Georgetown Fall
2024 — NSDA Campus, DC/US
HS JV/Bid PF Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideHello there,
My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker in my fifth year of judging currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu.
Email address: rahmatmaimako09@gmail.com
Conflicts: I do not have any.
PERSONAL NOTE:
When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. I appreciate debaters who check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations
Speed/ Rate of Delivery: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I also appreciate when speeches are broken down in cases with technical languages given I consider myself an average intelligent voter
In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.
Delivery Style: While I agree style isn't a major factor on whether a team is winning I am huge on both valuing both the content of the arguments and how well teams mechanism to prove that argument stands in the round. Considering style plays a huge factor on how speeches fulfill certain burdens i.e structure of arguments ( Analysis, mechanism to prove why that argument is true, CounterOpp where necessary, impact of the arguments, and weighing)
Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns.
Judging of previous rounds most argumentation I consider persuasive are based on how well the analysis are proven and able to stand to well constructed responses and if there is a high impact to that contention being generated at the end of the contention
In-round Conduct : I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.
Best of luck.
This is my second year as a parent debate judge.
I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- e.g., it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.
I find that there is plenty of time during the round for teams to present arguments cogently. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.
Hello! I am Noura, I would like to let you know this is my second time judging. Please don’t give your speeches quickly.
What I like to see when judging:
- be respectful to the other team during cross
- No swirly argument
- Frontline all your main arguments in summary
- have good background knowledge
- statistics proving your arguments (this will determine a majority of the round)
Hi, I'm Barley Benson, a long-time adjudicator and coach. For me, debating and adjudication is not just a skill or extracurricular activity, it is a way of life. I started adjudicating professionally 8 years ago and it has been a surreal and life-changing experience. Above the awards and accolades, the skills gained via debating are immense and life-aiding, skills like speech prowess, the ability to discern ideas, and being solution-oriented are quite essential, thus the adjudication in the pursuit of these skills should be top-notch. In my experience as a judge, speakers who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing, which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own, tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge decides the argument. This reflection is a result of expertise gained in adjudicating a variety of debating styles and formats, including public forum (PF), world school debate championship (WSDC), Australian Parliamentary (AP), British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), and Australians. Ultimately, I believe in feedback as it is essential for improvement and that is a crucial focal point to as an adjudicator because all debaters deserve to improve, I believe.
Hello Everyone. First and foremost - Let me congratulate you on making a choice to be part of Speech and Debate. Speech and Debate are essential tools for citizenry of democratic society with free and independent institutions and a very important vehicles to arrive at best possible solutions.
I am Raghu Bondalapati and a proud parent of a High Schooler. I have been a speech and debate judge for about a year and half. What i would like to see from Debaters is a clear and concise arguments, respect to participants of other teams and sportsmanship.
Public Forum
Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.
Judged in SCU & North Bay.
Judge Paradigm (Parent Judge)
GENERAL
Pacing: No spreading. Speak at a conversational pace. If I can’t follow, it will affect my decision.
Topicality: Don’t waste my time with a non-topical case.
Off-Time Roadmaps: I appreciate off-time roadmaps starting with first rebuttal.
Signposting: Please signpost throughout your speech.
Flowing: I flow the round and vote only off the flow.
Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire, so if you want me to consider something, it needs to be brought up in a speech.
ROUND EVALUATION
Political Views: I don’t have a liberal or mainstream bias. I will evaluate well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments regardless of the political perspective (yes, this means pro-Trump arguments).
Dropped Arguments and Links: I only evaluate arguments that have been carried through each round of speeches.
Clear Turns: Make sure to clearly communicate any turns you’re making. Don’t rely on jargon that I won’t understand.
Impact Framing: I prioritize quantifiable and probable impacts over aspirational, vague, or nebulous ones. For example, if your impact is that the US will be more respected in the world if we affirm or negate, you need to tell me why, from a policy perspective, being more respected benefits the greater good.
Weighing: I separately consider magnitude and probability. You can have the greater magnitude but lose the round because your mitigated link chain does not support the probability of your impact happening.
Final Focus: A well-reasoned Final Focus should essentially write my ballot. Talk to me as if we are alone in the room. Make sure your speech is an evaluation of the arguments both teams have brought through to Final Focus and explain why I should prefer your side using weighing. Avoid frenzied bullet points.
HOW I DETERMINE A WINNING SIDE
I vote for the team with the strongest link chain(s) into the strongest impact(s). To arrive at my decision, I separately evaluate your impact's magnitude and probability. If your impact's magnitude is higher than the opposing side but has a very low probability of occurring, you will likely lose the round to a team with a moderate impact and high probability of occurrence.
Step 1: I take the offensive links for Team A, and apply Team B's counter arguments against them to determine if they have sufficient unmitigated links into their impact(s).
Step 2: I repeat Step 1 but for Team B.
Step 3: I weigh (compare) each team's strongest unmitigated link chain(s) into their strongest impact(s). I consider how the team's articulated magnitude and probability in weighing. Hopefully this is when I cast my ballot in favor of the team with the strongest unmitigated link chain(s) into the strongest impact(s).
Step 4: If neither neither team has sufficient access to their impacts, I re-evaluate both teams’ cases to determine who is winning more of their impact(s). This is a fancy way of saying I’m now voting on the vibes.
Hi, my name is Monali Chakrabarty
I am a Parent Judge.
Speaking: Please speak coherently and avoid spreading
Please do not bring up new evidence after the first summary
Please weigh your impacts and compare your case against the opponent instead of stating that you're better
Please time yourself, and lastly no rude comments and please be respectful
My email in case you need it: monali_c@yahoo.com
No spreading.
I debated for four years in high school in Public Forum, British Parliamentary, World Schools, Cross-Examination, and Canadian National Debate Format. I was also involved in Model UN.
Please, please cite the last name and date for your evidence. You can't just say "we have a card that says..."
I do not currently debate in college, so I may be a bit rusty on jargon.
I will flow the round.
You keep your time, I’ll keep it on my end as well.
Hi!
My name is Vallika. I am a college student studying Biology and Neuroscience on a Pre-Dental track.
I did debate all throughout high school, competing in events such as LD, PF, and especially Worlds. I thoroughly enjoyed competing when I was in high school, and now enjoy watching and judging the various events that I competed in.
I like clearly written arguments with weighed importance to each argument. I believe that speeches should be presented in a way where the judge is able to paint a clear picture in their head about whether a provided argument is beneficial or detrimental. Additionally, I love when students speak with their hands and use speed to emphasize or highlight important parts in their speeches. I am perfectly fine with spreading, as long as you are mindful to the fact that in the end it is your arguments and way of speech that persuade my final decision.
I will always explain my decision, so feel free to ask me what I think after the round. I fimly believe that speech and debate is not just a sport, but an opportunity for growth.
EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com
I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.
A few items to share with you:
(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.
(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.
(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").
(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).
(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.
(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).
(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.
-
I have been judging public forum and parliamentary debate for last 2 years and consider myself as a flay parent judge.
-
I have a background in Business and Technology.
- I prefer moderate speed so I can follow the arguments (no spreading).
- I pay close attention to cross-fires and/or questions asked to drive debate forward.
- I like measurable impacts and comparative weighing in the round.
- I flow key points to connect the dots.
I am a debate TA and new judge, I will be judging Tabula Rasa!
I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.
Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.
Hi, My Name is Jeff Freedman, I am a Lay parent Judge. I have been judging public forum debate for two years. I work in Marketing, however, my passion is for drumming, and my corgi, James.
I am able to flow to some extent, however, I would much prefer well rationed args., If you spread, or speak fast, I will not flow. Therefore, you should all be speaking at a rational pace where you can give me good reasoning for your arg.
I know how to flow, however that is almost the full extent of my abilities. I understand minimal lingo, and would much prefer you tell me for example why you outweigh your opponent, then give me some buzz word to explain it.
Truth>Tech, if there becomes disputes over evidence, and cards are called, I would Like to be added to the email chain. Even if there is no cards called, I would still like for debaters to create an email chain before round starts with me on it, my email is smallarmyjeff@gmail.com
Topicality: I do not understand any argumentation that is non topical, such as Ks and Theory. Even if a K is topical, I still do not understand it, and if you run one, you will be dropped.
In round procedure: In debate, the standard is that all debaters must be kind to each other. I expect that all debaters uphold this rule. For in-persons, I expect that who ever is speaking come to the front of the group and speak. For first and second cross this rule remains as well. Debaters may be seated for grand-cross. This doesn't apply for online tournaments.
Before Round: I would like for the AFF team to be seated on my right, and the NEG team on my left, for online tournaments, this doesn't apply. Before the first speech is given, I would like for each debater to introduce themselves. I ask that they say their name, whether they are first or second speaking for their team, and the school that they are debating for.
Rhetoric: I would like to see good rhetoric in specifically summary speeches. Good rhetoric may include references 80s music/bands. If the first speaker uses good rhetoric in summary, I would like to see that rhetoric extended in final focus.
I expect to see some good debate!
Jeff
I am a parent judge, so please go slow and outline your key arguments clearly. I have some knowledge of how debate works, but it would be helpful for my understanding if you limited the debate jargon.
Be respectful to your opponents and have fun!
- Keep Calm.
- Speak Loud And Clear.
- Maintain Proper Body Language.
- Keep The Topic On Track.
- Respect your Opponents
I am a lay judge/parent.In your debate, make no assumptions of prior knowledge of subject area or deeper technical aspects of debating . Explain your arguments and evidence clearly. Please state your contentions clearly .I make brief notes on strong arguments but feel free to maintain your delivery pace .It is very important that I understand how your arguments relate to and address the resolution.Quality of arguments and relevance matter over quantity /space filler any day .Be respectful of your opponents especially while rebutting their arguments and more importantly have fun .
I am a parent judge who has judged 4 tournaments. Please send your cases to venurgoli@gmail.com. Please go slow and be respectful. Have fun!
I would characterize myself as a 40% tech, 60% lay judge. I know the structure of debate and will make note of any missing formalities, but I'm likely unaware of many of the JV or more advanced terms. I'm looking for a debater who is confident, passionate, can be clearly heard, and is clear in what they are saying. Speaking fast is fine and all, but it can't come at the cost of being understood. Clearly laying out what your contentions are as you go is also appreciated. Not keeping time is a huge problem in my eyes. Numbers are usually lost on me as scale is a better quantifier generally. I generally value strong arguments and reasons over cold onslaughts of statistics. Numbers and statistics are still necessary for a lot of facts and are far from useless, but just be aware of that and try to supplement them as well as avoid leaning on raw numbers too much.
I value crossfires a lot and try to flow them. The most entertaining part of the debate and the part that most tests the skill of a debater is the crossfire. I will spot logical fallacies and count it against you (particularly if I sense the logical fallacy to be intentional), although not nearly as much as I'll count it against you if your opponent catches you using one. I'll count it against your opponent as well if they don't call you out for using one. Don't use logical fallacies if you can help it. Try to keep the crossfire on track and don't fall down ridiculous arguments with your opponent. I like responses to answers and responses to responses, but make sure that they make sense and don't go on for too long. There should be at least 2 questions asked during each crossfire (pro & con or pro/con & pro/con).
As a judge, I will be flowing, keeping time, and keeping the debate moving if necessary. Do your best to ensure it's not necessary. That being said, I do prefer keeping track of prep time. Unless I make a mistake and request you to step in on tracking it, expect me to be the ultimate judge as to how much prep time you have left. I don't take specific time requests for prep time ("can I have 2 minutes of prep time?") and will instead have you say when you want prep time and when you're done. Otherwise, the timer will run until you say stop. If this is a problem for you, you can always set your own timer to track your requested time. I prefer to do the coin toss and I carry around a quarter(s) partially for this purpose.
Whether you're from the After School Program or one of our locations, I'm familiar both with "Electric cars are better than gas cars" and "The United States Federal Government should ban single use plastics" topics that we will be having today. While I don't have a particular expertise in either topic, I'm generally well read on a variety of topics and have been hearing plenty about both as a debate teacher for Ivy Bridge Academy. I am likely to spot if you're making facts up and have weak arguments and I will value a visible inherent knowledge of the subject being debated.
Concerning my background outside of debate and other details about me, I'm 24 and I'm currently a novice debate teacher at Ivy Bridge Academy who has taught 2 semesters now of After School Programs in debate. I have an associate degree in computer science and am currently working on my bachelor's at Georgia State University. I plan to use this degree (and other certifications currently in progress) to secure a job in Cybersecurity, ideally as a Pen Tester. I love tinkering with technology and am very familiar with many things computer and have a decent knowledge regarding many other technologies. I like video games, music, anime, and D&D.
Parent judge, I'm still learning the debate jargon
Please talk slowly and clearly
Don't just share statistics and citations, tell me how they fit into your argument and why they matter.
Debate is not a race - use your time to tell a story, not just fit in as many words as you can.
Every impact can't be nuclear war or human extinction. Make your impacts realistic.
If you are racist/homophobic/sexist etc I will drop you
Be kind, and have fun!
Dear Debaters,
This is my second year judging and I am a parent judge.
I am tech over truth - I would highly appreciate if you argue your points clearly and concisely when possible. You can speak fast as long as you are intelligible and the argument is logically cohesive. Use evidence to articulate a point or illustrate a picture.
Be polite to your opponents and try your best.
Good luck and have fun - debate is about learning!
A parent judge with 2 years of judging experience. Still not a technical judge, I prefer the debater state your point slowly and clearly. Also, when you can, please email me (wenyaohu@gmail.com) your cases or arguments so I can follow your arguments better.
Debate is about how you present your research and analysis work. It is about the quality of you work, not the quantity, nor how fast you can speak. If you try to jam 10 arguments with 20 sources within 4 minutes of time, I probably will not be able to follow your thought.
So
- State your point clearly
- Give data/source directly support your point
- Provide a clear link between your source and point
- Finish with a firm conclusion
Email: Kole.ingram2004@gmail.com
plz email questions or hate, either way makes me feel special.
I currently do debate/speech at WKU (Western Kentucky) - specifically doing NFA-LD and policy. For speech mainly LP's.
In general:
As a general tldr I think that debates are best when people are reading what they want (as long as its an actual argument). I look for judge instruction to guide my vote and is important for any debater. I am primarily a basic policy debater, but am willing to flow anything, but non-stock K’s will probably need more explaining, especially since I am not super familiar with the lit on the high school topic(s). Also, I did not do debate in high school, so if there is terminology specific to the event, I will probably need you to explain it to understand how to flow the argument you're trying to make. I look at all the docs sent during my flow, but I am still tracking what you say. I also flow on paper, so I would like some pen time to ensure I get your arguments down; spreading is fine. Just make sure the tags are clear/slower. I care about the cards being read, and you should, too. If a card is blatantly poorly highlighted or is like one sentence with no warrants to the claim it's making, I don't want to vote on that card, so make the argument that the card is bad. I also love seeing people rehighlight people's bad evidence so even more reason to actually care about the cards being read.
CPs:
They’re great, love a good counter plan debate. Theory and perms need to be explained. I need to know how a perm functions when it's read and how it shields the net benefit. For theory, I will flow it but need actual reasons for how to evaluate from each side. If you are planning on collapsing on theory arguments please explain the clashing interps in the round, why I prefer yours, and make sure to impact out these scenarios. I need to know what effect it has on the debate space to vote on it.
K:
Focus on explaining the links to the aff and making sure they are flushed out. Again, I will vote on non-stock Ks if explained well, but don’t assume I’m familiar with the works or links already, as I am probably not. Perms, just like CP's, need explanations on how the perm actually functions and why it solves the alt or similarly why the alt has to be on its own.
DAs:
Make sure to extend the impacts of your disads you read. I think impact comparisons is a major point of winning debates when going for disad.
FW:
Explain the need for the debate that you are advocating for, and why it is preferable for debate. Like anything else judge instruction on how to weigh arguments under your FW goes a long way on my ballot.
T:
It's cool. I recommend if your collapsing on it (this applies to K and FW prob as well) don't spread through a million analytics especially if they're not in the doc. I am going to try to keep up if you do, but if its not clear I might end up missing something.
RVI's and IVI's (Theory in general):
I do not really get or like these in the context of a totally random pivot to offensive theory in like the second to last or last speech. I have read IVIs that are just kind of FW violations, which are fine. I will still flow, and if explained well with not enough response will vote on, but I need an actual argument/impact as to why I need to evaluate theory differently. For theory, admittedly, my threshold to drop the debater is relatively high so either the theory goes dropped or just definitively outclassing on the argument. Obviously, theory is needed and if legitimate I don't mind voting on it, but bad theory that is there just to be there to mess up opponent isn't something I like voting on so just make the effort to put some defense/CI on the theory.
(Def not in order of args I like if your wondering its: DA, Case, CP, gap, T, K, Theory/FW)
PF stuff:
Defense is slippery. Extend your arguments.
Non-decision-altering brownie points will be awarded to you for following things (just things I've seen in rounds for someone that doesn't do PF that I prefer):
1) Actually doing a doc for ev instead of just sending it on request. I don't really get not just sending out the cards you're going to read if you think your ev is good enough but may just be me.
2) Using Word instead of Google Docs. I think Docs just causes more headaches than necessary no Verbatim usage, potential for mid-speech changes, and just generally looks worse (because of no Verbatim).
3) Not abusing cross. Follow-ups I think are generally fine but when we have not moved on to the other sides questioning after a minute of being stuck on one question we just need to move on. Even if the other team is just trying to dodge questioning just point it out then move on.
I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the several years. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:
-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.
-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.
-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.
-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.
-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.
-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.
-Preflow before the round.
-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.
-Speaks: Do not be disrespectful, and you can expect a fair score.
-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.
Any other questions should be addressed before start time.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm What Stands Out to Me :
Strong debates go beyond surface-level arguments and delve into the reasoning behind evidence. I appreciate when debaters break down their opponents’ evidence—whether by highlighting contradictions, exposing overgeneralizations or overly specific claims, or pointing out when it lacks proper reasoning. Instead of a simple “my evidence beats theirs” approach, show me why their evidence is flawed. This deeper level of analysis is persuasive and increases your chances of winning
Framework discussions are another key area. A full framework debate isn’t always necessary, especially if both sides’ impacts align or if the frameworks lead to the same outcomes. However, when you engage in framework debate, focus on the parts that truly matter and explain how they shape my evaluation of the round. Remember, conceding your opponent’s framework doesn’t automatically mean you lose—what matters is how you use it to frame the impacts in the round.
Consistency matters just as much. If your case relies on a philosophical argument, don’t shy away from defending its implications—even if they’re uncomfortable. For instance, if someone challenges utilitarianism for prioritizing the majority over the minority, defend that stance rather than retreating. Similarly, if you argue against consequentialism by claiming predictions are unreliable, don’t then cite studies based on predictive claims. Stay committed to your position, and I’ll take it more seriously.
Analogies are a tool I wish more debaters used. They can clarify your arguments, point out flaws in your opponent’s reasoning, or make your case more relatable. A well-crafted analogy not only helps me understand your position but also makes your arguments more compelling.
Finally, impact weighing is often what separates a clear win from a close round. Instead of broad statements like “this outweighs everything,” dive into specifics—explain why one impact is more significant than another. If you can tie your weighing directly to the framework, even better. Specific, nuanced weighing gives me the clarity I need to make a decision.
I prefer a slower, more deliberate style of debate. Clear and effective communication is essential, and a slower pace allows for better persuasion and stronger arguments. If you choose to speak quickly, it’s on you to ensure that I can follow along. If I miss something because it wasn’t clear, I won’t evaluate it.
Regarding prep time, I’m not a fan of flex prep.
Cross-examination exists for a reason, so save your questions for that time. You can ask for evidence during prep, but clarification questions should wait for
CX : Argumentation Preferences I’m not a fan of policy-style debates in LD. If your case revolves around an intricate policy plan with speculative links leading to improbable extinction scenarios, it’s going to lose me. Stick to debating the resolution instead of inventing new ones. If you’re more interested in policy debate, consider competing in that format. Evidence ethics is something I take very seriously. Misrepresenting evidence or cutting cards dishonestly undermines the debate and ruins the experience for everyone. If I catch it, I will intervene—even if no one points it out in the round.
When it comes to kritiks, I’m willing to evaluate them, but there are conditions. For pre-fiat kritiks, you need a clear role of the ballot and specific links to the affirmative’s performance in the round. Vague links or underdeveloped alternatives won’t convince me.
Post-fiat kritiks are fine, but I still expect well-developed alternatives and clear warrants. Topicality and theory arguments are acceptable, but they need to be well-warranted and directly impacted. I favor reasonability over strict interpretations and believe theory should only address truly abusive cases—not be used as a strategic tactic.
Public Forum Debate Paradigm
How I Evaluate PF In Public Forum,
I default to an “on-balance” standard for comparing impacts. If you introduce a framework, make sure to explain why it’s relevant and how it shapes my evaluation.
A simple assertion without justification won’t carry much weight. Topicality arguments are fine, but I’ll only consider the impact of “ignore the argument,” not “drop the team.”
Similarly, I’m not interested in theory arguments in Public Forum and won’t vote on them.
Arguments to Avoid Certain arguments don’t belong in Public Forum. Counterplans, kritiks, or anything relying on fiat are out of place in this format. Both sides should focus on fulfilling their equal burdens of proof without resorting to overly technical debate styles Judging Philosophy Public Forum is designed to be accessible and straightforward. Because of this, I’m more willing to step in if I feel an argument is unfair or goes against the spirit of the format.
Keep your arguments clear, focused, and appropriate for PF, and you’ll be in a much better position to win.
So, my priorities as a judge are clarity, consistency, and strategic argumentation. If you focus on these elements, you’ll make it easier for me to evaluate the round and increase your chances of earning my ballot.
I prefer arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. During the Rebuttal, I would prefer the debater to lay out specific details, and real-world impacts in a clear manner. I prefer debaters speak at a conversational rate and a fast rate of delivery has made it difficult for you to understand arguments.
Background:
I did PF debate at James Madison High School for three years (2+ on the national circuit). Now, I’m a freshman at Northwestern University pursuing a double major in journalism and political science.
General Info:
I am a flow judge who enjoys traditional PF rounds with effective clash, nuanced and unique arguments, analytical debate, and quality, non-power-cut evidence.
I place a premium on good, consistent warranting and logic throughout the round. Don’t exclusively tell me “our card says so” as a way to win arguments or break clash; you should be explaining the reasoning behind your arguments and why they apply to the resolution.
Other Preferences:
- Some speed is fine with me, but please don’t spread (I won’t flow off a doc).
- Don’t misrepresent evidence.
- I enjoy when teams don’t exclusively read off a speech doc for rebuttal. If, outside of reading new evidence, you can deliver an organized rebuttal with unscripted analysis based solely on the flow, then by all means go for it.
- Weighing impacts in the back half of the debate can be crucial, however, weighing is unimportant if you don’t have a viable link into your impacts.
- You absolutely can and should attack poor evidence.
- I won't evaluate theory or K's; please debate the resolution at hand.
- Please exchange cards efficiently.
- If both teams agree to make an email chain, please add me at cakaplan28@gmail.com.
Most importantly, have fun!
Hello debaters,
I am a lay judge. Please don't use too much jargon and be respectful to participants.
Have fun!
Chetan
My background lies more in impromptu styles and public speaking+presentations. I care a lot about style and accessibility of your points, ie. do you have the ability and understanding to make your points understandable to the general public?
Some specific points:
- I will not consider crossfire in flow, so if there is something you wish to use, please mention it in one of your speeches. However, I will consider crossfire for speaker points.
- Please signpost and be explicit. The more clear your links, impacts, and weighing are the better I'll be able to follow and understand your points. I will place less weight on any conclusions I have to infer.
- Do weigh directly - I'd prefer not to have to infer what you're trying to imply. Tell me what impacts/links you're comparing and why exactly you outweigh.
- I value clarity and logical flow - please be sure you're explaining the logic of your points. Make it clear how your point flows from your link to your impact. I will likely not have the same background knowledge so more clarity and flow will help me understand your points.
- Feel free to bring up fun/odd arguments - as long as these points are well-explained and justified (see the above point).
- Please avoid theory arguments. I do not have a full understanding of theory and am not confident I will fairly judge related content.
Best of luck in your rounds!
hi y'all! i'm currently a freshman at Northeastern and did public forum for 4 years in high school, so think of me as a flow judge.
email chain (add me please): kaylynkshkim@gmail.com
tldr: tech > truth, line-by-line, signpost, write my ballot, prog good. i always vote off the flow. read any arguments, weighing, framework, etc., but always give warrants.
speaks: i'm generally generous with speaks and go based on the strategy you present. i usually start at 27 and i go up or down from there.
speed: i "spread" often so go at any speed you would like. just not too fast when not necessary..if i miss something, that's on you.
general:
- always warrant everything.
- please frontline all offense in second rebuttal, otherwise it will go conceded on my flow. offense you're going for in the back half should also be frontlined.
- responses must be extended through each speech if you want me to consider it.
- i don't flow cross, but i'll be listening. if there is a point that you would like me to pay attention to or vote off of, make sure you bring it up in your next speech.
- collapse and weigh. at the end of the round, if only one team extends weighing, i'll most likely give my ballot to them. so, make sure to weigh even if you forget to collapse.
- please make your weighing comparative and explicitly tell me why I should vote for your impacts even if they win their entire case. do not just say you save __ amount of lives or dump different statistics of lives and expect a ballot.
- do not bring up new evidence in final focus or second summary. i will not flow it or use it to make my ballot.
- cut your cards please. i'll never personally call for a card or explicitly look over one, unless you tell me to do so.
- please give an off-time roadmap before each speech and signpost in your speech, so i know where i am on my flow.
- time yourselves. i'll never cut you off if you have a few words left, but i'll cut u off once you exceed 7-10 seconds.
prog/tech:
content warnings: if you plan to read any argument, with potentially triggering content, please read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. if anyone chooses to opt out, respect their decision and have an alternate case/argument ready to read please.
fw: if the fw is conceded or agreed upon, ill only consider arguments implicated under that framework. if both teams drop the framework, it wont be a factor to my ballot.
theory/t:
- definite no: i don't understand plans, cps, trix, TKOs, so please dont run them with me. if you do decide to read them, i'll do my best to evaluate.
- disclosure: i believe that disclosure is a good norm. however, i'll never default my ballot to disclosure good. it is very much possible to win why it is better for teams not to disclose. like any argument, if you are winning on the flow, the ballot will go to you.
- paraphrasing: i have no preference in whether you paraphrase or not. however, i ask that you disclose and have cut cards available if you do plan to paraphrase.
- friv: personally, i find friv theory to be very fun and i'm more than open to hearing and evaluating it. however, i ask that you don't run friv theory if you happen to hit a team in their bubble round.
kritiks:
- engaging with critical literature is good. it exposes debaters to non-hegemonic discourses, which are more sparse in PF. if a team reads a k, i would rather have you debate the round than concede or ignore it (even if it is your first k round ever).
- send speech doc and cards for case. if you know that you will be excessively spreading in any other speech, i ask that you send a speech doc so that i can follow along better.
- topical/non-topical ks: i'm best at evaluating fem killjoy, identity, cap, and general known ones. however, i'm open to hearing and evaluating new types of nonT ks. please make the ROTB/ROTJ as explicit as possible though. i don't run T ks as often, but i have ran a T k before, and i would be open to it.
- links/alt: links are super important. if you are spreading your k, i ask that you at least slow down and contextualize your links. if you want me to give you the ballot based off the alt, you have to explain to me what exactly that means for the round/world.
- cross should check. if your opponents ask you questions about how they can better engage, answer in the best way possible please.
- dont read ks on novices.
note: racism, sexism, and discriminatory behavior is not tolerated. i'll simply drop you with the lowest speaks possible and report you. respect you opponents and their pronouns. general rudeness isn't appreciated either.
~ finally, have fun.
Hello there
My name is Sofia, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, Big question and Speech Events.
Judging Pattern:
I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -
• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.
• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.
• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.
• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.
• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.
Side Notes:
• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.
• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.
Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.
Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.
LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.
PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.
I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.
I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.
Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!
I am a new parent judge. No debate jargon -- keep it to vocabulary that a normal person would understand. Provide examples to support your points. Be respectful!
I am a lay judge. I prefer slow talking and would appreciate it if you implicate your arguments well. Please provide off time roadmaps. Weighing is crucial. I will try to be tabula rasa.
For Nat Circuit Tournaments
Add me to the email chain. My email is upkusurkar@yahoo.com. Try to set up the chain before round starts so we can start on time. For your cases please attach docs that contain rhetoric based text and cut cards to make it easier for me to read. Title the email with the tournament name, team names, side, and speaking number. ex. Georgetown Fall Round 1: Highschool A AB( Aff 1rst) vs Highschool B BC (Neg 2nd). For online tournaments please go slow and assume I have minimal topic knowledge.
I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Public Forum is an event designed to be judged
by anyone - that is what appears in the description of the event provided by the NSDA. Debate
accordingly.
zero topic knowledge for the Jan topic treat me like someone who has no idea what’s going on.
if there are any ways I can make the tournament more accessible or less stressful for you, please feel free to email me before or after round. Good luck and have fun with it !
updated TLDR for Emory: (read bold for important stuff)
I have been extremely out of debate for a while and would encourage you to treat me like a flay. I’m probably especially not good for the trend of spam a gazillion args and speak super fast in pf. If you are speaking fast (230 wpm is pushing it for me) do so at your own risk by slowing down at tags and important parts. I’ll yell clear three times and if it’s still unclear you gotta just hope I understand it somehow. I don’t require docs neither will I flow off them. if a gazillion things are going on I will probably miss smth and make a terrible decision and then we will all be sad. If I miss something bc you’re spreading too fast then I’m not flowing it yipeeeeee!
Pls ignore my facial expressions and do not do ur collapse strat based on it I’m literally tweaking usually just doing random nods
TO AVOID ME INTERVENING
a) in ff and summary, if your defense is terminal, implicate it as terminal. If it’s mitigation, weigh with the mitigation from your defense. I will never vote on a one sentence blip as terminal defense.
b) Fully extend your arguments. Especially for turns. I need fiat -> link -> impact at the very LEAST.
c) warrant as much as you can. I’ll buy warranted analysis > unwarranted card in a lot of cases.
That’s it thank you have fun <3 <3 <3
I aspire to judge like and hold similar beliefs to Musab Chummun. In fact please just pretend as if I am Musab. Shoutout my boo thang @Annie chen.
Alsop cool paradigm: Daniel GH
Nvmind no speaks boost for Emory we r sticking to the tourney average
Pf stuff.
Yea put me on email chains: Fionayli1004@gmail.com
I rarely look at the email chain it's just to incentivize faster ev sending
please come to rounds preflowed.
Basic boring stuff:
- If the ev is egregious (i.e. no cut card) and you know they definitely do not follow nsda conventions, please call an ev challenge (so we can all leave the round early) for a list of what is acceptable as an ev challengecheck here I'll follow exactly what it says. Update for this: internal ellipsis says that any found use of someone putting “…” should be penalized. I’m not going to drop someone for highlighting a title like the sunvite round so please don’t stake a round on it.
- For novices: feel free to disregard any parts of this paradigm or ask me questions. I will adapt to you
-
Tech >>>>>> truth, I will try very hard not to intervene even if I hate a response/argument you're making so go for the wildest strat you want. This also means you can’t just tell me “this argument is silly” and hope I buy it in response to an obviously false argument. I still need responses.
-
With the exception of first constructive, anything not answered in the next speech is conceded. That means frontline everything you will go for in second rebuttal, defense is not sticky. I think even if something is not frontlined at all in second rebuttal first summary has to extend defense on it unless someone goes “oh we’re dropping this contention”
-
Any offense u want me to vote for has to be extended from all the links from fiat to a fleshed out impact. THIS IS IMPORTANT. I won’t evaluate insufficiently extended offense like a one sentence blip that’s like “affirming deports migrants which causes a famine” (this is especially true for turns if u want me to vote on it there should be an impact and link at minimal)
-
Any offense and defense I vote off of must be in summary and ff. I think first ff having new weighing is fine and second ff responding to first ff new weighing is fine too
-
How I vote: weighing first -> whoever’s winning weighting’s offense, if they win their offense they win-> if they don’t I go to other offense -> if neither team has offense I will presume for who has better weighing unless I get presumption warrants alrdy -> absent presumption warrants, weighing, and offense I will flip a coin to presume
-
Pls do not make ev exchanges take forever :( I don’t wanna make round stressful for u but minimize calling for ev unless necessary or just send a doc. The longer ev exchange takes the more likely you’re going to get a bad decision from me because I’m rushing to write rfd instead of thinking things through
- i will (almost) never call for evidence unless a team explicitly tells me to. If neither team does I’m probably just gonna do warrant comparison. I’ll call for ev if I’m really confused
-
I don’t flow cross. If it’s important bring it up in a speech
-
pls weigh.you should answer your opponents' weighing whenever possible.
-
If u point out an argument has no internal link or warrant, I consider that sufficient defense if there’s actually no internal link/warrant.
- i don’t flow overtime. At all.
- feel free to post round as much as you want although most of the times I’ll take a while to come up with an answer cuz I’m a lil tired
- how I evaluate weighing absent being told how to evaluate between diff types of weighing: short-circuit/pre-reqs/link-ins > magnitude/scope> timeframe > strength of link > probability
Non-topical debate/Prog
-
I kinda quit before Ks and trix became the meta in pf. That being said I will 100% try my best to evaluate what you give me but just be warned.
-
if you're in varsity these are fair game. I unfortunately will never vote on “we don’t know how to respond” arguments. Pf forward has some good resources to look at before and after round.
-
Prefs:
-
Larp: 1
-
Theory: 2
-
Topical Ks: 5 (strike)
-
Non-topical Ks: 5 (strike)
-
Performance: 5 (strike)
-
High theory: 5 (strike)
-
Phil: 5 (strike)
-
Tricks: 5 (strike)
-
Theory: probably chill here (if there's an egregious violation especially feel free to read theory. Way prefer to evaluate that over a substance round) friv is chill. I default yes rvis, reasonability, and text over spirit. I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is good, rrs are good, and cw is good. Feel free to argue otherwise on any of these takes however 100% down to vote on things against common debate norms. Don’t extend a shell in rebuttal, and only extend dtd if it’s contested.
- ivis: these are silly and often very under warranted. I’ll evaluate them but I have a low threshold for responses
-
Side note, unless a team tells me explicitly losing no RVIs means I should still vote for a turn or OCI, winning no RVIs means I won’t vote for a turn or a counter interp either. All the warrants for why RVIs are bad still apply even if you’re winning a counter interp or a turn.
-
Ks: I take half this section back. i AM NOT the best judge for Ks mostly because throwing buzzwords at me usually confuses me. I understand the structures and how I'm supposed to vote in a k round but fast rounds with tons of indicts and stuff thrown around will confuse me (which is literally 90% of k rounds I've seen). I’m never going to drop you for running a K but i will need you to stay under 225 wpm in summary and ff and honestly I still don’t trust myself to make a good decision.
-
Tricks: I mean I won’t drop u I also just don’t think I’m the best judge for these but try them if you want to.
Ld stuff.
-
ermmm pretend as if I’m a trad judge who doesn’t intervene. Don’t go fast pleas
Congress:
I hate this event.
I am a novice parent judge with no prior knowledge on the topic.
Please be respectful and show good manners: during crossfires, be assertive but not rude.
I think spreading is not good for any debate: clarity, persuasiveness and eloquence do not come from speed.
Please signpost clearly.
I will monitor time, but please monitor your own time too.
Good Luck and Have Fun!
Email: zhenyu.lun@gmail.com
I am a first time parent judge so please speak slowly and have good clarity.
I value logical and consistent arguments with good evidence to back it up.
Show me how your arguments are better/stronger than your opponents.
Don't use debate jargon, rhetoric is very important to me.
Time yourselves, don't go over.
Have fun!
As a judge, I appreciate the clarity of the points made. The debaters should articulate their points logically and use evidence effectively. I appreciate the debaters taking their time to convey their arguments instead of rushing it through. I also appreciate the debaters who can adapt to unexpected situations or counterarguments. I like to see the debates based on facts instead of hypothetical situation.
Parent Judge.
- Please be civil and respectful at all times
- When arguments are based on value judgments, please state what those judgments are (don't assume that audience automatically or necessarily shares those same values)
- Support arguments with actual facts
- Admit when you don't know something
- Spell out chains of causation, finish lines of reasoning (e.g. this is good/bad because ...); answer the question, "so what?"
1. Speak clearly and try not to rush. If you're used to speaking too quickly, it might be helpful to slow down a bit. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments.
2. Organize your case thoughtfully, with clear reasoning. I appreciate when I can easily connect the ideas you're presenting.
3. Please remember to keep the debate respectful. Being assertive is fine, but shouting, making personal attacks, or showing visible frustration (like eye-rolling or head-shaking) isn't appropriate. Even if you win the round, it could affect your speaker score.
Hello all, It is my honor to be your judge for today. I work as an actor and public speaking coach, and I graduated from the University of Victoria.
Here are some expectations:
1. Always be courteous. Respect your teammates, opponents and judges.
2. Show your confidence! Make eye contact and make sure your camera is ON.
3. Make sure to speak loudly and clearly. Your voice is a powerful tool.
4. Organize your points well so they flow smoothly. Clear arguments help everyone follow along.
5. Please keep track of your time.
I’m excited to hear your ideas. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!
he/they
add me to the email chain: patmah729@gmail.com. Please include the tournament, division, round, and flight in the email subject line
Please set up the filesharing before the round. Rounds should start on time. There is especially no excuse for flight 2 late starts.
Record your speeches for online debates
I debated for four years in DFW at Byron Nelson High School (2019-2023). I'm currently studying Sustainability and Geosciences at UT Austin (Not debating, just judging). I'm a K debater at heart and read the Anthro K extensively (won't hack for it though), but I engaged in every style of debate regularly aside from super traditional debate which didn't really exist on my circuit. Never was super active in the national circuit as a debater, didn't have the institutional support to make that work, but I've really enjoyed my experiences on the circuit as a judge. I didn't have a coach my last two years of debate so I relied extensively on judge feedback to improve, I will do my best to give you feedback that helps you do the same.
TLDR: I most enjoy technical debate executed well. I judge a lot, but most of that is at locals and is pretty stock, so give me time to warm up at circuit tournaments. I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds, but give me pen time (even if I'm laptop flowing) or it will not get to the flow; I can't type as fast as you speak and I try not to flow off the doc, but I would rather swallow my pride and look at the doc than miss something and give a bad decision. Flash dense, prewritten analytics or slow them down. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed.
General Paradigm
I will try to be tab
- Speed: I don't have the best hearing, so maybe around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible. I am very unlikely to intervene unless there's a safety issue.
- Default Comparative worlds > Truth Testing
- Default competing interps > reasonability
- Default to util if nobody says anything
Speech times, safety, and whatever tab/the tournament invite says are the only actual rules of debate. Anything else is a norm and can be changed.
Pref shortcuts (I'll evaluate anything but I'm better at some things over others)
Ks: Bad K debate makes me sad. Good K debate is what I'm here for (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1)
Larp: is fine, go for it. (2)
Phil: These debates get really murky very quickly, please be clear and explain everything like I'm an idiot or I'm going to mess something up. (3)
Theory: I actually really like these debates, but I'm not the best at flowing procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something for me to fall back on, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (2)
Trad: You do you, but I expect you to correctly engage with (and beat) technical arguments. If you can't do that, strike me. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. I guess I'll still evaluate it as long as it has a warrant, but I'd rather not. (4-Strike)
Rapid fire misc thoughts:
Disclosure is good, I think open source + RRs should be the norm. I will vote on disclosure, but I need to be on any pre-round email chains or they get an I-meet and a Counter-interp.
If you're doing something that is out of the norm, justify it as early as possible. If you're justifying your dubious decisions in round (like 1ar theory, Ks of the neg in the 1ar, etc) in an underview, I'm far less likely to buy your opponent's abuse claims.
Condo is debatable, I lean towards okay.
I'll vote for the RVI
Patrick Fox: "i am unsure why debate getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop"
"I don't need this to win, but I'll extend this anyway" is incredibly frustrating to hear. This is a synonym to the equally frustrating "Even if you don't buy X, You can also vote on Y." Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
Judge kick seems like a copout at best and intervention at the worst, I'd be less grumpy doing it if its justified in the 1nc, but I'd rather you just commit to the CP.
Please don't make early morning round 1s super complicated, I'm still waking up and can't do your arguments justice without a little warmup.
I'm pretty solidly in the trial by fire camp, but there's a line between trial by fire and just throwing your weight around. Don't make it harder to be a less experienced or institutionally disadvantaged debater. Read what you want, but don't be inaccessible or intentionally obtuse. Be the support you wish you had as a novice.
I LOVE evidence comparison, PLEASE rehighlight your opponent's cards and tell me why their authors suck, I BEG to be in the back of the room when you go for them.
Speaker points
My average speaks from all rounds I've judged is 28.2. I frequently rank debaters very close (within .5) of one another because I feel that you really can't showcase your skill without a strong opponent as well. I.e. If the aff debates perfectly against an opponent who drops everything in the 1nc, the aff probably won't get a 30 because there were ultimately fewer decisions that needed to be made in order to win.
Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery, norm setting, and round conduct. I will disclose speaks, just ask.
Speaks scale:
29.7-30.0 - Perfect debate, very difficult round
29.4-29.6 - Very good debate, difficult round
29.0-29.3 - Very good debate, average round
28.5-28.9 - Good debate, average round
28.0-28.4 - Average debate, average round
27.5-27.9 - Made several mistakes, average round
27.0-27.4 - Made several mistakes, below average round
26.0-26.9 - Very very messy round, made several mistakes, or said/did something objectionable
25.4-25.9 - Said/did something objectionable repeatedly
25.0-25.3 - Was incredibly rude, violent, or objectionable. Created a hostile environment.
Things that will boost your speaks:
Sending analytics in the doc
Collapsing correctly
Innovating and reading something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
Being nice to novices
Things that will tank your speaks:
Misgendering someone (It's an auto loss if you do it twice. Be better)
Disorganized speeches
Not sending a doc
Powertagging
Paraphrasing
Making me intervene
Stealing prep
Showing up late to the round
Docbotting
LD:
Before all else, I'm a progressive LD judge because that's what I did as a debater. Everything above is mostly applicable to LD, more so than any other event.
Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot.
Value debate is meaningless except in very narrow, very uncommon situations and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.
CX:
I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to policy.
Policy debaters especially need to slow down their analytics, theory, and tags. If you're making arguments you care about getting onto the flow, you have to give me time to get them onto the flow, I'm not a stenographer.
I think policy debaters especially are bad at line-by-line
RVIs are dumb in policy, condo is probably fine unless it's something absurd
PF:
I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to PF.
I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily.
"accordingly," "Luckily," "we see this in" and other adverbs or transitional phrases are NOT TAGLINES. your taglines ought to include the claim the card is making. If your cards are missing taglines, you can gamble with whether I'm going to flow what you want me to. This will heavily impact speaks.
If someone asks for evidence, sending a link to a study paper or webpage is not acceptable, you have a responsibility to clearly mark where you're paraphrasing from (that means send highlighted evidence). Each time it happens is -1 speaker point, I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote on it. Debate has clear standards for evidence and you don't get to just ignore them. This is like the simplest thing.
read paraphrasing theory
I am a parent judge, so please speak slowly. Send your speech documents to my email. ygmao8@gmail.com
This helps me keep up and process what you are saying.
Keep track of your own time and opponents time.
Before the round starts, say your name, speaking position, and side.
Before each speach please repeat your name and side, this helps me be organized.
Most importantly, be respectful during crossfire and I do not tolerate rudeness, albeist, racist etc.
I went to James River (‘22) and did PF mainly on the local VHSL circuit. My judging stats
Pref sheet: I’ll evaluate anything that isn’t exclusionary, but there are some arguments that I’m definitely not as good with.
Larp- 1 (This is what I’m most comfortable with and judge most often. I prefer judging substance debates where both sides are prepared to do solid comparative analysis.)
T/Theory-2/3 (I like it when you can clearly explain both the in-round implications of the violation and why your model of debate is better.)
K-3 (Generally, I view Ks as disads where the alt is a counterplan. I think you should be able to explain who does the alt, what doing the alt entails in literal terms, and how the alt solves the harms discussed in the K)
Phil-4 (Not that familiar with it other than util and think the in round implications of Phil can be clearer.)
General:
- Try your best and have some fun. Authenticity is far more persuasive than manufactured politeness.
- I flow by ear and try not to intervene. Judge instruction and comparative weighing are the best ways to minimize intervention. Slow down in the back half of the round and make things clear. Do the comparison and tell me why to prefer your arguments. You can read an awesome response, but if you don’t tell me what it means for the round and why/how it factors into my decision then it’s just more words on my flow. After judging for about a year, the teams that do the best in front of me are comparing each part of the argument they collapse on, telling me why theirs is better, and using judge instruction to write the ballot for me.
- I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.
PF specifics:
- Evidence exchanges take too long. For bid tournaments, y'all need to send the evidence you read in case and rebuttal before you give those speeches.
- Second rebuttal needs to frontline the argument you’re going for and turns
- Defense isn’t sticky. If you want me to care about a response, extend it in summary
Speed/Speaker points:
- Clarity>>>speed. Some speed is fine(~275wpm) but don’t sacrifice all of your clarity to go fast. Slow down on taglines and signpost more than you think you need to..it’s important. I’ll say clear twice before I give up
- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be generous
~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me know if you have any questions/concerns before or after the round. Also, feel free to email me with any of those questions or concerns.
Thank you, Castelo..debate would not be a part of my life if you hadn’t started coaching.
This is my second year judging, so please do not speak quickly. I am a parent judge and know the basics of debate. I will be flowing your arguments.
You should keep track of your own prep time.
Please do not use any racist/discriminatory language.
Judge Paradigm:
Background:
As a judge, I believe in fairness and objectivity. My role is to evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not my personal beliefs or knowledge. I appreciate clear, logical argumentation and effective communication.
Flow/Structure:
I will flow the round carefully, so I appreciate clear signposting and roadmap speeches. A well-structured case that’s easy to follow will always benefit you. If you want me to weigh a specific argument, make it clear in your summary and final speeches.
Evidence vs. Analysis:
I believe both evidence and analysis are important. Strong evidence should support well-thought-out analysis, but a debate that is too evidence-heavy without explanation or context may lose persuasive power. I value quality of evidence over quantity—just throwing a lot of facts at me without tying them to your argument won’t win you the round.
Speaks (Speaker Points):
I evaluate speaker points based on clarity, delivery, and engagement. Confidence and professionalism in presentation matter, but you don’t need to be flashy. Effective use of rhetoric, persuasive tone, and strategic word choices can enhance your delivery.
Cross-Examination (CX):
Cross-examination is key to identifying weaknesses in your opponent’s case. I appreciate debaters who use CX to ask meaningful questions and clarify points rather than trying to score cheap wins. It’s also a good opportunity to control the narrative.
Theory/Framework:
If you run theory, make sure it's warranted and not frivolous. I am open to hearing theory and framework debates, but it must be well-justified and impact the round significantly. I am more inclined to vote on these if the abuse is clear and affects the debate directly.
Speed (Spreading):
I’m comfortable with speed, but clarity is a must. If I can’t understand what you’re saying because of speed, it won’t make it on the flow. I’ll call for "clear" if needed, but keep in mind that over-spreading can hurt you more than help.
Weighing:
I highly value good weighing mechanisms. Make sure to tell me why your impacts matter more and how they compare to your opponent’s arguments. Impact calculus is crucial in close rounds, and I prefer to hear clear explanations of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.
Voter Issues:
In the final speeches, please be clear on your voting issues. Summarizing key arguments and telling me why you should win will help me when making a decision. I prefer to see debaters focus on crystallizing the debate rather than introducing new arguments in the last speeches.
Conclusion:
In summary, I look for clear, structured, and logical arguments. I’m open to all kinds of debate styles, but clarity and strategic choices are key. Make sure to tell me why you win, and I’ll base my decision on what’s presented in the round.
I participated in the debate program all 4 years of high school from 2004 to 2008. Since graduating I have been a coach specific to Public Forum. I have years of experience in all fields. Please see below for specific preferences.
1. Flow
2. Impacts
3. Do not speed and spread.
Welcome PF Debaters.
I'm a parent judge but this is my 4th year judging public forum debate.
Few tips for your success:
- Be simple and concise
- Evidence decides the round but, I'll only call for pieces of evidence that are highly disputed
- Please don't speak too fast, I can only give feedback on what I can understand
- Be organized and signpost throughout your speech
- Most importantly respect others and be professional regardless of your opponents and their backgrounds
- Debate should be a fun activity and debaters should enjoy it
All the best, Karthikk
I'm an active debater, public speaker and judge (2019–present). I've had a two-time experience coaching college student in public speaking and oratory
He/Him pronouns
Feel free to add me to your email chain and mail me If you ever need a judge for your school's online events: olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com
FLOW
I view myself as a flow judge (writing down key arguments), but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial.
If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel.
A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for my understanding, analysis and weighing of the round.
EXTENSIONS
Proper use and cutting of proofs are very crucial to me. While debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.
SPEECH CONDUCT
- I can’t follow everything in your speech if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and I comprehend you.
- Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
- Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
- Endeavor to work with time. It's advisable that you have a separate timer
- Feel free to come with a water bottle. I've seen speakers battle with cough and I believe speakers do better with the least amount of discomfort.
WHAT APPEALS
Although every judge has a pre-existing belief, I consider myself open-minded and all you need do to convince me is to be clear with your speech with relatable evidence.
Over time, I've discovered that speakers who struggle to provide evidence especially when questioned by their opponent tend to be less convincing to me and seldom lost the round to their opponents who often reiterate that they failed to provide evidence and that reduced the quality of their argument.
Also, more appealing to me is an engaging speaker especially during crossfire. So, please, engage your opponents as much as possible. Avoid being cold/lukewarm/silent during cross.
Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.
Email: Drefitnessbiz@gmail.com
- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.
- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.
- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.
- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.
- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.
- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.
- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.
- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.
Closing Thoughts:
"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.
Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."
Hey everyone, I'm a second year out from pf. I debated as Glen Rock OS until senior year and Glen Rock Bergen Tech GO in my senior year. If you care, I got some gold bids, qualified for the gold toc, etc. I now coach a club team.
add me to email chains: elijahonik@gmail.com
tl;dr: tech>truth. Debate is a game -- I will always vote off the flow and will never intervene. Read any argument you want at any speed (send docs).
-
General:
- Tech>truth always -- I will believe anything you tell me as long as the argument has a warrant
- I don't view speaks the same way. If you are rude, offensive, or do anything to make the round worse, your speaks will probably suffer. With that said, I prefer giving higher speaks
- Speed is fine but sending speech docs for case and rebuttal is mandatory -- if you start spreading baudrillard and don't send a doc I am capping your speaks at 25. If you are spreading you must slow down on tags
- It is an NSDA rule to have cards ready even if you paraphrase. If you’re in a bid tournament and send links when cards are called your speaks are capped at a 25 (if your opponents do this please read theory)
- My preferences (will not intervene): paraphrasing bad, open source disclosure good, debater math bad, defense is not sticky
- I don’t really care about norms that much — I’ll vote for disclo bad, para good, etc
- Please always tell me which flow you're starting on (ex. "our case, weighing, their case").
- Time yourselves/each other and stop them when they go over
Case:
- If I haven't said it enough, sends docs -- if you paraphrase you should send both what you read and the cards you cite
- Read absolutely anything in case -- advantages, disadvantages, framework, framing, theory, kritiks, a big impact turn, straight turns to their case, be creative. Don't forget people can make ground/time skew args abt half of that. Everything is up for debate
- No switching between speakers regardless of the argument being read -- speaking order is one of the few rules in the NSDA handbook. K affs are read in policy all the time with the first speaker reading the 1AC
- I won't teach myself your argument from a doc so if you're reading something pf isn't used to like a really complex k, slow down a little on tags
Rebuttal:
- This is essentially another constructive speech (pretty much the 2AC/2NC), so again, read whatever you want -- straight turns, a new constructive argument, idc as long as a doc is sent. Docs should include all the cards you're reading
- Second rebuttal must respond to all offense and frontline everything you plan on extending in the backhalf except weighing. No new frontlines in second summary
- It's a good idea to start framing in second rebuttal rather than second summary but I won't intervene if you start framing later
Summary:
- No new offense (with the exception of arguments directly responding to the 2nd rebuttal like theory), no new frontlines in second summary, backlines are fine ofc
- Collapse please, it doesn't matter how fast you go you will disadvantage yourself if you go for too much in the backhalf (trust me I've been there). The best debaters have good round vision and choose the best path to the ballot and go all for it
- Good signposting here is of utmost importance -- if you confuse me here and I miss an extension, that does not bode well for you
- I have a very high burden for extensions. An offensive argument (not just an adv/disad, this includes turns and etc) must include uniqueness, link, internal link, impact for me to vote on it (idc abt author names just extend the warrant). You cannot just say "extend the Bradford '13 evidence" and expect to win
- I know every judge says this, every debater knows this, but no one internalizes it. ~ 80% or more tech rounds will come down to the weighing -- read a prereq or something. On that note, please please please implicate your weighing/meta-weigh. I have no idea if magnitude or probability is more important unless you tell me
Final Focus:
- Structure should ideally match the summary but I understand if strats change
- Burden for extensions are the same here, the whole argument must be extended
- If no weighing has been done in the round, I'll flow some sort of weighing in the first ff but second ff has somewhat of an ability to respond
Cross/prep:
- Time your own and each other's prep, if they go a second over you can unmute and say "that's all your prep", I don't think that's rude at all
- I time flex prep based on how long it takes you to ask your question so if you opponent tries to waste your time by answering a yes/no question for 2 min, it won't hurt you -- on that note, flex prep questions should pretty much be only yes/no questions (did you kick this, etc)
- Open cross is fine ig but don't make me regret saying this
- As pointless as it is, you probably shouldn't skip grand cross but if both teams agree idrc
- This doesn't need to be said but I don't flow cross. That being said, concessions made in cross are binding as long as they're properly implicated in the following speech
Progressive arguments:
- General preferences in terms of comfortability of judging (read any arg I won't intervene): theory/framework>reps k>k aff>tricks
- "I'm from a small school so I can't respond" is the worst response ever. I literally started my high school's team and still read plenty of prog args in hs. Any response is valid if properly implicated but seriously you can learn anything from pf videos, opencaselist, and google
- In hs, my main experience with progressive arguments was all the stock theory shells (every form of disclosure, round reports, paraphrasing, etc), framework, reps Ks (I read cap and set col), and a few procedurals/IVIs here and there -- do with that what you will but I'm happy to hear any argument
- If you are confused about any of this please email me before the round or ask questions before/after the round, time permitting I'm happy to help
Theory
- I default no RVI, competing interps > reasonability, text of the interp > spirit of the interp, read theory immediately after violation but I won’t intervene
- The exact wording of the interp (unless I'm otherwise convinced) must be extended in summary and ff if you go for it. Rebuttal does not need to extend anything, that's not pf norms
- If only one team reads/extends an interp they auto win (assuming theory is the highest level in that round). Reasonability still requires two competing interpretations
- Friv theory is funny and a viable win strat as long as there is a warrant
Kritiks
- I really enjoy good reps/epistemological kritikal debates
- If you win your link and framing you don't necessarily need an alt to win (if you win their advocacy is tainted by settler logic and you win settler logic is genocidal and that outweighs their case you win. You don't need to win a decolonization alternative)
- Alts in pf are tough, there's definitely no plans/counterplans so alternative advocacy is tricky but saying something like vote neg to refuse set col and reading that one alt card that says refusal is generative and destroys the structure is fine
- Discourse alts are horrible and belong in 2020 pf. Again, I won't intervene but this fell out of fashion a long time ago in policy and LD, it should in pf too. Also, if you read discourse and don't disclose (and your opponents point it out because I probably won't check the wiki) your speaks will be very bad. This is also probably a perf con, make that argument if your opponents read a discourse arg and don't disclose
- I am not very well versed in k lit and your opponents probably aren't either (this is pf) so don't try to spread everyone out of the debate. I won't teach myself your k from the doc so making me understand is a good idea
Procedurals/IVIs
- An IVI is an off-case position, please read and signpost it as an off
- These are sometimes useful when your opponents do something specific and reading a whole shell doesn't make sense. Let's say they clip one card, you can either evidence challenge or read a ivi saying they should lose for this particular card. Let's say they say something exclusionary, you can read a ivi saying they should lose for that. Make sure it still has what they did, why that's bad, and drop the debater
- Do not read disclosure, paraphrasing, etc as an ivi. If the argument is usually read as a shell read it as a shell don't be abusive. With that said, "Overview: the opponents' whole case is paraphrased which is just analytics based on what they want us to believe the author said so evaluate them as such" is fine
Tricks
- I have a very basic understanding of skep, lexical arguments, paradoxes, etc. I am not a tricks judge. Do not trust my ability to catch and comprehend your wack tricks
- If you read tricks, they must be very visibly clear on your doc, don't hide them. Also, they still need a warrant (I won't vote for "the roto is to lose" unless properly warranted)
Speaks: I prefer to give better speaks, just be chill and debate well and you’ll get good speaks. Lmk if you open source disclose before the round, this will help your speaks.
I'm sure there's plenty I missed, please don't hesitate to email before the round or ask before the round starts if you have any questions. Assuming I have time, I like postrounding. Please argue with me, I'm happy to defend my decision. The last thing I want is for you to leave the round thinking you got screwed.
I am a parent judge. I will try to vote on the flow (tech>truth).
I know how bad it is to be judge-screwed. Please help me make the right decision:
* Explicitly state what contentions you were able to extend, turn, front-line, etc. and how your opponent failed to do the same
* Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)
* Please limit technical jargon unless you have the time to explain what it means
* I am unlikely to follow any progressive argumentation: theory, Ks, tricks (not that I know what it means), etc.
* You don't have to use your lay cases as long as you speak clearly.
* Assume I don't know the rules well, but don't be afraid of subtlety and sophistication.
* Be explicit with comparatively weighing your impacts and those of your opponent's
* If you believe the rules forbid something like modifying the status quo, introducing new evidence in FF, etc. declare it in order to help me invalidate your opponent's contention
* Speak slower than cattle auctioneers, but if you cannot help yourself, send me a speech doc.
* Logic and historical parallels are sometimes better than a questionable/unwarranted card.
* Feel free to post-round me. I will not get offended by any questions or criticism.
* Add me to email chains vladislav.onik@gmail.com
Good Luck!
As a seasoned judge with few years of coaching and judging experience, I prioritize a conversational delivery and balanced use of jargon for clarity in communication. My meticulous note-taking ensures accurate recall of key arguments.
I equally value both argument and style, emphasizing the foundational importance of substantive arguments. In evaluating debates, I prioritize content, structure, and adherence to the topic, favoring arguments with real-world impacts and diverse perspectives.
Reflecting on my judging experience, I find that well-supported arguments tied to real-world impacts are consistently the most compelling in previous rounds.
In terms of in-round conduct, I expect debaters to maintain a respectful demeanor, actively fostering a constructive and competitive spirit aligned with the educational goals of debate.
Adhering to judging principles, I commit to impartiality, active listening, and fairness. Open-mindedness guides my approach, ensuring receptiveness to diverse perspectives without pre-judgment. Respect, adaptability, and encouragement of engagement are fundamental to my judging philosophy.
Upholding integrity, I steer clear of conflicts of interest and provide transparent criteria for decision-making. Constructive feedback is integral, offering positive reinforcement and specific, actionable advice for improvement.
Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.
Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).
As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.
Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.
I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.
In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.
Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.
I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.
I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.
For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.
As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.
Let’s have a great time!
I have very little experience in debate. Do not be rude and keep your manners. These are some things I value:
-Make it easy to follow a logical train of thought
-The strongest part of an argument is a rebuttal
-Good evidence is necessary
-Confidence is key. Convince me why I should vote for you.
Background
Please add me to the email chain. My email isconradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not documents, but may read evidence after speeches.
For LD/CX
General
I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments, so I've summarized some thoughts below.
Speed- Pretty much fine with any level of speed. I'll yell clear if I can't understand.
DAs
fine with most DAs. If reading political DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic link evidence. I enjoy evidence comparison in debates on political DAs
K
K (Neg): I am a firm believer in topic-specific critical lit. The more specific your link cards, the better. If your only link is "you talk about the economy, therefore you're capitalist" or "you function through the state," don’t run it, or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K-Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency evidence that explains what the alt does. 3. A clear explanation of what the post in the in the alt world looks like.
K (Aff): I’m fine with critical affirmatives; however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer arguments that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise.
CPs
I’m fine with most counterplans, although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate
I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.
I default to perms are test of competition, not advocacy
T/Theory
I generally think affs should have to defend the topic and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps.
I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, defaulting to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in-round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.
I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.
I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.
PF
I take aula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize that a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing, I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.
-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.
-Please extend author's last name and year in the back half of the letter. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison
In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading
Please collapse
Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus
Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clearly if I can't understand what you are saying
Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round
Theory and Procedures
I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.
I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.
I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.
-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note that I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback, I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round
- Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
- jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
- Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
- Please time yourselves!
- Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
- Clear taglines are helpful
- Tech > Truth
- Weigh in FF with voters!
- I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
- If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
- If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
- Be respectful during the debate
Lay parent judge. I use flowing. Talking fast is ok, but please note that if you speak too quickly I won't be able to follow your argument and it will likely be less persuasive.
GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. I competed in Public Forum Mainly, little bit of Lincoln Douglas, and tried just about every other event. I was a 3 time national qualifier and this past year became the assistant coach at Bettendorf High School. Lots of national circuit experience in PF. As far as other events go i'm not here to push my or any agenda. My goal is to interpenetrate your performances in the debates/speech rounds not how I feel or think. My paradigm here is just to make your lives easier. Any questions feel free to ask!!!
I understand that things can be tense at tournaments so I try to keep the things pretty relaxed but with that being said a few things I expect:
1) Shake hands with opponents after round
2) Make sure everyone is ready before we start
{Public Forum}
NPF-No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning.
VPF- Much more experienced at this level. If you're running K's or theory against a team you better do a great job of explaining and breaking down these args. I have a hard time voting on these Lackluster and quiet frank incomplete arguments that public forum doesn't have the time to develop. I appreciate when the debates in pf are actually about the topic at hand.
SPEECHES: I go by the flow but I would not call myself a "flow" judge. The solution to speech times should be better word economy not faster speaking. I like advanced nuanced arguments but I just like them to be delivered in a calm manner. Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order.
CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.
{Lincoln Douglas}
NLD- No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning. Unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.
VLD- Truth over tech. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the sense of topical LD debates. Easiest route to my ballot is value, criterion, (definitions if needed) and contention level debate. However I do enjoy a well constructed CP or even good K if actually fighting against real issues and not using K as a chance to win ballots.
Speed: I'm okay with speed normally. Most people I have met cannot spread and they say a bunch of words but don't finish sentences Im not going to write down words you didn't say so don't try it. I like some kind of doc share just to be safe.
SPEECHES:1AR, and 1NR, should be line by line with lots of sign posting. 2NR, and 2 AR should generally go over the same issues in the same order with some form of crystallization. Give me voters and tell me why based on your last speech you should win.
CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it. CX should be relevant and questions should actually further the debate or be used to clarify questions not as prep time. I will not hold it against you if the cross doesn't go full time if you deemed yourself done with questions.
{Speech events}
Interp- (DI- Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.
Hi- Whoever makes me laugh the most along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.
Duo- Whoever makes me laugh the most or Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.
Exempt: Usually I prefer 3 main points. Good intro and outro. Sources are dated and usually enjoy when you are able to create a story out of your answering of the question.
Spon: Same thing as above just no sources.
Hi, my name is Julian (Zhanliang) Qin, and I am a parent judge.
For presentation, I am looking for clear, loud and confident voice of speaking, with natural hand & body movement and eye contact with audience. Ok to refer to notes occasionally, but too often especially searching in notes with pause could lead to point reduction. Fully use time allocated but close speech within grace period.
A straightforward roadmap with an outline, organized arguments and summary is essential.
Convincing reasoning from unique angle is applaudable and make the debater stand out of the average.
For the seating debaters, active engagement is not only respectful to opponents, but necessary to have effective counter arguments.
For Parliamentary debate, try to have at least 2 POIs per round (even if you got denied), to show you are engaged and listening, and strategically challenge the speaker in a good way.
Good luck on your rounds! Please email me if you have any questions.
Email: zhanliang_qin@yahoo.com
Nico's Bio:
I am a college student from Marshall University as a Yeager Scholar in the Slack Class of 2025, a member of the University Student Senate, and a coach for hire for debate. When I was in high school I competed heavily in Congressional Debate. While attending Oxbridge of the Palm Beaches, I was captain of the Congressional Debate team, had dozens of TOC bids, competed and finaled at Harvard University Debate, Emory Debate, NSDA, States, and NCFL Nationals #4 place, multiple chamber choice PO awards, and holding a ranking within the top 5 for NSDA points my senior year. Needless to say, when it comes to Congress, I am no lay judge and will rank accordingly, valuing a mix of data, logic, refutation, cross-examination, creativity, presentation, etc.
Nico's Contact Info:
Phone: (561)-704-7022
Email: raffinengo@marshall.edu
Facebook Messenger / Instagram: @nicolasraffinengo
Congress Paradigm:
What I Look for From Speakers:
- Argumentation in Speech: Claims are followed by logical backing (warrant), as well as data and an impact of why I should care, I don't mind the order you do this but it is a must to get ranked well by me. Reference or crossfire others in round showing why I as the judge or constituent should value your arguments over others. Also providing unique or non-stock argumentation will make you stand out, especially if a round is super stock-heavy in terms of arguments. Authorship and First Neg should take all the stock arguments as well as explain the bill well, as well as a bonus if they set burdens.
- Presentation of the Speech: Your intro and conclusion should be memorized as well as contentions. The good theming of a speech and creative aspects will make your speech more memorable. Keeping eye contact and using appropriate presidential movement keep listeners engaged, and show memorization of speech. Keeping pacing, tone, and vocal variety to highlight points can make your speech easier to follow.
- Crossfire: Good crossfire should refute or build something to the debate, I hate seeing softball, convoluted, or just questions that don't really contribute anything to the round.
What I Look for From Presiding Officers:
- Solid Control of the Round
- Quick Selection of Speakers and Questioners
- Providing a Google Sheet will Get Brownie Points from Me
- Gaveling Isn't Insanely Loud
- Explanation of Procedures is Good
- Understanding Roberts Rules
Public Forum Paradigm:
Update Georgetown 10/11
Everything else in my paradigm below applies. Please make sure constructive and rebuttal docs are sent accordingly, or else your speaker points will be docked. I have been accustomed to the event enough where I will be able to tolerate speed, but this doesnot mean that clarity is sacrificed.
Speech Content:
- Constructive Speeches: Present your main arguments and evidence. Provide a clear framework for your case and establish the significance of your position.
- Crossfire I-II: Be respectful but firm with opponents, engage in questioning well, and tackle points on both sides well, use these periods to help set up your following speeches.
- Rebuttal Speeches: Respond to opponents' arguments, point out flaws, and reinforce your case. Engage in strategic argumentation and address crossfire issues.
- Summary Speeches: Summarize key arguments and impacts. Extend your strongest points and highlight the most critical issues in the debate.
- Grand Crossfire: Engage in open questioning and answer to address any remaining issues. Clarify positions and challenge opponents' claims.
- Final Focus Speeches: Re-emphasize your most powerful arguments. Explain why the judge should prioritize certain issues and impacts. Provide a clear conclusion and solidify your stance.
Etiquette:
- Be respectful and professional.
- Avoid personal attacks.
- Stay within allotted time limits.
- Use evidence ethically and cite sources.
I am a parent judge. Speak slow and clearly, explain your arguments well
Hello, I'm Mary Sandals. I have accumulated expertise in a variety of debating styles and formats over a long period of time, including Public Forum (PF), World School Debate Championship (WSDC), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australians, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), and British Parliamentary (BP).
Speakers should, I suppose, be knowledgeable about the various motion sorts, the kinds of arguments that ought to be made in them, how to bear their burdens, and other tactics for debating.
In my experience as a judge, presenters who are aware of the regulations of the particular competition in which they are competing—which usually require them to address the opponent's arguments in addition to their own—tend to perform better. Although I do take equity seriously, I also expect speakers to do the same. When speakers are informed of the tournament's framework, speaking roles and presenting compelling arguments become easier. This gives them the ability to behave appropriately, which in turn gives them insight into how the judge will decide the argument.
I like it when a whip or summary speaker understands that their role is not to offer opinions and stays true to their given duties.
It seems to me that speakers should be aware of the kinds of arguments that belong in each kind of motion, how to complete their burdens and other strategies employed in debating.
I like it when debaters stay true to their duties; for example, when a whip or summary speaker understands that their function is to refute, strengthen, and justify their partner's position, rather than to present new ideas.
Hello, this is my 2nd year judging at the high school level. Follow your natural style of debating, and it is important that you maintain respect for each other. I will actively take notes, and with regard to keeping time, I expect both teams to maintain it accurately, but I will keep an eye on it as well to ensure we stay on time during the round.
Look forward to the event, and best wishes!
Dear Debaters,
As a parent lay judge, my focus is on the combination of content and delivery. I appreciate clear and logically structured arguments, delivered at an understandable pace, and supported by quality evidence. I expect you to maintain a respectful tone, engage with the audience, and manage their time effectively. Please articulate your points clearly and remember that I may not be familiar with complex debate terminology.
I am here to appreciate your efforts and evaluate your performance based on the strength of your content and the quality of your delivery.
Good luck!
Hello,
I am Monali (PhD, Health Economics). I am an enthusiastic parent of a middle school debater. I will look for honest, clear, and concise opinions. Debaters’ mannerism in presenting themselves is important to me. I will give points based on the content, presentation, preparation, organized rebuttals, and background research. I would prefer if the debater can pace themselves and not rush through the content. I can follow a clear speech with decent speed. Speak at a pace that will allow you time to say what you want. Be respectful and sensitive to other team members’ opinions. Use vocabulary that is easily understood with clear diction. And most importantly, learn and have FUN!
I am lay parent judge who has recently (early 2024) started judging PF debates. I appreciate a straightforward approach that is slow, clear and effective – if I can't follow your arguments, it'll be challenging to vote off of them. Please make sure to repeat important, uncontested arguments throughout the round. Last but not the least, be respectful and kind to other team members and have fun!
With a distinguished record spanning 5 years, I bring a wealth of experience and insight to the world of debating. Over the course of my journey, I've had the privilege of attending numerous tournaments, each one serving as a milestone in my growth and development as a judge.
My expertise encompasses a wide array of prestigious events, including the renowned World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC), EUDC, where I've not only participated but also adjudicated with precision and fairness. Furthermore, I've lent my adjudicative skills to the United Asian Debating Championships (UADC), navigating the complexities of argumentation.
In addition to my involvement in WUDC and UADC, I have honed my skills across various debate formats, including Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and Public Forum (PF) and speech formats including HI, Improv, OO among others. This versatility has equipped me with a comprehensive understanding of the diverse nuances and strategies inherent in different styles of debate.
I am also a big believer of feedback because that is how we all grow, so speakers can be rest assured of accurate and logical feedback.
I've been judging Debate since 2019. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.
L-D Paradigm:
Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.
I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.
Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.
PUBLIC FORUM
SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.
EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.
REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.
SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.
FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.
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 prefer sound, logical arguments over illogical arguments with evidence to back them up. Be organized in your speeches; make clear links and warrants for every impact. Do not talk too fast. Make sure you're clear & organized, so I understand everything you say.
Hi there! I’ve been involved in debate for quite a while— in Lincoln-Douglas, in Public Forum, and more years judging both events. My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward: I aim to reward strong argumentation, clear communication, and meaningful engagement with the debate topic. At the end of the round, I want to be able to weigh impacts and feel confident that the winning side gave me a clear reason to vote for them.
Rate of Delivery
When it comes to speaking speed, I’m flexible. I prefer a conversational pace because it tends to make arguments more persuasive and easier to follow. That said, if you want to go fast, I won’t hold it against you—as long as you’re clear. If I can’t understand what you’re saying or if your arguments get lost in a rapid delivery, they won’t make it onto my flow. Keep in mind: clarity is your responsibility, not mine.
Values and Criteria
Values and criteria are a hallmark of LD, but I don’t think they’re required in every round. If you do use a value/criterion framework, make it count. Show me how it ties into your case, frames the round, and helps me evaluate the impacts. If you don’t use one, that’s fine too—just make sure your framework is clear and gives me the tools I need to fairly judge the round. Either way, I care more about how you apply your framework to the actual arguments than whether you’ve included one for the sake of tradition.
Rebuttals and Voting Issues
Rebuttals are where you show me how you’re winning the debate. Whether you explicitly label "voting issues" or not isn’t a dealbreaker for me. What matters is that you’re crystallizing the key points of clash and making it clear how I should evaluate the round. In your final speeches, weigh the impacts—don’t just tell me you’re winning, show me why. Jargon like “extend,” “cross-apply,” or “turn” is totally fine, but make sure it’s being used to enhance clarity, not confuse the round.
How I Decide the Round
I vote based on who wins the most important arguments in the round. Strong impact analysis is absolutely critical here. Help me understand why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s and how they function within the round’s framework. I don’t assume either side is automatically correct—both aff and neg need offense. If neither side gives me clear offense, I’ll evaluate based on the risk of offense or presumption, depending on the circumstances.
Use of Evidence
I value evidence, but I don’t think it’s always necessary. Logical, analytical arguments can be just as powerful as empirical evidence when presented well. That said, if you’re going to use evidence, use it effectively. Don’t just cite a card and move on—engage with it. Highlight contradictions, call out weaknesses, and explain how it supports your case. I appreciate debaters who treat evidence as part of their argumentation, not just something to check off a list.
Flowing and Note-Taking
I take flowing seriously and keep a detailed record of every argument in the round. Organization and signposting are really important to me—if I can’t figure out where an argument belongs on my flow, it’s going to be much harder for me to evaluate it. Make your arguments clear and distinct, and don’t expect me to connect the dots for you.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, I’m a pretty flexible judge. I don’t have strict preferences about how you structure your case or present your arguments. My main focus is on clarity, clash, and impacts. If you can explain why your arguments matter, how they interact with your opponent’s, and why they ultimately outweigh, you’re in a strong position to win my ballot.
P.S. I know these kinds of paradigms can feel a little formulaic, but if you take one thing away from mine, it’s this: do what works best for you . Clear impacts, solid argumentation, and a little bit of persuasion will take you far!
Email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com
TL;DR: Be kind to each other.
If I am your parliamentarian: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore those things at your peril.
Presiding officers: I expect you to use preset recency. If the tournament does not have preset recency, I expect you to create your own with a randomizer. This is an equity issue and has the potential to impact your ranks. I pay attention to pre-session, in-session, and post-session politics and expect to see the presiding officer as a leader in those discussions. Remember that your job is to run things quickly while adhering to parliamentary procedure - Exercise your power if necessary but don't skip necessary processes. An easy example of this is calling for motions - 90% of the time instead of calling for motions you can just do
Congress competitors: I will not shake your hand. There is nothing I hate more than inauthentic "thank yous," especially when they're made loud enough for everyone to hear. The narrative arc of the round is extremely important - The first few speeches should be constructive, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate. Keep in mind that Congress is a debate event, so every speech past the author/sponsor needs engagement. That also means I expect people to flip - Past two bills on the same side of debate I will start penalizing speakers for not flipping.I have a laundry list of pet peeves that, while they won't impact your rank, will irritate me. Those include unnecessary and unfunny preamble before you speak, a refusal to flip for speeches, making motions that aren't real, and using the phrase "first affirmative."
Public Forum: I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.
Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.
Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.
Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.
Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.
Lincoln Douglas: I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.
Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.
I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.
"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.
World Schools: The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.
Evidence ethics:
I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.
Theory: I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.
I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.
Death Good/Oppression Good: "Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering."Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.
JANUARY, 2025 UPDATE:I prefer to judge lay rounds as indicated in my paradigm below. However, in the last few months, I have judged K rounds, theory rounds, and elim rounds where one or both teams have spread. Please note that I have so far never squirreled in an elim round where teams have run either Ks, theory or have spread (though I ask for the docs)...and often I am the lay/flay on a panel with 2 tech judges. Coincidence? Who knows? But I feel like I should provide this information so that teams can decide what arguments they want to read. Good luck, all! :)
MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME
A reluctant judge who’s a parent,
Better make your speeches coherent!
Don’t run theory or a clever K,
Risky strategies because I’m lay.
Surely, you don’t dare to spread.
Rely on good warranting instead!
Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--
Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.
I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,
Of all the arguments apropos.
Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,
Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.
Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--
Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.
My ballot is truth over tech,
Especially when probability is but a speck.
Terminal impact of nuclear war,
When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.
I end this with typical lay dross—
Have fun and be respectful in cross!
--Parent Paradigm Poet
PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs
********************************************************************************************************************************
April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:
PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT
PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24
I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob
I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.
Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals
Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.
I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see
It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.
**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU
I am a scientist and current affairs enthusiast. I am a lay parent judge with little experience. I'll try to remain unbiased, but I'm not experienced enough to be tech over truth. A lot of the stuff in my paradigm my son helped me out with, I don't understand a lot of the jargon here.
Do not spread, I will drop you, aim for 130-175 words a minute.
I don't really get how to flow, but I'll try to take notes.
Please do not run progressive debate (that includes Ks, theory, CPs, and most certainly friv theory- this is PF, not LD, and I don't understand it, even if it makes you laugh). No frameworks or underviews either- I'm new to this.
Avoid usage of debate jargon, I would appreciate signposting.
I will drop you if you bring up new evidence after rebuttal, but to be safe, please let me know if the other team does that. If the other team brings up new evidence in second final focus, tell me, but be honest.
I understand that debate is, of course, a purely competitive game, and that it's possible to get carried away.However, if you're racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory, I will drop you and give you 3 speaker points.
Cross: Don't be rude, it should be a conversation not a monologue. I'll listen, but it's not that important-it's your time. I won't intervene unless you're discriminatory.
Make sure to weigh and make it simple for me.
Summary and final focus: tell me every way that you win, make sure to extend.
Don't be too upset if you loose- it's just a game.
Please have fun.
I am an active judge with over a year experience and I have judged more than ten debate tournaments.
I allow speakers to use jargon but it must fulfil the essence of communication. Likewise, clarity over speed for convenient judging and the benefit of the other speakers.
I take notes of key arguments, counterarguments, presentation skills, ability to engage with opponents and critically respond to counterarguments during the round.
I value style over argument even though debaters are to argue their points. It is not about attacking the opponent rather focus on argument substance, make the points clear and concise. The debate should be a constructive and respectful environment for both sides.
In assessing debate, I look out for how well debaters support their claims, use of effective evidence & examples, address their counterarguments and demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic.
For the previous debate rounds I find most persuasive, the speakers that eventually got the win was due to their real strong evidence base, their effective use of credible source. They made it more relatable and engaging with the use of emotional resonance and left me with no choice than to give them the win.
The expectations I have for my debaters' in-round conduct are: they should treat themselves with respect, listen actively, focus on the given topic, support their claims with evidence, be prepared before time by asking possible questions that might come from your opponent and vise versa (especially during cross-ex), organize arguments clearly, adhere to time limits, engage your opponent's arguments and respond thoughtfully. Debaters should acknowledge when their opponents have made an error (like one of the previous debate round I experienced).
About:
American University MA '26 | Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19
Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. Formerly, I was the Director of Debate (2021-2024) for Crystal Springs Uplands School. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.
In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!
WS Update (last updated 01.15.24 for Harvard Westlake)
Quals: 2019 NSDA WS Invitational Octofinalist (California Coast Gold); judged WS at various SoCal invitationals incl. La Costa, Chuck Ballingall, and Jack Howe
Method: I will follow the NSDA or tournament scoring system in WS. That being said, I tend to holistically evaluate the whole of argumentation in the debate and will likely weight content and strategy more significantly when adjudicating over close rounds. Still, a team can pull ahead on this question with the high allotment of style points, possibly making my argumentative evaluation of the debate less significant to the outcome of a given ballot.
POIs are not flowed. Time yourselves.
Things I am looking for:
1.Questions of Layering/Framing: I think the practical and principled distinctions can be quite helpful for any potential collapse strategy. Speakers 1 & 2 should be clearly differentiating on what level their argumentation exists—whether one or the other, both, or neither. Meta-framing questions that engage the scope of the resolution are helpful places for me to start when evaluating content and strategy. Definitions can be particularly helpful here in order to clarify the scope of relevance for a given set of substantives or examples.
2. Strategic Collapsing/Crystallization: Speakers 3 & Reply need to be doing some amount of collapsing and crystallization of the key points of the debate. Which substantives am I flowing through to the end of the debate? Has there been sufficient defense put on a substantive neither side is talking about anymore? Tell me where I should be looking for my evaluation of the ballot, and why certain substantives, warrants, and examples ought to be prioritized over others. WS tends to be judged by a number of people who do this work on behalf of the debaters—I request strong and explicit direction about which arguments I should prioritize in evaluation and why.
3.Strength of Warrant/Example: While I don't require you to have robust citation mechanisms, please articulate how and why your examples connect to your interpretation of the resolution. It should be very clear to me why you are talking about a particular example and what the justification for discussing it is. To this end, I still think WS as a debate event requires some level of impact analysis. The amount of historical context and warranting you can provide compels me to consider your substantive more easily.
Feel free to read over the rest of my event-specific paradigms for a sense of other argumentative defaults, not preferences. I'm pretty open-minded and appreciate an organized flow with substantive clash. Best of luck!
LD Addendums
Much of the following paradigms below apply to my evaluation of LD; perhaps helpfully, however, here are some defaults and evaluative preferences that would help given the structural organization of LD:
- Particularly for online debate, I would like access to the chain (jtelebrico23@cmc.edu) as both an accessibility means for myself and to save time for any potential card indicts—I do not flow off the doc, share prep, prepare prep-outs, or scrupulously examine your card unless you tell me to call for it
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty; I am open to changing my mind on this but you should probably try to win framework
- While I am tech > truth, I don't think misrepresentations of philosophy help anyone or the philosophy-minded in LD; please understand your Kant constructive
- My threshold for things like IVIs are probably pretty low but debaters still need to provide layering justifications and weigh accordingly
- Make sure you have clearly identified your link analysis for me in case or through your speech rhetoric
- Sometimes I resolve the uplayers in a way that leads me to vote on a single line of offense from case; absent clear clash under the fw debate, it is probably in your interest to extend some marginal level of case; these are some of my least favorite ballots, however
PF Paradigm (last updated 10.04.24 for Northwestern)
Email for the email chain: jtelebrico23@cmc.edu
General
-
Feel free to read any cool, funky cases on this topic in front of me. See the last bullet point of the paradigm if you're concerned about prep-outs, etc.
-
Can flow any speed, so feel free to go as slow or fast as you'd like.
-
Feel free to read my Parli paradigm for more nuanced thoughts on argumentation and strategy.
-
STOP stealing prep time during evidence exchange. I will interrupt debaters if I see Second Speakers exploiting evidence exchange to prep further. Have your cards available, set up the email chain before the round (yes, I want to be on it), and use the prep time that has been allotted to you. The amount of prep-stealing in debate has become unreasonable and structurally unfair. You can even use this bullet of my paradigm as fairness uniqueness for a theory argument. Don't steal prep in front of me.
Evaluation
-
Every argument requires a warrant for evaluation—articulations of "extend xyz author/statistic" are insufficient without accompanying warrants. Please extend and implicate warrants in both summary and final focus.
-
Weighing (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility) is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse pls.
-
I maintain that I won't flow crossfire. However, you may generate offense off of concessions (they're binding!) or contradictory answers made in CF ONLY if you explain and strategically utilize the indicted claim to generate meaningful clash.
-
[ask me what my thoughts are about GCF before it happens]
-
Second Rebuttal absolutely should begin to frontline. First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless second Rebuttal begins to frontline args. However, it's probably strategic for second Rebuttal to answer first Rebuttal and start frontlining. Defense is not sticky, except maybe between first Rebuttal and first Final Focus.
-
If it's in Final Focus, it has to be in Summary. This does not mean collapsing Final Focus from a single 'conceded' warrant or sentence in Summary without proper analysis.
-
Impacts should be terminalized. I prefer numbers to scalar impacts, which should always be contextualized within the evidence. In other words, I'd much rather vote on an impact of "affects 10k people" over "iNcrEaSe oF 500%."
-
Impact framing is also very cool.
Tech
-
I think theory, kritikal, phil, and other forms of tech argumentation are severely underutilized in PF due to both structural and perceptual bias concerning speech times and the nature of these arguments. Open to hearing any kind of argument on these layers (and do uplayer the argument for me) but I am otherwise agnostic concerning my evaluation of them—I would not consider myself a tech hack judge, I just think a lot of case debates are done poorly and these rounds are fun to judge. Debate flight seems infinitely regressive so don't be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.
-
I think strategies like IVIs being read on anything your opponent does or represents in-round are advantageous insofar as maximizing paths to the ballot.
Evidence Ethics & Speaks
-
To minimize intervention, I won't view the email chain or card doc (but still add me!) unless a particular card defines the round—and debaters should be explicit that I should do so (e.g. "Look at their x ev, it doesn't say y"). I prefer cut cards but don't mind paraphrasing so long as you can have a substantive theory debate.
-
Do not use any surveillance or tracking technologies like MailSuite/MailTrack on the email chain. I will not begin the round until an email chain without them has been created and I'll tank your speaks for even having me click on the initial email in the first place.
-
However, I do reserve the right to intervene on behavior that I find explicitly oppressive and morally reprehensible; if it's implicit or you're just excessively rude in general I will simply tank your speaks.
-
My updated speaks average aggregated across both PF & Parli is a 28.7 [L/H = 27/30; n=234; last updated 09.24.23]. Most people will get a 28+.
-
Speech docs are very appreciated (jtelebrico23@cmc.edu). I will exclusively use these documents in the context of accessibility (e.g. to clean up card citations on my flow) in the debate round and not for coaching or sharing purposes.
Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)
Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.
General
-
TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.
- STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.
-
The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.
-
Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.
-
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.
-
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.
-
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
-
Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
-
Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.
- Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."
- This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.
Framework
- In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.
-
Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.
-
For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)
- Any and all spec is fine.
-
Read and pass texts to your opponents.
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.
Counterplans
- I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.
-
I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.
Theory
-
I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.
-
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.
-
I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.
Kritiks
-
Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!
-
I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.
-
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
-
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
-
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.
Speaks
-
Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.
-
The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.
- Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
- Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!
-
Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.
- I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
- Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!
-
My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].
Points of Information/Order
-
PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
-
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
-
Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.
Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):
- Rounds Judged: n = 170
- Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
- Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
- Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
- Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."
*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!
-
Hey Debaters! Let's make this a great day of debate!
First off, I want you to know I'm here because I love this. I've been a citizen judge in Public Forum for over 4 years, and I'm excited to be part of your intellectual journey today.
A few friendly guidelines to help us have an awesome round:
Communication is Key
- Please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. I want to catch every brilliant argument you're making!
- Give me a quick roadmap at the start of your speeches. It helps me follow your awesome reasoning.
Debate with Respect
- This is an intellectual challenge - bring your best arguments!
- But remember, we're all here to learn. No need for victory dances or eye-rolling.
- Treat each other and the debate space professionally.
What I'm Looking For
- Specific, well-explained arguments
- During cross-examination, show me you really understand your evidence
- Substantive arguments that engage the resolution directly
A Few Hard Lines
- I'm voting purely on the resolution's substance
- If an argument goes unchallenged, I'll consider it valid
- Theory arguments and kritiks? Not my jam.
Online Debate Bonus Tips
- Treat this like an in-person round
- No side conversations while others are speaking
- Announce your remaining prep time after each segment
Let's have a fantastic debate!
- (Rewritten using Claude.ai)
PS - Sorry if I said your name incorrectly, or used wrong pronouns. Please correct me.
Hey everyone,
My name is Jack I’m a second year student at Duke Law. I did PF for 4 years in HS and loved it. I’d say I’m pretty flay. I will be flowing but I also value things like crossfire (assuming they still have that) and overall debate perception, that is who it seems won the round and ability to respond to points eloquently during exchanges. That is an important aspect out of the PF world. Keep it civil, but also totally okay with emotion and calling out opponents arguments out for logical inconsistencies. Looking forward to the rounds!
I am a retired debate coach (also coached speech and theatre), who for over 25 years coached Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and once it became a debate event Public Forum debate. It can be assumed that simply due to my longevity that I am just a dinosaur judge… but I do not think that completely articulates the type of judge that you will have in the back of this round.
My first premise is to always attempt be a tabula rasa adjudicator, given the constraints of sound debate theory. That being said, I will not be drawn into some absurd games-playing paradigm by debaters attempting to belittle the educational expectations of this academic activity. Bottom line – I believe this is still the best activity any student can be involved in to best prepare themselves to be a better citizen.
Public Forum – I still feel that this style of debate should be accessible to anyone and everyone. Thus, I would expect it to be understandable, organized and cordial. Also, I feel it should be free of what I call blip arguments. (ex. I despise one-word framework blips like “Framework – Util”) I am sorry, but if you want me to specifically exercise my decision process through a specific framework – you certainly need to define and develop that concept. I also believe Public Forum debaters and the debate itself benefit from good ethos. So, what am I looking for in a good round of PF? Sound argument(s), clash, good refutation and solid summation. In the end, if there are good standing impacts on both sides of the debate – I expect the final focuses do a thorough impact calculus. (Don’t make me do the work, that is your responsibility as a debater, not mine as the judge.) Do not be afraid to ask me questions before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.
Lincoln Douglas – I have always loved value-based debates! That being said, I am not sure that LD is still this type of debate. So, understand that when I become grumpy when an LD round turns into a policy debate – I am not grumpy with you the debaters, but more so the direction that this high-speed vehicle is headed. (Believe it or not, back when this style of debate was introduced, it also was meant to be an accessible style of academic debate for the public.) More than anything else, I dislike the incorporation of policy debate language, but not necessarily defined the same in LD. I am often still shocked with plantext in LD, specifically when the resolution does not specifically demand or require action. I do understand that over these decades LD resolutions have moved to more policy-oriented proposals but bear with this old man and understand that I still appreciate weighing an LD round through value-premise based arguments. Additionally, I have always felt that most legitimate arguments in LD are critical at their fundamental level, thus I am often unsure how a “K” is to be weighed in the round but do expect to be informed by the debaters. (once more, I expect the debaters to do the work, not to leave it to me) Again, do not be afraid to ask me questions before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.
- At this point, let me explain… I think the greatest sin that a judge can commit is to intervene. As a judge, I will keep a thorough flowchart, and will make my decision based on what is on my flow. If it is not on my flow, that is not my fault. I will not do the work for you. I NEVER flow CX or crossfire. If you want it on my flow, it better be in a speech proper. As far as rate of delivery, I believe that as long as you are understandable, I will be able to follow you. If I find you incomprehensible, I will tell you so (oftentimes in the form of vocally shouting “clearer”), but if I have to do that, you can bet that you are losing ethos points on my flow. My non-verbal language is pretty loud and clear, thus making sure that I am following your logic or argumentation is still your part of this communication process. Therefore, keep an eye on me, and you should be able to tell that I am following you. I find it silly when debaters tell me before they begin to speak – “I will now give you a non-timed roadmap” in Public Forum or LD. My PF and LD flows are on a single piece of paper… I have always equated “roadmap” in debate with Policy debate and placing the 5 to 8 pages of the full flow in the correct order for the speech that I am about to hear. And then I still expected to be told when to move from one page of a flow to another. Thus – a roadmap in PF or LD, I would expect to take less than a couple of seconds and find it just silly that I need to be told that the roadmap is to be non-timed. (all 3 to 5 seconds of it.) I feel awkward and uncomfortable about the “additional tech time”. (Until organizations identify specific “tech time” to include into the round, I often feel it is still using someone’s prep time, and am uncomfortable just adding additional time to the round and making sure it is fully applicable to everyone involved.)
Policy - It has been a while since I have judged policy debate, and that time makes me feel inadequate to judge a good VCX round. But if the situation arises, I will do my best to be a quality judge. In policy world, I am much more a policymaker than stock judge. I appreciate theory and believe it can still be the mechanism to weigh all issues in a policy round. I am a bit of a purist, in the fact that I still expect anyone running a critical argument or a performative position, to be fully committed to that argument or position. (I WILL vote for a performative contradiction). Otherwise, making sure it is on my flow and that I understand the argument will go a long way to winning my ballot. I do not like reading evidence, that is not my job, if you require me to read the ev, you are not fully doing your job. Everything else… just ask me before you start, I am willing to clarify anything that you may have questions about.
My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.
The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.
Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.
Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.
Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.
Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.
I work as a Principal Scientist in Pharmaceutical Industry, and my R&D career has been always inspired by patients and driven by science. I have a 10th grade boy who is a JV with unbelievable passion about debating, and he has taught me the basics of PF debating. As a parent judge, I believe that a good debating is more often characterized with presenting solid evidence, speaking clearly with a logical flow, and focusing on 2-3 key points.
Hi! I'm Yuling (she/her). I graduated from UCLA with an econ dgree, I have 10 years of PF debating/coaching experience (yeah my life is that boring).
wangyuling1999@gmail.com for email chain/questions before or after round.
On top of my paradigm: I'm judging in a different timezone i.e. if you are doing a US tournament that means I may be judging at 2/3 am; that means I probably won't be able to handle spreading that well.
Bottom Line: be nice/don't be discriminatory in round.
Preferences:
Narrative Debate shapes my view of debate. Give me a cohesive storyline on why your side's view on the topic is more correct/important really helps me a lot in the decision making process.
Weighing matters, need extension and comparisons in the second half of the round.
Arguments need to be responded in the next speech - i.e. frontline in the second rebuttal.
Stolen from Lawrence Zhou "follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in theNSDA Evidence Guide. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you."
Speed: just please don't spread if the round is at 2-5 pm EST that will be 2-5 am in my timezone☠️
Eventually I'll vote on a team that clearly tells me where should I vote on, how did you win there, and why should I vote there.
Theory/Ks: It's still new to me / the circuit I coach in. I'll try my best to flow and understand, and I also appreciate a chance to get educated on progressive debate, but the reminder is I'm probably not qualified enough to decide this type of round.
I am a lay judge who has judged middle school and high school debate, as well as high school speech.
When judging debate, I consider flow and evidence. I appreciate debaters speaking at a reasonable speed to ensure understanding.
Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!
This is my second year judging.
Please be kind and respect your opponents.
Also, please don't just compare numbers - the reasons/logics behind the numbers are more important to me.
Your knowledge of the area of the topic is greatly appreciated - I prefer it over just reading the evidence without actually understanding it.