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

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

Public Forum:

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

Lincoln Douglas:

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

Policy Debate:

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

If you have any questions, ask me before the round starts. My email is dynamic.the.hero@gmail.com.

I have been involved in forensics since 2019, first as a competitor and now as a coach. My main focus has always been public forum but I am well experienced in judging and overall consuming all forms of debate. Put simply even with that said I prefer to be treated as a lay judge; I like explanations, I like consumable argumentation, and I hate spreading. With that said one thing I will accept is very "techy" approaches that the average lay judge may not pick up on, most notably Ks. With that said in each form of debate I expect you to be able to relate your arguments to the natural conditions of a win within your round that being a frame work, value, or simple Cost/Benefit analysis. Over all I'm here for the spirit of debate and only have 3 rules: be respectful, try your hardest, and do not spread.

Congress

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

LD Paradigm:

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

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

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

IMPACTS

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

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a college student and did PF, Congress, Duo, and HI in high school; ranked top 20 in states, nationals, and TOC.

For debate: Even though I am an experienced judge, pretend I am a lay judge. Explain it to me like I'm a 5th grader. Super extra and convoluted arguments don't always win rounds. Extend your links and impacts and weigh your args!! Essentially, tell me why I should care and why I should care about your arg more than your opponents = roadmap to winning.

flay judge; currently in PF debate

add me to any email chains: toelinalee@gmail.com

Send me your full case and rebuttal docs with cut cards. No exceptions.

For speed, don’t spread. If I can’t understand you, I will not flow it. Same with time; if you go over, I will not flow it.

I hate theories and K’s, do not attempt. Frameworks are okay, but extend it through every speech or else I will not account it in my ballot.

I understand weighing, but make it clear; it might fly over my head.

Don’t lie and say the opponent cleanly conceded when they never did. I will be flowing in detail.

I don’t pay attention to cross, so don’t look at me while you’re doing it.

No post-rounding NO EXCEPTIONS.

One last thing: do not yell and be as polite as possible; being aggressive does not win my vote.

AT THE TOP, this paradigm is outdated in some parts. I've become less caring in what exactly you run and have become largely more comfortable in all debate topics. FEEL FREE TO READ ANYTHING! I'm better at everything than I was when I originally wrote this. Would change it but I'm too lazy rn, will change when I start judging for real. Rankings in what I WANT to hear at the bottom of the LD section is still largely true though.

If you’ve read through my paradigm recently, it’s been updated. Specifically, the K section.

Current debater and president at Dr Phillips High School in Lincoln-Douglas but have debated in most of the other debate events as well. Honestly, I'm cool to evaluate anything that is explained to me and that I can hear so feel free to run anything but make sure that the more complicated the argument gets, the better you explain it. With that being said, I do have my preferences, opinions, and pet peeves. (Note: I am a pretty grumpy person who is basically socially inept so don't take anything I end up saying or acting like too personally, I suck at emotions and social stuff)

Y'all, my paradigm is long and probably poorly written cause English is hard, ask questions prior to round start. I'd rather start round a little late than have you confused about what I like.

Postrounding is probably good... especially if you think I'm the dumbest person who has ever judged you. Just don't be rude and concise, I am NOT convinced by you yelling at me, even if I'm wrong.

I prefer using Speechdrop but email chains are fine. Email: cyrislimdebates@gmail.com

(LD)

PANIC!!! WHAT DOES THIS JUDGE LIKE:

1 - Phil, Trix (phil), Trad

2 - Theory, T, Ks you can explain

3 - LARP, Identity Ks

4 - Friv Theory, Ks you can't explain, Trixs (26 off, opp can't have offense, etc.)

S - Performance Debates

Paradigm proper:

General mumblings from a grumpy person - I'm going to be honest with all of you, I WILL evaluate any argument. The prefs are just there for you to understand my background knowledge and how comfortable with the argumentation type I am. I don't mind if you run phil, LARP, or even a performance debate, I'll still evaluate it, but the rankings are just there for you to know how much you have to explain to me or how well you gotta perform. Things lower on the list are things where you just have to naturally perform better. That doesn't mean you don't have to do well with those I rank higher, it just means that you are naturally going to get me faster. I won't hack for anything and will do the best I can with anything given to me. (Note on performance: I just don't think you'll have time to explain to me why performance is good, why YOUR performance is uniquely good, and put on the performance. I just think it's a super high burden on you and you might not have enough time but if you're confident in your skills and explaining, go ahead. I would love to see/hear it.)

Phil - Personally love this form of debate and find that it is underutilized on the circuit and especially locally, people tend to opt for Policy, Util, or some other basic framework which is fine but Lincoln Douglas is the PHILOSOPHICAL debate event, it gets infinitely more interesting when framework is more than just a reused Morality Util one. Frameworks I particularly like are Kant, Hobbes, and Pettit (I know, I'm basic) but will appreciate anything new like Rand or Levinas. I don't particularly like Util, I'll weigh it but don't expect super high speaks (Usually will give +.1 for just having a non-Util/MSV fw). With this in mind, DO NOT run a framework your coach gave you just because I like phil, make sure you truly understand what it's talking about and how it interacts within the round; if I have reasonable grounds to doubt that you have any idea what your fw is saying, -1.0 speaks.

Trad - As a kid in central Florida who primarily (and sadly) mostly competes locally, I'm super comfortable with trad (to be honest, how are you NOT comfortable in trad) and most of my debate year is lay trad debates. That means feel free to pref me highly if you want to ask for a trad round or go for a trad round but I would prefer rounds that transcend the boundaries of trad. More phil or tricky rounds are gonna make me infinitely more interested in the round but don't feel like you're being forced to not do trad. For trad, just treat me like you would a lay judge but just cut out the fluff that is associated with it.

Theory - Honestly, I'll evaluate it as long as real abuse can be proved. Usually default DTD, Competing interps, no RVIs, yes to 1AR theory but can be convinced otherwise. I can be swayed to buy 2NR theory. Legit theory comes first on my ballot so it's usually key to respond to it. It'll be difficult to get me to vote on friv theory; my threshold on responses is SUPER low and the only way to win with friv theory is basically to have your opponent drop it or completely mishandle it.

Note on evidence ethic theories: I will always ask you after your speech whether you want to stake the round on it. If the answer is no, don't run the shell.

LARP - It's whatever, as long as it makes sense then I'll evaluate it. I default on a morality Util framing without any speaker deductions and will assume you will be weighing as such. Weighing is a MUST to properly secure my ballot in more policy-centric rounds. I always assume DAs turn case and Plans and CPS need a text telling me exactly what the plan is to properly evaluate it. (i.e. Resolved: The United States will slowly phase out fossil fuels by increasing renewable energy production from solar) Solvency is a MUST.

Ks- I think they're useful when done well and explained well. Ks that you cannot explain easily in the time provided to you should not be run as all it does is clutter the round. Linking the K to the resolution, something your opponent is running, or to debate in general, clearly is key to making a coherent K and one I feel comfortable voting off of. I'm fine with K affs. The K should function as your offense and not just a part of your offense, it's either go all in or not at all.

As a general principle, I believe that: radicals alts >> normals alts >>>> reject the aff. Will eval any of them though, I just think some are def stronger than others with rejection being the weakest by far.

Quick side note, I've been loving the Academy K lately. Take that information as you will :)

Trixs- Honestly, as I become more active with using prog tactics, phil trixs have really grown on me. I kinda want you to try and run these if you can cause I feel like they create a fun debate but of course, won't get you the auto-win. Personally been running Kant 1AR indexicals and skep NC a lot and I find them fun to see and do. I don't like judging a billion Trixs so I won't be happy about it but you can run a full Trix case if you want to and I'll try my best to keep up. Key thing to keep in mind, if one of the Trix gets turned or a theory is read against you, you will most likely lose.

Performance - Just don't. Thank you :)

Other prefs:

• Deontological arguments >>>>
• Tech>Truth
• I will NOT pay too much attention during CX, this is your time, so I'll just passively listen
• Don't just say "My opponent doesn't have a card for this" without explaining why it matters in the context of the round; this will not be treated as a response
• Speed is fine, if you spread, send doc
• Signpost
• I am a judge where if you want to test run a new case position/debating style/argument, you should. (Assuming you just want to figure out the viability of an argument and are not trying to guarantee a win)
• I will give a verbal RFD/comments if the tournament allows and both debaters want it
• I don't flow card names anymore because it forces you to properly extend arguments instead of just having your 1AR be "judge, extend x card, they clean conceded it". I care more about arguments than cards, extend the actual warranting and arguments instead of just a card
• While there is a ranking above, here's the ranking of how much I want to HEAR arguments: Phil/phil trixs >>> theory > trixs >> Ks >>>>>>>>>>> trad = LARP

Common arguments I run: (Decided to add this here so you can see what kind of debater I am and what I'm most comfortable with)

• Frameworks: Kant, Hobbes, Pettit, Rawls, Wu Wei
• Ks: Model Minority/Orientalism, Security, Capitalism, Academy, Absurdism
• Misc: Indexicals, Skep, Determinism, Theories (Disclosure, Condo, ESPEC, etc etc)

PF Stuff:

I'm putting this here just in case I do have to judge PF one day. I am an LDer at heart so I may judge things differently from more technical judges in PF, thus I would personally treat myself like a Lay -> lower Flay judge. (I will still understand and be able to keep up with technical arguments and speed though)

• Coinflip should always happen through tab or in front of me, personal preference
• NO PARAPHRASING, EVER, I'm not joking, just don't do it, I will not vote on paraphrased evidence
• Signposting and weighing are key. Comparative worlds is a great tool for PF because it naturally doesn't use a framework to weigh
• Evidence should be able to be provided in under 45 seconds, if you can't produce it by then it'll be treated as an analytic and you should be more organized. I understand if there are technological issues, they will be treated differently
• Everything you want to mention in your speech should have been extended in the previous speech
• Theory is more sus in PF so probably try not to run it in front of me unless an actual abuse story can be traced that affects the round at large (disclosure is the only exception where it's gonna be a solid no from me)
• Unless you give me a clear reason to do a different form of weighing, I default "bigger number wins" to put it simply. The actual nuances for how I evaluate it are longer than I can put in this paradigm to keep it readable but feel free to ask, I just think that summarizes what the weighing mechanism collapses to a lot of the time
• Honestly, I've been seeing a lot more "framework" in PF at my local circuit (Looking at one specific school in general) and I honestly find it not worth it in PF. Y'all have like no time for offense as it is already and there is absolutely NO WAY for you to properly establish a framework to the level in which I believe that frameworks should be AND be able to explain how it uniquely affirms/negates. If you think you can run it, go ahead, but it usually just ends up leaving you with not enough time

Congress Stuff:

As I primarily do debate events like LD, Congress isn't really my strong suit when it comes to judging but I have done it more than a couple of times (even accidentally making it to Congress finals at NSDA Districts once and semi-ed at Nova Titan) so I'm not completely blind and stupid. Here's just a couple of points on how I eval and rank people in a chamber.

• I usually start the PO at 3. The PO usually either stays there or move down as they make consistent mistakes. POs rarely move up in my eyes unless the other people in the chamber are actually struggling or making fatal mistakes. It's a lot easier for PO to move down than up
• The first four speeches set the tone for the round and I rank based around those four speeches. That means that if the first four speeches were killer, the round is going to be tougher and if the first four speeches were mid, the rankings are going to be more lenient. (This seems obvious but I know many judges who rank after everything which I think is dumb, rank in real-time y'all)
• Please, for the love of god, motion to move to direct questioning, it's infinitely more interesting and shows me better strategic thinking in the round than one question can
• I eval based on three things in a certain order: strategic thinking -> argumentation and incorporation of evidence -> presentation. While Congress is technically as much a speech even as a debate event, I value the more "debate" things of Congress over whether or not you stand up there and be super duper confident and outward. I care more about your choices in argumentation and why/how it's important.
• TBH, safest thing to do with me as a Congress judge, treat me like a lay judge. I may have slight opinions because I've done debate and Congress before, I'm more than happy to go along with the flow and adjust to you guys.
• (Side tangent here, y'all need to write better bills man, a lot of them either just don't do anything, are boring, or written just so so so so poorly)

Policy Stuff:

Y'all, I did policy debate for the first time at the 2024 NCFL Grand Nationals Tournament in Chicago and I personally had a blast (couldn't say the same for my partner sadly). It was fast-paced, information-heavy, and huge on strategic thinking, it's everything I love about LD, especially prog. Insofar that policy doesn't wildly change on me, a lot of my comments from the LD section can be applied here but I will be more open to most of the arguments in policy as a) you have more time to explain them and b) the same arguments get used for the whole year so they are more refined than having to change every 2 months in LD. Anyways, here's a basic chart on how much I like args in policy

1- T, K, CP

2 - Identity K, t

4 - Performance

Anyways, here's some miscellaneous ramblings from me

• Dispo > Condo
• More warranted CPS > one card benefit CPS (This might just be an LD thing but CPs tend to be longer with more net benefits, a good example is to take a look at states CP on the policy and LD wikis [States solve vs States solve plus avoid dual sovereignty])
• Planks are good insofar that we don't spend half a minute on them
• DISCLOSURE IS SUPER IMPORTANT
• Tag team CX always, don't even ask, it's a yes
• Please actually link the DAs, don't just say the aff links into the DA. (*cough cough*)
• Adv 1 -> Plan -> Adv 2/S >>> Plan -> Adv 1/2/S
• Honestly, if you can bring in phil somehow, extra brownie points to you

Hello! I am a high school competitive debater that's been debating for two years.

I do flow the debate and would appreciate it if you please spoke CLEARLY and do NOT go too fast-- clarity>speed.

Feel free to be assertive during crossfire, but please be polite, especially during the grand cross.

Make sure to weigh your impacts, especially in the final focus.

I will vote for the team that convinces me their side is the right one!

Good luck!

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

Tech > Truth

I have 3 yrs of PF experience on the national circuit so far. Cleared at TOC and NCFL Nationals.

Cheat Sheet

LARP- 1, Theory - 1, Tricks - 2, Kritik - 3, High Theory/Phil - 4

General:

Keep offtime roadmaps short.

Theory is good, but you have to send a doc. I'm not good at evaluating K's so it's probably safer not to read them on me. I'll try my best if you do.

Tricks are funny.

Send a doc if you are going to spread, but I'm not going to flow off it – if i have to say clear more than twice I'll stop flowing.

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

Analytics are good if they have warrants. Simply saying "they don't read evidence" isn't a sufficient frontline. Warranted ev > warranted analytic > unwarranted ev > unwarranted analytic.

If you are going to concede defense to kick out of a turn, then you have to say explicitly what responses you are conceding and how it takes out their turn. This doesn't have to be more than 5 seconds, BUT it has to be the speech after the defense was read.

I don't really care about cross, but it is binding so if they concede something bring it up in your speech. Pls be nice – if you are excessively rude in cross your speaks will tank.

Evidence:

Send a doc before constructive and rebuttal with all your evidence for +0.5 speaks. It is required if you are spreading.

Please have cut cards. If your opponents don’t, read paraphrasing theory.

Set up an email chain before the round. If you take more than a minute to find one piece of evidence, your speaks will start to drop.

Likewise, don't call for an unnecessary amount of evidence. If I think you're stealing prep while calling for evidence, I’ll ask you to stop prepping and might reduce your speaks.

Backhalf:

Please collapse.

If you want it to be on my ballot, it must be extended with a warrant in summary and final.

Defense isn't sticky.

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

If you go for a link turn, then extend the impact. If you go for an impact turn, then extend the link.

Please weigh, metaweigh, and respond to their weighing so I know what to vote for, otherwise I will probably have to intervene which I don’t like doing.

New weighing in first final is okay, but not ideal and the threshold for responding is very low.

Judging is a critical aspect of ensuring fairness, accuracy, and quality in competitive events across various disciplines. The following paradigm aims to provide a comprehensive framework on how I assess the participants fairly and effectively.

1. Clarity of Evaluation Criteria:

Define clear and specific evaluation criteria tailored to the nature of the tournament.
I ensure to understand the criteria thoroughly to maintain consistency and fairness in evaluations.

2. Fairness and Impartiality:

I emphasize the importance of impartial judgment irrespective of personal biases or affiliations.
I encourage to focus solely on the performance or presentation without prejudice.

3. Transparency:

I maintain transparency throughout the judging process by explaining the criteria to participants and providing feedback when possible.
I disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure they do not influence judgments.

4. Feedback Mechanism:

I provide a constructive feedback to participants to facilitate their growth and improvement.
I also offer specific feedback based on the evaluation criteria.

5. Ethical Considerations:

I Emphasize ethical behavior among participants, including confidentiality, honesty, and integrity.
I Prohibit any form of discrimination or unfair treatment based on personal characteristics.

6. Continuous Improvement:

Solicit feedback to all participants to identify areas for improvement in the judging process.
Regularly review and update the judging paradigm to adapt to changing needs and emerging best practices.

Thank You for going through this Paradigm. ALL THE VERY BEST.

Speed and signposting are crucial. Avoid card dumps and ensure clean docs. Distinguish between card reading and analysis. Ethics matter - no cheating or card clipping. No screaming, and repeated interrupting in CX is a voter.

Tech over truth. Read cards, but don't misconstrue evidence. I prefer speed but slow down on analytics not in the doc. Theory is great if well-done; collapse to theory in 2NR/2AR. Encourage disclosure; false disclosure is bad.

Disads: Prefer aff-specific links, overview on DA/Case collapse.

New in the 2: Not a fan unless justified. Counterplans: One condo CP/K is fine; more lowers threshold. Judge kick default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Won't vote solely on solvency.

Kritiks (Neg): Assume I'm unfamiliar; explain K and alt clearly. Well-versed in cap, militarism, security, and fem. Specific K links are more compelling. FW is essential.

Kritiks (Aff): Evolved on K affs; framework arguments important. Kritikal advantages are cool; explain what my ballot does.

Case: Love turns; vote if properly impacted and weighed. Quality evidentiary analysis rewarded.

Fun Speaks: Clever, appropriate humor gets higher speaker points. Rewriting this shows understanding and commitment to debate norms.

I'm Angad; Im a senior @ Eden prairie and this is my third year in debate. Debated for three years on the national circuit and a little bit on the local (MN) circuit.

For JV/Novice State

- don’t worry about the rest of the stuff in this paradigm; don’t stress and just do your best!

- TLDR: TO MASSIVELY INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF WINNING THIS DEBATE, EXTEND ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS AND WEIGH IT. 70% of novice rounds are won by simply doing this.

- Please narrow down the back half of the debate! Y'all should really only be going for one contention from case, and don't try to extend every response from rebuttal in summary/final focus. Choose a couple you think are the strongest and you are winning the most, and explain those+weigh them well. In summary you should probably be collapsing on 2-3 pieces of offense (arguments that give me a reason to vote for you, like case or turns) and in final focus you should probably be collapsing on 1-2.

- be preflowed/ready before the round starts, you don't need to wait for me to go into the room.

- I'll disclose if both teams are ok with it

Email Chains: angadkv1225@gmail.com

Send speech docs with cut cards

Please label email chains clearly for the sake of my inbox! Example:

R1 Florida Blue Key, Strake Jesuit DY (Aff 1st) vs Edina JS (Neg 2nd)

I got inspiration for most of the stuff in this paradigm from:

Ryan Jiang

Shaun Jones

TLDR

-Tabula Rasa, Tech > Truth

-If you win the weighing and ur case you win the round

-Speed is fine; I can flow up to 300wpm, but it sends a doc and is slow on analytics.

-Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal before speaking, traditional ev exchanges take too long

-Properly extend warranting and UQ, Link, Impact)

-I'll eval whatever you want (depends on tournament but yes if natcirc)

Prefs

1- Substance

2- Theory

3- Topical Ks

4- NonTopical Ks

5- Tricks (funny but I think they are abusive)

Additional:

1] I will usually vote on the last risk of offense if the round is really messy. I won't presume unless I really need to. Don'tdebate incoherently and then read presumption warrants and think I will just vote off presumption.

2] I ignore cross but just be respectful

3] It'sdropped if it's not responded to in 2nd rebuttal.

4] You need to extend in the final focus; you can win the whole round but then lose if you don't extend in the final focus.

5] I default to util unless given a framework.

6] Please warrant everything!

Prog

-I default to theory as the highest layer unless told otherwise.

-I prob won't eval prog in the novice division

-IVIs are iffy, but if you flesh it out, have it warranted, and drop the debater and voters, then I can vote on it. But I'm not voting on it if it's a 2-second blip.

-Please don't read tricks I won't eval them

Theory:

-Don't read this on the local circuit

-I'm experienced with theory and have run/hit it a couple of times, but I won't hack for a specific norm, i.e., full text or open source.

-I Default to Competing Interps > Reasonability unless told otherwise. And Yes RVIs unless told otherwise

Ks

-I have limited experience with them so please just signpost well and extend the warranting and extend the K in each speech.

-Better at Topical Ks like sec/cap/etc. so feel free to run these but less with Nontopical ones.

Speaks

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

-I'll boost for strategic decisions and good efficiency/signposting.

-I will give you 25s and drop you if you are discriminatory in any way.

-I will lower your speaks if you are shifty, this is one of the most annoying things in rnds.

-I'll boost speaks if you are funny

Good luck and have fun!

Be respectful and considerate to others. Have fun!

I value content over performance, especially in parliamentary/policy/public forum/Lincoln Douglas debate, performance might be weighed more importantly in Congress/IE events.

If you plan on spreading please be willing to share a copy of your case with me just to help me flow with your arguments.

I appreciate if the speech is well-organized and labeled, that will be helpful for me to flow. The logic link should be smooth and emphasized. Please make sure all your arguments and refutations are related to the topic, it is good to elaborate or detail the topic, but discussing random stuff is not preferred. Under some specific topics, the debater should listout the impact and criteria for the round.

Things I look for when judging a debate round:
Definition
Framework/criteria
Timeframe
Topicality
Weighing (please be comparative and specific with your impacts, and tie it back to your framework and voting issues)
Reasonable clashes (please don't avoid a clash by ignoring arguments or postponing your response to the very last speech)

I recommend taking every round as a learning opportunity. Try to worry less about making mistakes, focus more on listening, and enjoy making your perspectives shine.