and now coach lake highland, current soph doing APDA, here’s my competition record if that matters to you

add me to the chain: sahilsood@college.harvard.edu & lakehighlandpfdocs@gmail.com

order of prefs: good theory > friv theory > traditional K's > meme cases (spark, ddev, etc)> substance > non-T aff > trix > any identity args (plz don't read these unless u rly want to ig), but i’ll eval anything

notably, the above are just preferences -- higher prefs will make me happier, but thats about it, it won't make you more likely to win. debate is a game. i do not care what you do to win the game. anything/everything is fair game. i have no biases/beliefs about how things should be done -- tell me how I should vote, and i will vote in that way if you win whatever argument.

send me full case and rebuttal docs with cut cards. no exceptions.

i am completely tab rasa. if you don't say it, i won't think it. if i have to presume, i will. i default to the last-read, uncontested presumption warrant in the round. this means if you say presume 1st speaking team in 1st case and no one responds to it, you dont need to extend it -- i will default to your model of presumption since it is conceded, similar to that of an ROTB. in the absence of presumption warrants, i presume neg.

**note if you read a K of any sort: while I am receptive, you need to do adequate research of your own. I've seen K's in PF work and not work because the speech times are so short. if it is obviously stolen off of a policy or LD wiki, I will be much less receptive. if you choose to run these arguments, run them well.

regardless, win the flow and I'll vote for you

would love if you skipped grand cross and took 1:30 of prep

feel free to post round i think it’s educational

someone pleaseeee call a TKO

speaks:

30 to any second speaker who can give a rebuttal off the flow
30s if you bring me food (anything with cheese is best, no nuts or beef)
if you and your opponent both agree, one person per team competes in a push-up contest. winner gets 30s for both speakers, loser's speaks are capped at 29 (but you still need to have the debate after). if you want to engage in this, you must ask your opponents, and you must both agree.
+.3 to your speaks if you can guess my favorite number or color (each team gets one guess)
+.5 if you follow ice spice and repost her latest post on your ig story (must be both debaters on the team)
minimum 28.5's if you read anything that i have preffed higher than substance in my prefs above
otherwise, i will probably average around 28.7-29 with speaks (i try to be generous)

Shane Stafford The Blake School 6 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.

Mitchell Stewart Western High School 6 rounds None

Natalia Stewart Western High School 6 rounds None

Daoshan Sun Ardrey Kell High School 6 rounds

Yeqing Tang Montgomery Blair 3 rounds

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)

Alexander Valcarcel Christopher Columbus High School 4 rounds

Nicolas Valladolid Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 8:26 PM CDT

Strake ‘23 | The London School of Economics ‘26

Tech > Truth

Speed is fine. If you spread, send me a speech doc.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

New implications in 2nd summary / FF are pretty sketch and I am probably not willing to vote off of them.

Please weigh and signpost well. Probability, strength of link, clarity of link are not real weighing mechs. Probability weighing is literally just how conceded your arg is. UQ weighing > Link weighing > Impact weighing. No new weighing after 1st summary. Second rebuttal should collapse/weigh (also just a good general thing to do).

Try to resolve clash by doing warrant comparison. Weighing pieces of evidence against each other can be really strategic and make messy case debates look very clear.

Impact turns are underutilized in PF but are highly effective.

Evidence is overrated. Good analytics beat bad evidence. I will not intervene on bad evidence unless one team calls it out and explains why it is a voting issue.

Progressive:

I think progressive args are good for pf.

Framing: Framework should be read in constructive. Second constructive MUST answer framework otherwise its conceded. When responding to framework, an alternative framing must be provided or I'll just default to whichever team introduced framing when evaluating impacts. I kinda understand some phil but its probably not a good idea to read it in front of me if you don’t explain and implicate it well.

Theory: I default to competing interps and no RVIs. Reasons to grant RVIs or default to reasonability can be persuasive if done correctly. Please weigh theory over K or vice versa. If not, I generally (emphasis on generally) think k comes before theory.

Kritiks: I like k debate. Ks need to prove alt solvency and contextualized links.

Personally, I don't really think topicality is a good response to a kritk if given by itself. Reading topicality against a k Neg is pretty dumb in pf because the Neg does not need to be topical only refuse the aff. Also, when responding to a k, please for the love of all things holy, respond to the ROTB or provide your own.

"I am a freshman" or "I have never debated theory" etc. is not a response to progressive arguments.

Tricks: eh

K's and Theory MUST be extended in rebuttal.

Art Waganheim Western High School 6 rounds

Donovan Wu Palm Beach Independent 6 rounds

Frances Yong Lake Highland Preparatory School 6 rounds

Reagan Yount Brentwood High School 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Sunvite

2025 — Davie, FL/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges