Tabroom.com

Columbia Invitational 2025

2025 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

PF Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Naveen Addagudi Westborough High School

Neeru Agarwal Iowa City West

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 4:08 PM CDT

Hi Debaters,
My email if you decide to start emailchain for evidence sharing

drneeruagarwal@gmail.com

I have judged elementary , middle school, Novice High School and Junior Varsity debate last year. I make unbiased decision even if I have some background knowledge of topic and always open to listening and learning. I believe with time information changes and affects our decision. It's always fun to see how new and pro debaters benefit with the rounds.

I will give points based on what you presented , how well you presented, did you have real content or just tried to pass time with some nonintelligent tricks. I will not hold you responsible for what you did not cover about topic.

I am particular about debate rules:

Manage time wisely
Do not expect me to intervene during crossfire
During cross fire do not try to waste opponent time by beating around the bush, ask precise clear questions
Use signposting as your strength and also makes judges job easy
I will take speaker points off if any arguments are conceded or if new arguments are brought up later than first summary.
Come prepared, decide how you want to share the evidence. Do not assume other team may share evidence the same way (ex. google doc vs chat)
I strive to start rounds timely and be respectful of everyone's time and effort.
Low point wins are possible, but it has happened once only so far for me (so be confident but not rude).

I can follow decent speed but will prefer someone not to rush to put more in given time and not explain their case /argument properly or have unused time on hand. So pace yourself.

I am looking forward to honest, respectful debates from which both the debaters and I will learn debating and the topic. I am fairly easy going person but particular about respectful debates. I am getting familiar with debate jargons but not a master yet. I prefer to give immediate oral feedback as that may help debaters to improve for next round as well as may be looking at all feedbacks later may not give as much clarity and satisfaction. I do not mind debaters asking questions about my decision as long as it's done in respectful way.

I am learning and evolving with debaters. I debated a little during high school and college and love it now also. So let's keep the fun going. Enjoy the topic and debate process do not focus on winning and loosing. Every round you will learn and get better irrespective of outcome.

Thanks,

Neeru

Stephen Anthony Denver East High School

Roland Au-Yeung Summit HS

Alejandra Avila Hire

Hello! My name is Ale, (pronounced Alli) I love debate, especially cross ex and clash, but overall I believe debate should be educational and fun. So I love to see further exploration into the topic you're debating. And I am not a huge fan of just repeating the same points with no clash and not addressing your opponent's case, so make sure you get to addressing them sooner in the round rather than later! :)

*Important: I know my paradigm is pretty long, so if your in a rush just read the bolded parts since they are the key parts of my paradigm which show you how I will judge*

Debate: Make sure to follow the rules of your debate style, for example know how long your speeches are, and how long your prep time is. This not only shows you're a responsible debater but will help you a ton in rounds since you will be more prepared and know what to expect in the rounds.

- Case: For your case I highly recommend having the following and if you don't know what they are I urge you to watch a video on what they are or ask your coach; Framework, Definitions, Contentions, and Impacts. These all help make the debate easier to judge and understand. And help to make your debate round go more smoothly for you.

- Debate Round: In the debate round make sure you include the following; line by line, Roadmap, Contentions, Warrants, Impacts, and voters.

These things help you convince me that you should win:, for example with good contentions and voters I am told what your argument is and why it is better, opposed to leaving the reasoning of who is better up to chance make sure to at least make an attempt to compare your contentions to your opponents and prove you have the stronger contentions. Warrants are also very important since they help make what you are saying credible and harder to dispute. Impacts are what help make your contentions strong as well as your voters. Since they are the effect and value that your contentions hold, and most likely I will vote for the person with the bigger impacts in the round(the value of your impacts could be determined by framework so make sure you can prove that I should choose your framework).

* quick note on roadmaps; Please stick to them if you use them. Since not sticking to them and just ignoring them can end up confusing the judge and affecting how well they flow what you say which defeats the purpose of a roadmap.

- Speaker Points: These are pretty important in a debate since it shows what level you are with communicating and expressing your arguments to others. So some key things are; Memorize or be familiar with what your constructive speech will be so that you are able to communicate your points better and set yourself up for success in the round, try not to stall to much or not respond to your opponents when they ask you a question since part of being a good speaker is being prepared. Also make sure to be RESPECTFUL this is key to your speaker points and serious violations of this will result in point deductions (Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, ect). I like clashes but not at the cost of your opponents respect or feelings so please don't yell at them to seem in control of the debate, I understand emotions may run high but please try to keep your opponents feelings in mind, and your composure. Also the more eye contact you make while debating the higher your speaker points will be since this gives you a level of professionalism and helps to connect with the judge more. Spreading is ok, however keep in mind I judge what I can flow so I would highly recommend you don't spread through key contentions, or warrants, and especially when addressing your opponent make sure to tell me which contention or argument of theirs you're addressing clearly. Also some small but important parts of speaker points are keeping track of time and using all your time, I won't deduct for not using all your time but I have learned that if you use all your time it is less likely you forget to address a point or extend one of your contentions. Also line by lines and roadmaps help show you're a real expert at speaking.

Overall: The most important part of the debate is making sure you can communicate what your points are and your arguments to the judge. Because even if you have great points and arguments it's going to be hard to win without being able to communicate them to others. So please make sure to practice telling others what your case is and make sure that they can understand what you are saying and your arguments. Since this is jr. high debate I won't be too strict and technical with this stuff. But later on it's really important to know when and where you have to bring up the opponent's case and extend your arguments. Also if you have this down already as a jr high debater it will give you a leg up for future tournaments and high school debate.

- Also make sure to have FUN! This may be your first debate tournament for a lot of you, so don't stress it , this is going to be a lot of trial and error but eventually you'll get into the groove of things and debate will be even more fun and exciting. Remember you got this! ;)

Here is my email if you have any questions on how I judge or for any debate questions:

Aniketh Ayuluri Plano West Sr High School

Amit Bansal Leland High School

Hendry Bansbach Hire 9 rounds

Anissa Basu Hire 9 rounds

Anupama Bhargava Hamilton High School

Subash Bhattachan BASIS Independent McLean

Amira Bhutani Hire None

Vinita Bhutoria Mission San Jose High School

Last changed on Sat October 14, 2023 at 12:36 AM PDT

Hello, everyone! I'm excited to hear your debates. I have experience judging middle schoolers, but I’m newer to high school debate. I also have a strong background in speech, so I value clarity and effective communication. As a note, I do not flow, but I will take notes. Below are some important points to keep in mind as you approach the round:

1. Clarity > Speed

Please don’t spread. Make sure your arguments are clear and easy to follow. Speed will hurt your chances if I can’t understand what you're saying.

2. Explain Jargon

If you're using technical debate terms or jargon, please define them for me. I may not be familiar with every term, and explaining things helps me follow along and evaluate your argument better.

3. Signposting

Signpost your arguments clearly (e.g., "My first point is..."). This helps me take organized notes and keeps me on track with your case. If I can follow your structure easily, it’s much more likely I’ll consider your points seriously.

4. Why You Should Win

Tell me why you should win the round. Don’t just present arguments—explain the significance of each point. Give me a clear, direct reason I should select your side over your opponent’s. The more direct and persuasive you are in this explanation, the more likely you are to win my ballot. (Weigh, and when you use mechanisms, explain what they mean!)

5. Respectful Tone

A team that is disrespectful or uses derogatory language will not win. Debate is about respectful engagement and critical thinking. Show professionalism in your delivery and interaction with your opponents.

6. Source Credibility

When you use a source, tell me why it’s credible. I need to know why I should trust it. Without context for the source’s reliability, I cannot fairly weigh its value in your argument.

7. Communication

If you have any questions during the round, feel free to ask. I’ll address any issues as we go. Clear communication between us is key for a fair and smooth round.

8. NO THEORY OR Ks!

Good luck to all teams! I’m looking forward to hearing your arguments and how you engage with each other. Let’s make it a great debate!

Asha Biju Mountain House High School

Jamie Brashear Avenues: The World School

Ryann Cavens Denver East High School

Guanyi CEN Keyspeak

Murphy Chang Leland High School

Tanya Chatterjee Hire

Bo Chen Canyon Crest Academy

Lynn Chen Hamilton High School

Weiwei Chen Walter Johnson High School

Edgar Cheng Hire 9 rounds

Background in primarily World Schools Debating and BP, I am new to American HS debating formats like LD or PF. I believe that debaters should always give their speeches based on the assumption that their judge is stupid and won't easily understand their case.

Style

Some speed is fine but please don't spread. Anything I can't hear clearly, I won't credit, and I tend to prefer a measured pace anyways
I think debaters trying to be funny or swearing for emphasis tends to be gimmicky. Only be funny if you're actually funny.
I prefer being clear about the limitations of your argument vs. absolutist language. I tend to favor arguments which sound reasonable over arguments that go for the greatest possible impact.

Argumentation

Important: as I am unfamiliar with LD and PF, I am less likely to credit anything highly technical or theory-based like kritik etc. If you end up running this, be very clear 1) what any jargon means, and 2) why this should affect my judging more than other issues in the round.
I will credit implicit responses but won't weigh them as heavily as direct or flagged responses. So, signpost which arguments your response deals with and how much damage it deals to the opponent's case. I don't automatically decide verdicts based on unrebutted arguments; if you feel your argument is important and went unresponded to, don't just point out the lack of response, bring your argument back and explain why it should actually win you the round.
I will not accept assertions about the way the world works just because you said it works that way. Clearly ludicrous arguments will not be accepted at face value, but should still be responded to for the avoidance of doubt.
For real-world examples, remember that there are almost 200 countries in the world, please for the love of God don't just use examples from the USA.

Other

I will penalize speaks for equity violations. If you think you've said something insensitive, just apologize in chat afterwards and move on. Content warnings are encouraged but not mandatory.
I understand it is the norm in some formats to send fully written-out cases to judges. Go ahead, but know that I will judge primarily based on speeches, and will only reference written cases to clear up misunderstandings.

Karun Chinthapatla Westborough High School

John Dalzell NS Independent

Akshana Dassanaike North Allegheny

Malcolm Davis The Nueva School

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

Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Strath Haven and Edgemont. I have been judging quite actively since 2017. I started in public forum (where I often am to be found), but have coached and judged circuit LD and Policy from time to time. I went to college at Swarthmore, where I studied philosophy and history. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke! I am a staunch advocate of whimsy in all its forms!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! BOTH malcolmcdavis@gmail.com AND nuevadocs@gmail.com

REJOICE, FOR THE BAKER-WARRIORS OCCUPYING SPEECHDROP HAVE WITHDRAWN! I will be happy to usehttps://speechdrop.net/ I think speechdrop is a good choice for elim rounds, so spectators get docs as well. In rounds with spectators, I expect the debaters will offer to put the spectators on the email chain or allow them to view the speechdrop.

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

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

I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. Finally, I have an obligation to ensure this space is educational and welcoming (I will not allow teams to 'request' spectators not flow on laptops, for example.) I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a .docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (your opponent has a right to clear your formatting and read the very small text of your cards) (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before). All forms of documents with any kind of restrictions on editing or viewing are unacceptable forms of evidence sharing. PDFs are not acceptable forms of evidence sharing. If using google docs, save as .docx : also, if you need word, raise the jolly roger and avast! https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Script mac:https://massgrave.dev/office_for_mac

Each paradigm below is updated and moved to the top when I attend a tournament as a judge in that event, but feel free to scroll through all of them if you want a well rounded view on how I judge.

he/him

----

PF Paradigm (updated for emory 25):

Judging paradigm for PF.

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name. Also, I just simply have never judged a round where the quantifications or lack thereof have been the deciding factor, do with this info what you will but probably don't triumphantly extend "this is not quantified!!!!" as your only piece of summary defense with me judging. Additionally, I think weighing that doesn't explicitly compare arguments is hardly weighing. We lack standard units in a debate round, so we must place two things on the scale rather than just one. See the excellent McClean 12 ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42663583?seq=3 ) for more on this !

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch. I flow by ear and will generally only read evidence if I am interested to, told to during the debate, or need to verify a fact assertion like a post-date.

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

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am largely uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure, and am troubled by the ways in which theory debates sometimes trivialize questions of 'safety' and 'accessibility' which are almost always under explained and under warranted. I am historically a bad judge for theory, but I love a good T debate.

That said, I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully! I tend to assign speaker points based on the quality of your strategic choice making rather than the quality of your oration, but I am happy to reward effective orators with higher speaker points as well.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Guattari, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. I enjoy a good Kant debate, but I think these debates are at their best when they are comparing relevant warrants from pieces of well-cut framing evidence, rather than going for dropped analytics that are in the connective tissue of your framework argument.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

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

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging cx. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

Lekshmi Devi Venugopal BASIS Phoenix High School

Ava Devlin Hire 9 rounds

Pradeep Dondapati Emerald High School

Laurice Duan The Chapin School

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 3:38 PM CDT

overall:

i don't know the topic at all. don't expect me to know something unless you've given me the context for it. send me speech docs (lauriceduan@utexas.edu)!!! please make debate a safe and educational space!! don't be sexist/ableist/racist/homophobic/etc, respect pronouns, and use appropriate content warnings. email me if you ever feel unsafe in round. also upon further reflection, i think i may be more of a flay judge than a flow judge - take that as you will.

general pf info

- tech > truth
- pleaseeeeeeee come pre-flowed
- i'm okay with pf speed. i hate flowing off a speech doc. i'll do it if you really want me to, but i'll be annoyed about it
- i don't listen to cross at all. like not even in the slightest. if something important happens, it has to make its way into a speech. if both teams want to skip gcx, y'all can both get a minute of prep. if you insist on having gcx, you have to be nice to each other. nothing is worse than a gcx where everyone is being mean to each other (will reflect in speaks).
- time yourself and your opponents because i will not be! if there are disputes about time, y'all will have to figure out an agreement
- second rebuttal MUST answer any offensive arguments, or it's conceded
- defense is NOT sticky
- offense needs to be extended through summary and ff for me to evaluate it. if your opponents don't, call them out!! i don't want to do that work for you. please extend. i beg.
- weighing needs to be in summary, but it can start even earlier. i won't look at new weighing in ff
- please extend evid by content and not author names. i don't flow author names (sorry)
- warranted claims > evidence with no warrants

technical pf info

- i presume neg for policy resolutions and first speaking team for on balance resolutions. if you want me to presume differently, just tell me why!
- i will almost always disclose unless the tournament tells me not to
- don't say you're conceding the delink to kick out of the turn. tell me what the delink is and how that gets you out of turns.
- i won't call for evidence unless it's the most important arg in the round. i think it's interventionist, but if y'all want me to intervene, i will. just don't have bad evid ethics!!
- i try to give high speaks (think 28.7+) because i think people who don't are pretentious. lowest i go is 27 - obviously that changes if you were mean/rude or problematic

progressive

- i can evaluate basic theory shells (disclosure, paraphrasing, tw, etc.) - run at your own risk though. if you are in novice/jv and run theory (or any prog arg), then you will be held to a much higher standard for extensions and frontlines. i will also be a lot more lenient on the other team who has to respond. if you are comfortable running progressive arguments, you should be in varsity
- default to competing interps/counter interps > reasonability and no rvis, unless you tell me otherwise
- if you think you have a well-warranted progressive argument and want to read it, do what you want! i will do my best to follow along, just be patient with me :( i don't trust my ability to evaluate Ks, tricks, etc.
- i think tw are helpful, and i'd rather be safe than sorry. if you're ever triggered in a round, do not hesitate to tell me to stop the round, we can figure it out from there.

- i truly don't know anything. we're in for a ride if i'm your ld judge because i have only debated ONE ROUND of ld
- treat me as a lay judge. i'm sorry in advance.
- if you feel miserable with me as your judge, just know I feel more miserable being your judge
- i don't know the topic, speech times, speaking order, norms, etc. DO THE WORK FOR ME, SIGN POST, AND GIVE ME EASY VOTERS
- open to you teaching me new things about ld that i might not know before or after round, but please don't be condescending
- i'm generally okay with post-rounding. if you disagree with my decision and want to talk to me about it, go for it. but if i make a wrong decision, it's probably slightly on you given the amount of warnings i gave above & you can convince me that i made the wrong decision, but i can't change the ballot. all that will happen is you will still have lost, and i will feel bad.

happy debating and good luck!! have fun out there :)

Patrick Dugan Hire

Radwa ElBehery Hamilton High School

Sierra Erdman-Luntz The Blake School

Carrie Ergin Horace Mann School

Gopikrishna Eriki Strawberry Crest High School

Zach Fleesler The Nueva School

Last changed on Mon October 28, 2024 at 2:30 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Zach, an assistant coach with Nueva, I competed/coached forPF and Parli at Trinity from 2020-2024, and I now attend Oxford, studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, debating British Parliamentary (bleh)

they/them pronouns, call me whatever u want in round idrc.

Add me to the chain(all emails please) or if you have any questions: zbf104@gmail.com , zachary.fleesler@univ.ox.ac.uk , nuevadocs@gmail.com

Debate is a game, but a fun, educational, research game, with that in mind:

Update for King RR

I have been out of competition for about a year atp, and although I still judge rounds in practice I probably cant flow as fast as I could when I was a competitor. Go as fast as you want, just send a doc pls

Quick Prefs

High Theory/Phil/Pomo/Performance/the non-t K
The normal K
Case debate/T/Tricks
Theory/Counterplans (unless parli then this is a 2)
Stock issues (bleh)

speaker points are broken so here's a list of things you can do:

bring me like a mt dew or sm other good soda (+1)
Show me that you are following @nuevapublicforum on Instagram (+1)
bring me a snack (chips etc.) (+1)
make me audibly laugh in round (+1)
properly weighed dev world impacts!!! (sorry I'm bias) +1

Top Shelf Stuff

Off the flow stuff(safety, trix etc)>ROTJ/B>K>T>THEORY>SUBSTANCE

(I can be convinced otherwise)

My ROTJ is to be an educator, not an impartial adjudicator, meaning issues like safety must come first in round. I will auto-drop teams for any isms, misgendering, or other forms of linguistic violence.

(I can be convinced otherwise, not that safety doesn't matter but that other things do etc.)

Default Competing Interps/No RVIs

(I can be easily convinced otherwise)

Permissibility and presumption both go neg/opp/con

(I can be convinced, less easily of these but still open)

Stuff that you probably want to know for both PF and Parli

Fairness is not a voter in and of itself, whine about unfairness, I do not care.
Based on that, I do not like fairness T, please run clash or something better, or honestly be good at debate and change my mind on fairness, I won't hack.
I read(present tense) a lot of K literature. I read(past tense) mostly killjoy, queer pess, and futurity stuff on the circuit, but my research expanded much beyond that so if you have anything interesting, go for it. Obviously be sure to explain it well, especially for your opponents, however if you are in varsity, you should have a basic understanding of K lit.
There are two types of k rounds, if I know the lit or if I don't. If I do, the round is probably much easier for you as you can just worry about winning on the flow. If I don't know the lit, I need to know exactly why I am voting aff/neg by the 2a/2nr. If you don't know if I know it, just ask!
Debate is fun! Friv theory is funny! Trix are tricky!
Probability analysis is not weighing it is defense. You can lie to me and call it weighing tho idrc.
Disclosure is probably a good thing, paraphrasing is probably bad.
Evidence Ethics are always voting issues.
I like speed, however it can be inaccessible at times. In Parli if you are cleared, clear, and in PF anything over like 250-300 send a doc for your opponents. I will try to flow you and can reasonablywell up to 350, but if you know you're going faster or even around there, definitely, send a doc. Not against flowing off the doc tho.

I learned PF from a lot of different people of a lot of different mindsets about the activity, so I'm really open to any kind of debate you want to have. If both sides agree I can like put my flow away and be a parent, a 2016 "logic and warrants come before everything else" pf judge (shoutout GOAT coach Zachy G!!), or just do the hypertech tabula rasa eval every card for what it says and take ev over everything. I see the merit in all of those so it's really up to the debaters.
I will default to the hypertech because it requires the least thought from me, if you do not give me a carded extension in the backhalf you wont get my ballot.
Tech>Truth (even if I'm a mom I wont intervene)
You need to implicate cards onto links, either in the tag or after, dont make me do the work, it won't be done.
Cross is instagram time, have fun and point out concessions in the next speech please!
Uniqueness is the most important substantial voter in the round, tell me how the uniqueness actually flows the direction of your link.
I swear to god if you don't weigh and both sides have offense I will vote for the side with a higher number just to not be interventionist. If you don't have the higher number and you dont weigh, you dont deserve the round.
NOTHING IS STICKY, IF ITS NOT IN THE PREVIOUS SPEECH I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. (I did this so much and I'm just now realizing how difficult it makes rounds to evaluate)
STOLEN FROM LES PHILLIPS: "If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections."
If the round is over over, your opponents have no paths to the ballot(at any point), call a TKO and ill give you W30s, if you're wrong though you will in fact lose and get L26s.

Parli

For the love of god, Opp teams, you are debating the Gov, not the motion... Respond to their advocacy, respond to their plan, dont just prep a case about the motion. Predict them, read them, and write some good disads. Worst case prep a cp during their speech. The purpose of the Opp is not to create a new advocacy, it is to disprove the gov.
For the love of god, Gov teams, don't just debate the motion word for word, you have framing power, you have plan power. Parli is unfathomably opp skewed dont make this harder for yourself, creative(yet not abusive) definitions, and a specific plan-text can shift out of so much offense.
Adding on, if this is a policy motion and the gov doesn't read a plan, my ballot is already cast. What is the opp opposing??
Frameworks are really cool. I was (ig am) a framework debater. Net bens is still my default, but fw should be just as malleable as your case, and I don't see anyone else reading the same case every round. I ran deon, too much SV, Hegel, Lenin's vanguard, anthro, progressivism etc.
If the LOC doesn't respond to the gov case, my ballot is also already signed. There is no debate at that point, the LOC needs to rejoind the gov claims, not make their own, they dont meet their fundamental debate burdens so I cant vote for them.
Im sorry, I'm a flow debater at heart. If its not in the PMR or LOR its not on my ballot, I wont extend stuff for you. Just because its parli doesn't mean you get to be lazy

Misc.

I am personally left-leaning, however I do try to check my ideology at the door when judging. I really like china, socialism, theory, and other associated things. I may subconsciously look at arguments differently because of my worldview, but everyone does, I'm just trying to get ahead of it and admit it. (this isn't that serious i vote on non-soft or hard left args all the time, but debaters usually like to know this sort of thing.

Alexander Florescu Hire 9 rounds

Grace Flynn Hire 9 rounds

Leigh Fong Horace Mann School

Brandon Ford Central HS Springfield

Last changed on Tue April 23, 2024 at 10:07 AM CDT

Hey, my name is Brandon and my pronouns are he/him. I did debate in high school, mainly PF but also some policy. Then in college I participated in NPDA and NFA-LD debate. Now, I'm in law school, and I sometimes judge for in-person high school tournaments. I consider myself a flow judge, borderline tabula rasa, but with some exceptions I'll get into.

For all debate, I'm good with a very fast speech. I like being in on the Speechdrop, but especially so if you plan on spreading. Also, I'm fine with super technical language and jargon. During the round, I focus almost exclusively on the arguments rather than the way in which the arguments are delivered. I usually give high speaks, and the only differention between them is how well I thought you argued your case.

I'm open to almost any argument that you can make. The only thing I typically won't consider is arguments that deny reality, like if you argue that the sky is neon green, I'm not going to buy that. Other than that, if your argument is well warranted, I'm likely going to buy it for purposes of the round. I also appreciate when debates get down to the real impacts, and I like arguments that focus on impact weighing. I also encourage debaters to explain why their impact is good/bad, rather than assuming that the impact speaks for itself.

For policy debate specifically, I go into a round with a stock issues-mindset, but will entertain any framework, including Aff Ks if that's your thing.

In-round, I do care about debaters being kind to one another. One of my debate regrets is that I wasn't nicer to my opponents. This activity should be fun, and everyone being kind to one another helps make it more enjoyable for everyone. During the round, I'll be flowing every argument. The only time I do not flow is during cross-examination. CX or crossfire is your opportunity to help clarify your understanding of your opponent's case, maybe tee up some arguments. If something happens in CX, just make sure to bring it up during a speech so I get it on the flow.

Feel free to time yourself! I'll keep time as well, but I'll do my best to start the timer when you do. My philosophy on "grace time" is that I'll give you like 10 seconds to finish up your point, but my ears turn off after that.

I think that's everything! If you have questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to clarify any part of this paradigm.

Shuhag Ghosh Horace Mann School

Andrew Gibson The Bronx High School Of Science

Asit Goel Westborough High School

Mia Goldberg The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sat October 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM EDT

Mia Goldberg (they/them)

I did PF in high school, and I’m in university now. I am a flow judge and generally tech>truth. Tournament permitting, I will disclose and give RFD - time permitting, I will be as thorough as possible. My feedback is meant to help you improve in debate, so make sure to ask questions if needed; judges are your resources.

How to win the round:

WARRANT everything. Don't just read card names. Be thorough in explaining your logic and layering your cards to build a sound argument.
WEIGH starting in rebuttal. Compare your impacts to your opponents’, and tell me why yours is better through magnitude, probability, time frame, etc. Good weighing = why I should vote for you.
Have a NARRATIVE throughout the round, from start to finish. Treat your case like a story, and always be clear, cohesive, and concise.

Strategic Advice/Preferences:

Collapse and extend. You are really unlikely to win by going for ALL 5 contentions. Try not to bring up new things in summary, and definitely not in final focus (I won't flow it).
Framework that is uncontested or conceded will be used to evaluate the round.
Signpost where you are on the flow. It helps you, your opponents, and me. I appreciate line-by-line debating.
Time yourself. I will also time and let you know when you are over. I would rather hear you finish your point than cut it off abruptly but consistently going overtime is generally disrespectful as tournaments run on a schedule (I may dock your speaker points).
Crossfire is to ask questions, not to read cards, unless both teams agree to it. I don’t flow/decide on cross so make sure to bring anything important back into your speeches.
Read relevant content warnings before case.
I prefer sharing case + cards in email chain (or Google doc) as I find it improves the accessibility of debate, but it is up to the teams to go with/without it.
I prefer you don't run theory/k’s.

Finally:

DO NOT be discriminatory, rude, abusive, insensitive, etc - You risk being reported or at best you will get a 25. There is absolutely no place for this in debate (or anywhere else). Always conduct yourself in a way you, your team, and your coaches can be proud of.

Let me know if you need anything extra and I will do my best to accommodate you.

Have fun and good luck!

Miamlg117@gmail.com

Iraida Gonzalez Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Zhumei Guo CR North High School

Eliza Haas The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:32 AM PDT

Quick update for 2025:I'm not judging/coaching quite as frequently, so please make sure to define topic-specific acronymns and the like, rather than assuming I already know them.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow. Weigh, weigh, weigh, based on what actually happened in that specific round.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t be mean or punch down..

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

Mohammed O. Habeeb Harbinger Academy

Nagarajan Hariharan North Allegheny

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 1:09 AM EDT

Hi, my name is Naga, and I'll be your judge today!

As a judge, I will be impartial and be objective in my decision. Please note that I am a parent judge and therefore do not know most debate or topic terminologies. You can use certain obvious debate jargon like turn, probability, or non-unique, but do not use terms that non-debaters will not be able understand. Please explain the points you are making, such as why it is a non-unique or why it is a turn, so I can understand the point you are trying to make. If I don't understand what you are saying, I will not be able to take it into account for my final decision.

The way I will judge will be thoughtful and analytical. I value tech over truth and follow the sky is red theory, meaning if an argument may be inherently flawed, but it is warranted and front-lined well and has a clear and quantifiable impact, I will buy it. The way I judge a round is first looking at who won the main arguments or clashes of the round, and I "award" these contentions or arguments to each of the teams based on who wins them. Then, I vote the contentions based on the quantified impacts and the relevance towards the round (aka the weighing debate). I expect you to do the heavy lifting for me, meaning you need to weigh these impacts and explain why you win the clashes of the round yourself.

In summary, to win my ballot, speak slowly, clearly, concisely, and confidently, and support your arguments with evidence and thoughtful analysis. Most likely, I will not vote for a contention that does not quantify the impact because I need to see the impact put into perspective.There are exceptions, but majority of the time, I expect clear link chains, evidence, and a quantifiable impact.

In crossfire, I expect to see that you allow your opponents air time to express their points and answer your questions. I will penalize you for being abusive towards your opponents, so remember to be respectful towards your opponents and towards me as a judge. I will not tolerate any statement that is extremely racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.

In this debate, I hope not only to be a fair judge, but also learn a lot about these topics. Good luck!

C. David Hartman Rye High School None

Karishma Hattar Del Norte High School None

John Holen Lincoln East High School

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 11:51 AM CDT

Note for TOC: while I enjoy judging PF and I have judged 3 circuit tournaments this year, it is not my normal event. I am a Policy judge and coach most of the time. At the end of the day it's hard to turn that part of my brain off. So if you want a more traditional PF round, you should strike me.

Disclosure expectations for bid tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

PGP: they/them

- I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Background/experience: Head coach at Lincoln East (11-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (mostly LD with some Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Equity statement: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

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

Overview for all events

Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.
I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.
On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm a bit over 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and, after that, I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.
Slow down a tiny bit + vary your pitch for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your back-to-back analytics when you're going 400wpm with no pauses and no clear markers of where arguments begin and end.

Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!

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

Note for TOC: while I enjoy judging PF, it is not my normal event. I am a Policy judge and coach most of the time. At the end of the day it's hard to turn that part of my brain off. So if you want a more traditional PF round, you might want to strike me.

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and run well, I dig it. However,I do not like 'blippy' frivelous theory like tricks. In other words, it needs to be warranted and explained like any other argument.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics assuming it's argued and extended properly. Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).
To clarify/elaborate on the above,I am specificallydown for: disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me or have some really good blocks ready.
I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF (and especially hate friv theory)but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

I find that PF tends to demand a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow.
"Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

In short:

speed for depth is good
speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad.
I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result.
You also need to slow down just a touch for tags and analytics!
A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity and do not explain arguments. So be clear and warrant things out if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out and I'd prefer you to not go for everything.
All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense). I also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.
On that note,I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.
I hate bullying/aggressive rudeness in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.
The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own casein their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

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

Congress

Background (you can probably skip this tbh): I am usually East's primary congress coach meaning I am working with the dockets every week. I have experience coaching and judging at both the state and national levels. I have had 4 TOC qualifiers, 14 (?) NSDA national qualifiers, a state champion, and an NSDA Senate finalist as well as a House semifinalist.

Generally, I see Congress as being best judged on 3 factors: the strength of argumentation, speaking abilities, and round presence. I will briefly outline my expectations for each below. Feel free to ask if anything doesn't make sense.

Also, for Nebraska debaters reading this before quals, please do not treat this like other debate events. If you speed read your speech, try to do 'line-by-line,' run a kritik, or anything else that is clearly not intended for Congress you can expect that you will not be ranked and your speech scores will be exceptionally low.

Argumentation:

A good portion of this comes from the logic and evidence presented in your speech. Things I consider include factual accuracy, logical consistency, recency of evidence, and internal warranting. I also will listen to questioning to assess how well you are able to defend your arguments, so please take questioning seriously!

Speaking abilities:

While I mostly did LD and Congress in high school, I dabbled in speech (by that I mean I was a state finalist) and I now teach communication studies. I feel that Congress is unique among debate events in that it encourages students to utilize more persuasive elements during their speeches. Thus, you should not operate under the assumption that I'm going to treat this like a Policy or LD round. I will factor the quality of the speaker into my assessment. This also includes during questioning.

I look for things like: body language/gestures, paralinguistic elements of vocal delivery (ie tone, pace, volume, emphasis, etc), speech structure (including your intro/preview, and internal argument structure) and word choice/diction.

Round presence:

By this, I mean your role in advancing the debate, questioning speakers, and ensuring the chamber is efficient. I will be looking for refutation and extension of prior arguments that help keep the debate. On this note, I hate rehash as it either indicates a lack of awareness of what prior speakers have said, or an inability to adapt your speeches on the fly. I also am looking at how your questions contribute to the debate as well as how they demonstrate an understanding of the round and topic. Finally, I am expecting that you help ensure the chamber is efficient by recognizing when motions are necessary and appropriate. For example, if the debate has clearly reached its endpoint on a bill, I really appreciate a representative that will move the previous question so that we aren't beating a dead horse.

A note for POs:

I will rank POs. My team has had several students who made a habit of winning tournaments as POs in the past, so I very much respect the skill of a good PO. However, it is not automatic. Typically, for a PO to get ranked, they should run an efficient house. A great PO is notable not because they are constantly inserting themselves, but rather because they have such clear and effective procedures in place that I barely have to think about them until they are needed. That said, I do think that if the house is 'out of order' (ie they are doing things like going over time, not following procedures, having a one-sided debate, or, god forbid, being offensive) a good PO will step in to remind the house of the rules and decorum that are expected of them.

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

LDers on the nat circuit: Sorry if you have to have me as a judge. I vastly prefer to stay in policy land because I am a judge that wants effective spreading and in-depth analysis rather than mumbled analytics/tags with no clear labeling and blippy arguments from people doing a cosplay of bad Policy. So in other words, I like everything that circuit LD seems to be allergic to right now. But my team needs their obligation covered so here I am. So read my paradigm and adapt or deal with my rant about how annoying circuit LD is.

Argument ratings

K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10
Performance: 10 out of 10
T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10
LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10
Phil (aka trad): 6 out of 10
T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 4 out of 10
Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

Speed in person: 8.5/10
Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

In short, the order I resolved arguments**

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

**Note: I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should. See below ofr a detailed break down of this ordering.

The most important specifics:

A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand thatspeed should never come at the expense of clarity. I low key hate judging circuit LD due to this inability to spread well. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.
That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.
I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.
I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.
Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).
If you want to win any argument and especially theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, it's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.
Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.
For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.
For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

Not so short explanation of how I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)
Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard
I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online
Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.
I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.
Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.
I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.
For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.
That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.
I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.
My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.
I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.
I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.
Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.
In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.
Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.
Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.
Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.
I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).
Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.
There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.
Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.
One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.
This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????
Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.
So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

Max Hong Hire 9 rounds

Sandy Hong NS Independent

Wenyao Hu Germantown Academy

Amy Huang The Bronx High School Of Science

Tieying Huang Scarsdale High School

Yakub Islamov Lincoln East High School

Yogini Jamdar Leland High School

Ankur Jaswal Folsom High School

Xiomara Jean Louis Thomas S. Wootton

Gary Ji Horace Mann School

Hong Jiang Syosset High School

Jintao Jiang Langley

Sky Juinio The Nueva School

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 7:50 AM PDT

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

add both emails to the chain:

spjuinio@gmail.com

nuevadocs@gmail.com

if you would prefer to set up a speechdrop instead of an email chain, that works too! no matter the agreed-upon avenue for exchanging speech docs, it should be set up before the round starts. i do not like wasting time searching for evidence in the middle of a round. do not fear the exchange! there should be nothing for you to hide.

while on the topic of time, please try to have pre-flows done before the round. as you can tell, i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. there are many ways to win my ballot. ordinarily, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do not forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in your round helps me follow your speeches and ensures i get as much information down as possible. generally, judge instructions are helpful for everyone participating in the round. it is for that same reason that i highly encourage signposting. jargon is useful for clarifying the functions of your responses, but you should take some time to elaborate on the actual response you're making for an easier evaluation. without such elaboration and an overreliance on jargon, i might not fully understand or buy into your points. in addition to your storytelling and organization, you should extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

sometimes, students desire to read arguments that do not involve the usual narrative building in debate (e.g. tricks). these are quite controversial, but i have evaluated and voted on such arguments before. debate is a game, so play strategically. if you can persuade me to vote on it, i'll do it.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. you should aim to finish punctually. if you're mid-sentence after your allocated speech time has ended, you can finish your statement. however, i stop flowing after an additional 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round or competition. write down or type suggestions that you find useful (this might even help you practice flowing better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. let any decision, win or lose, motivate you to become a better debater. i truly want you to be! i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or if the next round is expedited to stay on schedule. if you want me to give you feedback and i was unable to, or you'd like further clarification on my comments, know that i accept emails and other online messages. i'll do my best to respond.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses, so read real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. voters should be terminalized (e.g. if fairness, education, etc is good, what does it look like? how have your opponent(s) killed fairness, education, etc?). tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. please don’t forget your alternative. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your points well and i might vote for you. i just find it difficult to grant offense to an argument with no advocacy). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i read every piece of evidence in the back half, so don't be lazy. evidence only counts when extended properly. otherwise, your "evidence" flows as analysis. make sure to identify cards correctly and elaborate on their significance. tell me why your cards are so great. ultimately, your evidence should enhance your narrative coherence. parli debaters need not worry about my typical stance on evidence because parli is a non-evidentiary format.

public forum debaters should practice complementary partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking some prep time before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments mentioned in the final focus need to be brought up in summary for me to evaluate them. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on arguments you are genuinely winning. additionally, i tend not to evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. the exception is when i am specifically told to vote on analysis and given reasons why i should do so. this is a rare occurrence. typically, reading zero evidence leads me to presume neg because i cannot test the truth of your claims. i am not asking that you regurgitate what your cards state verbatim or reread every piece of evidence from constructive, but you should read at least one carded link and impact. i’ll consider any analytics if they logically correspond to your evidence. i look to the link debate to determine whether you access your impacts, so extend your arguments well! winning the link debate means you are winning your impacts. on the impact level, please weigh, meta-weigh, and terminalize! knowing exactly what i am voting for helps me vote for you confidently.

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Sangeeta Kalyani Ardrey Kell High School

Alok Kapoor NS Independent

Shikhar Kaul Del Norte High School

Priti Khanna Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

EUN-YOUNG KHO Del Norte High School

Jamie Kim Hire

Johnny Kopinja NS Independent

Amit Kulshreshtha BASIS Phoenix High School

Amit Kumar CR North High School

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 3:15 PM EDT

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my for the last 2 years. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

POLICY:

Truth > Tech

Please ask me for my email in order to add me to the email chain. I'm not a big fan of spreading, but will not penalize debaters for doing so. However, I may not be able to keep up with it and it may ending up harming my understanding of your arguments and I may not be able to flow it. I prioritize clear speaking and factual arguments with clear evidence.

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

Nirmala Kummathi Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Mehul Lakhanpal Horace Mann School

brian lam Hunter College

Truman Le The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 5:37 PM CDT

I'm a Master's student at UTHealth Houston.

I did LD at Westwood from 2015-2019.

I have been an active judge since then. From 2019-2022 I coached debaters from Westwood and DebateDrills (but am no longer affiliated with either program), as well as other independents. I've also taught at TDC and UTNIF.

Email: trumantle@gmail.com, but I prefer speech drop.

Kandi King RR Note: This is likely the last tournament I’ll ever judge at. I will probably care more about good vibes than I normally do (sassiness in CX is fine this is more about unnecessary hostility/rudeness), and I’ll boost speeds accordingly. If you’re a senior and/or I’ve judged you a good amount, you should let me know and I’ll also boost speaks/make some nod to your career/accomplishments.

---

2025 Update:

1] I'm significantly more impressed with debaters that don't require a laptop to give rebuttal speeches. If you give a good rebuttal speech without a laptop in your face and off paper, I'll give you a 30. Obviously I'm the judge of what a "good" rebuttal is but there'll probably be a boost regardless. I am not a fan of debaters reading off a script for an entire rebuttal at top speed.

2] I will follow along the doc to check for clipping/read evidence, but I am not flowing off the doc. Debaters have gotten extremely unclear and it's become unflowable. It should be pretty obvious if I am not flowing/unable to flow a part of the debate. Adjacently, it would greatly benefit debaters to slow down and explain things, you will like my decision more.

3] I am not a good judge for tricks debates and would prefer not to see it, as I'm bad at catching hidden tricks and bad at flowing a bunch of tricky args bundled together. This, however, does mean I'm more ok with substantive/less tricky stuff (log con, falsifiability NC) as opposed to one-liners intended to avoid clash/debate (condo logic, indexicals). I evaluate every speech.

---

Main things:

1] I am most comfortable judging policy-style debates and T/theory debates, though the worse the shell gets, the more unhappy I am. I am comfortable judging phil and kritik debates if they don't get too advanced for my brain (which also seems to happen when debaters over rely on buzzwords to explain their arguments). I am not comfortable judging tricks debates, and though I will still evaluate those debates, your speaks will likely take a hit and my threshold for answering those arguments is much lower than other arguments.

2] My views on debate have mostly been shaped by Rodrigo Paramo, Morgan Grosch, and Jugal Amodwala. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. I also agree with Rodrigo Paramo on evidence ethics and trigger warnings.

3] Your chance of getting a ballot significantly goes up if you write my ballot for me somewhere in your speech. Whether that means framing arguments at the top or slowing down on key things or making things simple at the end of your rebuttal is up to you.

4] My perspective on tricks is the more I believe the argument is used to avoid clash the less I like it and the less likely I'll vote on it. This seems to exclude a lot of arguments debaters tend to read now, including but not limited to "evaluate the debate after the 1AC," indexicals, tacit ballot conditional, and various other paradoxes/1AR restart strategies. This is in large part because I just don't understand these arguments, but also because of my belief these arguments are not beneficial or educational to the activity. If you're not sure whether an argument is too tricky to read in front of me, err on the side of caution, or just email me pre-round.

5] I believe in open-source disclosure. I think most disclosure arguments that go beyond this are bad (contact info, round reports, actual tournament name, etc.).

6] I give speaks based on how far I believe your performance would get you at the tournament I'm judging at (which also tends to mean I give generally lower speaks at octas bid tournaments compared to finals bid tournaments). Yes I will disclose speaks if requested.

7] I require much more explanation for arguments than you think I do. Many 2AR's that I've judged go for a 3-second argument in the 1AR that I did not catch/have an understanding for, and many 2NR's that I've judged blitz through overviews of the theory of power/philosophical position that I cannot keep up with. Either slow down or be clearer in explanations, especially in online debates. You will not be happy with my RFD if I don't catch something because you're blitzing too fast.

8] I am extremely visually expressive. You should almost always be able to tell if I like something/find something confusing.

9] I don't know anything about this topic. Err towards overexplaining and try not to use too many acronyms.

Elizabeth Lee Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Jae Il Lee Leland High School

Daniel Li Kennedy

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 10:15 AM EDT

update for Columbia: I have not been very involved in debate recently, so please no prog, I definitely cannot evaluate it, and please chill with the speed (<1000 words should be okay for 4m speech)

tjhsst '24 he/him (some parts of my paradigm are stolen from alec boulton)

please ask before the round if you have any questions about my paradigm!! also feel free to ask questions after the round, but no postrounding

**also please time yourselves I will not be timing**

Add me to the email chain dli447890@gmail.com

tech = truth (a dropped argument is true, unless it's just plain wrong (this only applies in very black and white scenarios, like you saying the sky is neon pink). The more goofy (squirrely) an argument, the lower my threshold for responses is)

grand cross is a grand waste of time. if you skip it +0.5 speaks (but no extra prep time). I don't pay attention to the other crossfires, so tell me in a speech if something important happens.

Speed trades off with clarity, the faster you go, the less likely I am to be able to flow everything you say. If it's not on my flow, it doesn't exist, and I don't flow off docs. So basically, don't spread.

-Traditional-

Give me real extensions. "Extend our argument" is not an extension. "Extend Cortez" isn't one either. I also don't care for the card name. I need warrants.

Dump if you want, but at least be responsive. Not really a fan of DAs. All your responses should be warranted and implicated. Turns or link-ins need to be weighed.

Second rebuttal needs to frontline. It may be strategic to collapse.

Defense isn't sticky. If it wasn't in summary, it no longer exists.

Weigh. "We outweigh on probability because [insert a response you forgot to read]" is not weighing. If an argument is won, the probability is 100%, unless their evidence specifically says something like "there is an x% chance this happens". Scrap weighing categories like "time frame" and "magnitude," just tell me why your offense is more important.

Terminalize your impacts. "20% GDP" isn't an impact. What does 20% GDP lead to?

-Progressive-

don't lol

Paraphrase and don't disclose if you want. An absurd amount of judges are incredibly biased and basically auto-drop teams that don't paraphrase or disclose as long as any half-written interp is read because they think they're doing something good. It's disappointing.

-Evidence-

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and take speaks off or give you the L depending on how bad it is. If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything (I require evidence in constructive though). The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are doing debate for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. Use your brain, it's a good one. Evidence is very nice, and research is important, but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

good evidence = good analysis > bad evidence > bad logic

-Speaks-

I will go from 26-30, 28 average (unless you're discriminatory or disrespectful). Speaks decided based on crossfire, rhetoric, & strategy. Being funny or entertaining will probably boost your speaks.

Tina Li Phillips Exeter Academy

Last changed on Fri January 19, 2024 at 1:15 PM EDT

I was a varsity public forum debater and have since graduated. It's been a while since I debated though, so speaking fast probably isn't in your best interest if you want me to understand your arguments. I also tend to lean more toward truth over tech. Here's what I expect during rounds:

First and foremost, please be respectful to your opponents and partners. Not showing respect is the easiest way to lose speaker points.

The first rebuttal doesn't need to extend contentions from their own case. In fact, they shouldn't, but the second rebuttal does need to respond to their opponent's case while also frontlining (answering responses made by your opponent on your own case). Neither side needs to start weighing in rebuttal, but if you have time left in your speech, try to use all of it.

Summary speeches should begin weighing (comparative analysis of each side's arguments that tells the judge how they should evaluate an argument over the other). Condense the round: DO NOT go for all the arguments in your case. Choose the most important ones on both sides. I want to see clash between aff and neg. Of course, summaries should extend all of their contention's uniqueness, link chain, and impact. If you do not extend your offense, I can't vote for you.

Final focus speeches should condense the round further and extend the arguments made through summary. There shouldn't be any new analysis being made at this point. Weighing is going to be super important. Don't forget to give a brief extension of your case! I can't emphasize this enough: if you don't extend your offense, I have no reason to vote for you.

Additional Notes: I can handle slightly faster speeds, but spread at your own risk. (Novices should not be spreading). Also, if you're reading this and going, "What the heck is she talking about," you're still in a good place. Ask questions before the round, and just do your best! At the end of the day, we're here to learn and have fun.

Hopefully, you found this info helpful. Reach out by email (tinal6110@gmail.com) if you have any questions.

Wei LI Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Lichen Liang NS Independent

Emma Listgarten Hire 9 rounds

Hui Liu Valley Christian High School

Tony Liu The Blake School

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 6:02 AM CDT

General:

Senior at Blake.

please come to round ready and preflowed

You can email or ask me before rounds if you have questions about my paradigm

Tech>Truth

I will not evaluate probability weighing that functions as new link/impact defense.

You can not "clear" your opponents

I require complete tags. "and", "moreover", "independently" by themselves are not proper tags to introduce new links/impacts. This also applies to rebuttals. Turns with blippy tags such as "Turn: Security cooperation", are not complete tags. I have a low threshold for extrapolated implications/weighing against arguments with incomplete tags

Barring explicit concessions made by the other team, zero risk does not exist and neither does 100% risk. That's true of dropped arguments too. Dropped arguments are only as true as the warrants are true, and their implications can still be debated.

Similarly, the link matters more than uniqueness because uniqueness is not a yes/no question. When you say, "Recession's coming" you're not saying with 100% certainty a recession will happen. If that were the case, a recession would happen irregardless of whether the resolution passes or not.

Evidence:

Email chains or speech drop for evidence exchange

For email chains please add both:

tzliu25@blakeschool.org and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

label the chain appropriately, ex. UK Season Opener R1 : Blake BL 1st AFF vs. Lakeville LM 2nd NEG

If you paraphrase you must have a cut card ready

Prog:

I require more handholding for K and phil rounds than for LARP/theory rounds.

I have a low treshold for responses to friv/tricks

I am inclined to believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosing all ev is good.

I dislike IVI's. This does not mean I will automatically drop them, but that you'll have lower speaks and that I will have a lower threshold for responses to the IVI. Either make it into a shell or a K.

I will only jurisdict in round violations and disclosure norms.

Timing/Speed:

Time your own prep

I will try to time speeches and cross but I will probably forget

Speed is fine but be clear

I will not be flowing off doc

Columbia:

Decent topic knowledge.

I would prefer not to see theory or K's in the novice division

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

Some things I would like to see in round:

1. Every speech after constructives must answer the speech that came before it. For example, in second rebuttal you must respond to the responses the other team put on your case (as well as respond to their case). Also,
"sticky defense" is not a thing- defense must be extended in first summary for it to matter.

2. Please weigh your arguments! Magnitude, probability, Prerequisite, etc. and give a reason why your argument outweighs. If you just say "we outweigh on magnitude" and move on without comparing the impacts and actually explaining why, I can't really evaluate it. Also, make sure to respond to your opponent's weighing, otherwise I'm forced to intervene.

3. In summary and final focus, extend the links/warrants/impact(s) of the arguments you're going for.

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

5. Last speech where new arguments are okay is first final focus, and that's just for new weighing (and it should be building off of summary's weighing, not like 3 completely new mechs)

6. Please signpost, order, and label your arguments.

I will give a rfd at the end.

If you read through this entire paradigm, email hbanatwala26@blakeschool.org a picture of an animal and tell me after rd. I will give you +0.1 speaks

Richard Lu Hire

Rajul Mamgain The Bronx High School Of Science

Kion Manesh Glen Rock High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 6:16 AM PDT

Hi everyone. I did varsity PF for fairmont prep for 4 years. I now judge for Canyon Crest.

Email: kionmanesh1@gmail.com (add me to the chain). chain should be set up before the round starts, please try to start on time if possible it gives me more time to deliberate and ensure you have the right verdict.

call me whatever you want

tech > truth (READ MY PARADIGM BEFORE YOU USE THIS AS AN IN-ROUND WARRANT), but I've been approaching the equilibrium more and more. I may not be as tech as you think I am (for example there's a low chance I'll vote on an unwarranted blip, even if it's cold-conceded).

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

If I haven't covered anything here, or if you have any questions at all, ask!

Short Paradigm:

FOR VARSITY PF - I haven't flowed a fast debate round in a hot second, so just keep that in mind before you go all 300 wpm. I WILL ONLY VOTE ON WHAT I UNDERSTAND, DO NOT BE SURPRISED.

ALSO FOR TOC DIGI 3- I'm STILL sick lol so id highly prefer just a nice chill flay round. my brain is not operating at full capacity today. deepest apologies. if you go fast, ill try my best but no promises.

FOR NOVICE PF:if you know any of the below, that's great and try your best to adhere to it! Otherwise, just try your best. I'll give you the best feedback I can as novice PF is the best place to learn skills early on as opposed to later. Don't worry about following my paradigm to a T, just try your best.

Hard Rule:spectators don't get to be on devices during rounds.

How I evaluate the round:

1) I only evaluate what is in the Final Focus. if it is Final, it should have been in Summary unless it is a response to something new from the last speech (or grand cross I guess).

2) I look to the case of whichever team is winning the weighing (or framework) FIRST. If the weighing debate is muddled, metaweighing will go a long way to help resolve this. If weighing is won and the case is won, the round is over. Weighing has to be COMPARATIVE (compare impacts don't just say you outweigh on scope tell me why).

3) if I am considering offense, it must have been fully extended (uniqueness, link, impact, with some semblance of a warrant tossed in). extensions don't have to be longer than 2 sentences usually.

Prog

You should treat me like a tech who isn't great at flowing super fast or some types of prog.

Despite finding K rounds to be very interesting, I find my ability to judge a round well goes down often when prog comes up. Especially in PF, it feels like teams throw signposting and clarity out the window when prog is introduced. I also just have less exposure to prog, so I'm worse at evaluating it. I'll vote on anything (that isn't bigoted) but I can't promise I'll be good at evaluating it and won't get lost. If you want a predictable result, you probably shouldn't run prog in front of me unless you are really really good at it.

Things you should do:

1) BE A GOOD PERSON. I may or may not listen to cross just depending but I am obviously listening to the rest of the round so don't be a douche canoe (I'll heavily dock speaks).

2) Send speech docs with cut cards. It makes rounds so much easier and I'll have less time to evaluate if everyone spends time exchanging specific evidence (or looking for cards). If you don't have evidence available when called for, I'll strike it.

3) Signpost. I get confused easily. Make the round easy for me.

4) CLEARLY extend your offense

5) Have good evidence ethics and call out bad evidence ethics. I am totally fine dropping evidence if it's miscut, dropping speaks, or dropping teams depending on how severe it is.

6) Stay within the speech times (a little). I'll let you finish your sentence overtime but after that I stop flowing

Extra long notes:

1) Try your best to focus on quality over quantity. If you go for too much you tend to undercover everything. Try to definitively win one argument and weighing and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Conversely, going for a ton of stuff and giving blips of responses means it's harder to win my ballot. It's PF, you got short speech times so make the most of them. If I'm gonna be persuaded by an argument or a response, it should be warranted and implicated in the round well. otherwise, you risk getting into intervention territory

2) Generally speaking, things should be fair. For example, if it's in final it should be in summary unless you are responding to a new implication made in the last speech. Or, if you read 30 blippy, unwarranted turns my threshold for responses will be a lot lower, etc etc. Err on the side of being a nice person.

3) I really like good substance arguments. I also really like good (comparative) weighing, meta-weighing, and framework debates (as long as I can understand them). Running these things well means you are more likely to get higher speaks. Fun, creative, and/or nuanced arguments on the topic are more engaging to judge.

4) Evidence comparison is a very good way to break the clash of two competing claims. If one team says affirming means interest rates go down, and the other says it means they go up, things like recency, methodology, etc. become a lot more important and you should implicate WHY. This can easily decide debates. Having good, well-warranted evidence to begin with is a good cheat-code too.

Speaker Scores

I will generally give high speaks. I've been 4-2 screwed enough to know it sucks and I want y'all to have fun and do well. I'll generally set the floor at 29's unless you've acted inappropriately.

Cross Fire

If something important happened from cross, say it in a speech.

The rule of thumb I use for cross is to trade off asking and answering questions and only doing follow-ups if you ask first. This makes it so much more civil so I would recommend

1) If I don't get your argument I will listen to cross to try to understand it. if i still don't get it, that's on you lol. just a heads up

2) I disclosed and didn't paraphrase. I think those are generally good norms. but i can be persuaded otherwise. if you run theory you still need to win it.

3) weighing should come earlier and the better it is or more of it you have the more likely you are to win a round. Good link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, or metaweighing can easily win my ballot.

Rehan Martadinata SD Academy

Cameron Mays Kennedy

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 4:54 AM EDT

Background-

My email is cammays05@gmail.com. I'm from WV and did state and national PF debate all four years in high school. I am now a Sophomore in college with a fair amount of judging experience.

Voting-

I'm tech>truth, voting based on impacts and their weight. I will vote on any offensive arg too like turns, they can be cause for winning. Impacts should be made clear throughout the debate and should be sourced and warranted. I flow all speeches. Questioning doesn't matter unless something from it is brought up in a speech so please don't be rude or overpowering in questioning, it's unnecessary, a bad look, and could affect speaks. Overall, just be respectful and thoughtful in round.

Extensions/args-

I expect clear extensions of 1. constructive sources, warrants, and impacts you're going for, 2. frontlines, and 3. rebuttals (all teams should use these three arguments throughout the debate, but obviously don't need for collapsed points). Therefore, nothing in the final focus should be new info to me, it should be an extension of the summary which should be an extension of the rebuttals which should interact with the contructives and one another (2nd rebuttal MUST have frontlines otherwise the 1st rebuttal is dropped for the round). Also, don't just extend a tag but extend what the evidence says and some analysis. Make sure you're not just reading off evidence blindly. Tell me why I should prefer what your evidence says over your opponents, content, reputability, post dates (with context), publication/author indicts, mishandled evidence, etc. These are super effective args since PF often comes down to one author vs another. Just remember all speeches should interact with one another and should be cohesive. I will vote on dropped offensive points like turns or link chains with an impact if the other team points out the drop happened.

Weighing-

Impact weighing is one of my most important voting issues. Ideally, it would be brought up in rebuttal, but summary is also fine. Teams should not wait until final focus to bring up weighing, it should be extended from summary. Without weighing, I'm forced to bring my own opinion/biases into impact evaluation, so if I buy both teams' warranting and impact scenario and there's no impact weighing, I'm forced to vote based on which impact I personally find more compelling.

Speed-

I don't like spreading, but if you really really have to it's fine as long as your opponents are cool with it and you send a speech doc. If you don't spread, I'm fine with speed as long as you clearly enunciate everything and send a speech doc. Debate is supposed to be educational, accessible, and informative. Spreading or talking too fast/sloppily undermines that.

Post Round-

I'm fine with disclosing my decision, giving feedback, and answering questions post-round as long as a tournament allows it. However, doing this can sometimes get contentious, so if y'all are rude or trying to be post-round debaters I'm going to cut my feedback short, like I said earlier just be respectful.

Progressive args-

I don't feel super comfortable with theory or Ks, so don't run them with me as a judge I'm flay

LD-

A lot of the same stuff from PF with extension, sources, interaction, etc., but I rely less on impacts and sources to vote. My vote is based on whichever argument better fits under the value and value criterion I buy in the debate. Make sure to keep bringing up and making logical/philosophical/moral args on V and VC, too many LD debaters in WV forget V and VC exist and are important in the debate.

Feel free to ask me about anything on or not on here in round!

Dylan McEntyre Eden Prairie High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 5:01 AM EDT

mcentyredylan89@gmail.com

I went to James River (‘22) and did PF mainly on the local VHSL circuit. My judging stats

General: larp>t/theory/k>phil>anything else. If you have any questions/concerns, please let me know.

- What’s the most important impact and who has the best link into it is how most rounds are decided.

- I appreciate when debaters tell me what the core questions of the round are and explain how/why they have answered them better than their opponents.

- High quality comparative analysis and judge instruction wins rounds.

- Framing arguments are as good as you make them. Explain why I should evaluate the round through the lens you want me to.

- Crossfire is underutilized, but for a question/response to matter, you need to make the argument clear in a speech.

LD specifics:

- Trad is great. Explain why your value and criterion are better than your opponents and how your impact story is supported by and supports your value and vc.

- The circuit LD rounds I've judged have been policy oriented where the neg reads one to three off case positions that are disads, counterplans, t/theory, and sometimes the K.

PF specifics:

- It’s strategic to collapse and frontline in the 2nd rebuttal, but I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary.

- Summary and final focus should be cohesive.

- 2-4 minute speeches make executing progressive arguments more difficult.

Speed/Speaker points:

- I’m good with some speed as long as you’re clear. Slow down on taglines, signpost, and give me time to switch pages. I don’t want to flow off the doc but I’m sympathetic to following along for the constructives. I’ll say clear twice before I give up.

- I am most impressed by debaters who know their arguments and articulate them clearly.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose unless told not to by the tournament. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Thank you, Castelo, debate would not be a part of my life if you hadn’t started coaching

bill mcnairy Myers Park High School

Anokhi Mehta Hire 9 rounds

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School

Wendy Meng Iowa City West

Adam Meskouri Centennial HS (MD)

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 9:10 PM EDT

Duke University (Master of Public Policy)

Umich ('25, Polsci & Digital Studies)

Seaholm (idk, normal HS stuff)

---------

Email chain: Adam.Meskouri@Duke.edu

I have ~9 years of experience with debate and have extensively coached various PF teams, many of whom have done well on the national circuit.

TLDR: Hypertech by PF standards. Great for soft left, the k, weird/garbage args, most theory stuff. I enjoy these rounds! I am the judge for the garbage/fun stuff you can't read in front of lays! Fine for <250wpm in the front half. You should be slowing down by like 20% in the back half and on tags.

Also.....any iteration of the Anthro K/animals = 30 speaks for both teams, probably. I really, REALLY love this argument and the clash it creates, so I will reward all debaters/be very happy when the 2AR/2NR is a debate about (for example) whether "saddleback seal extinction o/w their scenarios."

---------

Warning: I try very hard to not intervene. If left with two competing arguments that have no comparative analysis, some level of intervention is inevitable. If an arg is completely unintelligible (i.e. I cannot discern how you garner offense and why) I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT. This only happens rarely.

---------

High speaks (+0.5): Positive Malik Beasley reference (this is +0.8), garfield reference, or send a fun comic strip in the email chain. No, they do not stack. My rounds are typically very informal -- please use them to have fun and make jokes and stuff

----------

Top Level

My thoughts on debate change frequently. The following is generally unflinching:

Tech > truth, absent technical arguments made to the defense of truth as a paradigm. That said, I'd much rather evaluate the way this game was played than discern whether a presented argument was "true."

I have evaluated everything (I very frequently find myself judging performance, tricks, theory, IVI, whatever -- I see more of these rounds per capita than probably 95% of PF judges). I like to think that I'm a decent judge for whatever experimental garbage you want to read (besides high phil). I actively implore teams to read experimental garbage.

I do not think that PF should be less of a game than Pol or LD. I wholly encourage debaters to use my rounds for doing/practicing things that they can't deploy in front of other judges (bc, y'know, PF judging kinda sucks sometimes. Many of my 2-1s are craaaaazy parent screws lol).

To clarify, all of this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, death good, T-3 tier, prefiat/postfiat K, debates about debating about debate, theory, meme, science fiction, etc etc).

I tend to flow off the doc, so please email me the 1AC/1NC (non-negotiable unless it's a MIFA round) & 2AC/2NC docs with all new ev and (only if you can) analytics. I will cap speaks if docs are not sent. I am not the judge for 50 analytics + no doc ngl please for the love of everything don't do that to me

I'm a pretty normal tech judge on substance. Know the difference between a link turn and a DA. Second rebuttal has to frontline no matter what. New weighing in first final is fine. Both teams should weigh. I had some braindead take last year that was like "weighing lowk not that important" but I now vehemently disagree with that obviously incorrect sentiment. I am going to go on instagram reels during cross. Make my life easy by extending dropped responses. Beyond that, no major notes from me!

----------

Misc

Sorry this para is so short -- ask me if you have spec questions. Otherwise, assume I'm hypertech on most topics unless it's a MIFA tournament lmao

PF is undergoing a transformative experience wherein debaters are beginning to question the activity's foundation and the roles of competitors/judges who take part -- irrespective of my personal beliefs, I am more than happy to judge these rounds unless they're aimless and haphazard. Impassioned yet unrefined strategies are not aimless ones.

Perfcons o/w 99% of the time

Thoughtful ballot disads persuade me

People should go for reasonability + RVIs against friv

Meme cases are great

I think I have less of a negative predisposition towards death good than most judges do

Extinction vs. SV kinda bores me but I'm totally down to evaluate it. If possible, be unique in your interactions with these arguments!

Big fan of going for everything

Do not harass people. Do not be mean. Do not make others uncomfortable

TKOs are fine but lock in tho

I genuinely enjoy debates where teams read stupid garbage

Defense is sticky for locals

Idk why these bullet points are here they won't go away :(

Carson Michel Hire 9 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 3:38 PM EDT

He/Him carsonmichel69@gmail.com

4 Yrs PF Debate @ Bronx Science, TOC 2021, 2022, 2023.

PF Debate Coach @ Stuyvesant High School

APDA Debater @ Columbia

Tech > Truth

Couple of things:

I'm fine with pretty fast speeds, if it's too fast then I will ask for a speech doc. Spreading not so much.

I like warranting. If you assert something and don't give me a reason for it, then it essentially means nothing. This applies to literally everything in the round. Warranted Analytics > Unwarranted Cards.

Please weigh big bro ????????????

You must frontline in second rebuttal

Defense is not sticky, in summary you must extend even conceded defense & do the same in final.

I pay very little attention to crossfire and probably will be on my phone during it, so if something important is said/conceded just bring it up in a later speech.

No new info in final. New implications off of stuff already read is chill.

Please read content warnings. If you have even a shadow of a doubt as to whether you should or not, always air on the side of caution, we want debate to be a safe space.

Please be respectful in cross!

Progressive Stuff:

Theory: Only read if there is a genuine violation/norm you care about. Friv theory is stupid theory and you know it.

K's are very cool! Run them however you want about whatever you want. Respond however you want T, KvK, idc, etc.

I will say however that I hate the 'academiazation' of critical arguments into a very rigid and complex structure. In the words of Noam Chomsky who, although is talking about philosophy, exclaims in a way I think K's today can often be described as which is “a way of insulating sectors of a kind of radical intelligentsia from popular movements and actual activism..." I find it ironic when a K calls for an upheaval of some preexisting flawed structure, and then literally is spread in the format of some jargon-y preexisting flawed structure.

Tricks are not debate. They never will be. Don't read that sht in front of me.

What this means is that I don't think K's have to be structured like: Theory of Power, Impact, Alt, FW, etc. I think they can read in whatever structure they want to be, that if anything makes the K stronger.

If you genuinely do care about this argumentation you would want the average person to be able to engage and in a meaningful way. Don't get lost in the sauce.

And FINALLY:

If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc I will stop the round, probably call you a terrible human being, immediately drop you, and make sure to slaughter your speaks.

Have fun! Bonus speaks if you say "I'm sorry thats just cap" in a SPEECH, or if you make a strong effort to cite non-western authors (I am sick of your Reuters and Carnegie Endowment evidence) especially on foreign policy resolutions.

Ram Miller NS Independent

Sharan Mudgal Summit HS

Lama Mulki NS Independent

Uthra Natarajan Leland High School

Cindy Nie Hire

Sudha Pandithurai Ravenwood High School None

J Parrish The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM CDT

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School

Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)

Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)

4x NDT Qualifier

Octas of CEDA '24

Winner of the 2024 NDI Demo Debate <3

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

TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good.

I will never vote on an argument based on something that happened out of round. I have no context, it feels too much like policing, and it is a shameful use of my ballot. Introducing arguments like this will be met with a 25 and L, introducing arguments like this that pertain to an individual not present in the round (other debater on their team / coach) will be met with a 20 and L. We will never be able to fully remedy issues in a debate round that is filtered through competitive incentives. Trying to rectify these issues out of round, where discussions are more than 9 or 6 minutes of screaming into laptops and the responsible admin and coaches on your team are present, seems like the best way to go. This includes the pre-round if I am not present. However if something happens in round, you can call them out or stake the debate on it. Also, if you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good, strike me. Goodness gracious!

If you ask for a 30 you will receive a 25.

I flow on paper.

I am colorblind and can’t read poop. Please do not send PDFs or cards in the body of an email. If you do this you get a 25.

Idk what this moral panic about not sending analytics is about. You don't have to send them.

Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.

---

Policy things:

Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.

T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.

CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.

Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.

Do evidence comparison.One good card puts you in a much better spot than 4 stinky ones. Having high quality authors, writing one warrant after another, is preferable to a bunch of one paragraph cards riddled with disconnected word salad.

I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn or praying.

K’s? You would be far better off reading a DA or CP. I am inclined to weigh the AFF. The Top Gun anthem was in my top 10 on Spotify Wrapped. Those are my vibes.

I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.

I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.

Tech over truth.

Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.

Claws out, however you wish to debate.

I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP versus 2 is quite high. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks (if they're good flows).

Speaks? 29.5+ means I expect to see you in deep elims. 29-.4 means I think you’ll be in doubles. 28.5-9 means I think you’ll be in a bubble round. 28-.4 means I think you’ll break even or above. 27x means there are some things I think you can work on.

---

"And he to me, as one experienced:

'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,

all cowardice must here be extinct.

We to the place have come, where I have told thee/

Thou shalt behold the people dolorous

Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"

Ravi Pasumarthi Vista Del Lago High School

Henry Peter Mountain House High School

Hello, my name is Henry Peter, and this is my first time judging a debate round. I am excited to be part of this educational and competitive experience and look forward to hearing your arguments and seeing how you engage with the resolution. As a new judge, I value clear communication and structured arguments that help me understand your case and its significance in the round.

First and foremost, please prioritize clarity in your speeches. Speak slowly and clearly so I can follow your points. While I understand that debate often involves quick delivery to fit in as much content as possible, I ask that you adjust your speed to ensure I can understand and flow everything you say. If I cannot hear or comprehend an argument, I will not evaluate it. Enunciation and pacing are crucial—remember, quality of argumentation matters more to me than the quantity of points made.

I also value organization and structure. Please use signposting and roadmap your speeches to guide me through your arguments. Clearly label your contentions, tag your evidence, and make it easy for me to track your points throughout the debate. When addressing your opponents’ arguments, explicitly connect your responses to their specific points. This will help me understand how the clash evolves and why your arguments should outweigh theirs. A well-organized speech with clear reasoning and impacts will stand out to me.

In terms of weighing arguments, please explain the “why” behind your points. I appreciate when debaters clearly articulate the importance of their arguments and impacts in the context of the round. Comparisons between arguments, impacts, and values are especially helpful—don’t assume I’ll make these connections for you. You should guide me to your preferred framework for evaluating the round and explain why it’s the most appropriate.

As I’m new to judging, I may not be as familiar with advanced jargon or debate-specific strategies. I encourage you to take the time to explain any complex concepts or unusual arguments. Education is an important part of debate, and I want to ensure I understand the reasoning behind your points. Additionally, please be respectful to your opponent and maintain a professional and civil tone throughout the round.

Finally, I will strive to be as fair and impartial as possible, focusing on the arguments presented in the round rather than any personal opinions I may have. If you have any specific preferences or adaptations you would like me to consider (e.g., accommodations for accessibility), please feel free to let me know before the round begins.

Be as aggressive as you want but not to the point where you're just attacking your opponents personally or too rudely.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication to debate. I look forward to hearing your arguments and learning from this experience as a judge. Good luck, and have a great round!

Les Phillips The Nueva School

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 2:24 AM PDT

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA POLICY PARADIGM (INSERTED FOR BARKLEY FORUM 2025): I will flow and am cheerfully sympathetic to all kinds of arguments. Policy was my first home; I coached it exclusively for many decades; I have not coached it since 2014; excuse my rust.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

I would like to be on the email chain [lphillips@nuevaschool.org and nuevadocs@gmail.com] but I very seldom look at the doc during the round.

If you are not reading tags on your arguments, you are basically not communicating. If your opponent makes this an issue, I will be very sympathetic to their objections.

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will work hard to understand continental philosophers, even if I am not too familiar with the literature. I really really want to know exactly what the role of the ballot is. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged fast LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Suresh Pothukuchi Hamilton High School

Izhan Qureishy East Ridge High School

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 5:13 AM EDT

Affiliation:

East Ridge High School

Debate Experience:

3 years coaching debate; 4 years competing in PF

Truth vs Flow:

Truth

Preferred Speed:

Slightly quicker than a normal conversation

Rebuttal:

Prefer direct quotes over paraphrased evidence

Quality over quantity

PF Summary:

Prefer voters over line-by-line

Extend case and the responses you want to go for

Weigh a bit

PF Final focus:

Again, prefer voters over line-by-line

Extend case and main responses. Weigh if you have time.

Extension of Arguments:

You need to carry arguments/responses through the round. However you want to do that is fine, just make sure to mention at least some of the reasoning behind your position and the impact. Extend some evidence.

Topicality:

Necessary. If your argument is not related to the resolution it will either be weighed less or not evaluated depending on how far off topic it is.

Kritiks:

Will not vote for

Theory:

Will not vote for

Flowing:

While I recommend prioritizing quality over quantity everywhere in the debate, you should say at least one thing everywhere. Completely dropping an opponent's argument or not defending a strong response to your case will likely come back to bite you. If you don't have any evidence against a niche argument, at least make 1 or more non-evidenced responses/outweigh. In the event that you do drop a lot of things: weigh weigh weigh.

Argument vs Speaking Style:

Argument

Weighing:

You can weigh however you like. Weighing will make it much more likely that I vote for you, and even a reasonable effort will boost your speaker points! If you're confused about weighing, something like "you should prefer my argument/response/evidence over their argument/response/evidence because ___" works well.

Ethics:

Be respectful. Don't be the reason somebody feels insecure about public speaking!

Miscellaneous:

My vote has often been swayed by the final speeches. Whatever is said in the final speeches, which must be supported by previous speeches, will ultimately decide my ballot.

Feel free to ask me questions about my judging preferences.

Ashok Rajagopalan BASIS Peoria Independent

Harsha Rajapakse Stuyvesant High School

Meena Ramakrishnan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Ethan Ramos The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 2:02 AM PDT

howdy,

former HS/Collegiate competitor

I judge quite a bit

treat others the way you want to be treated
I don't do email chains... NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
if using historical evidence (for debate events or public speaking events) you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis.. if not there's an L waiting for you
FOR PF debate!!!- I don't flow off the doc, I only look at it for evidence (only if you tell me to, also no email chains for me..)
somewhere in between truth and tech

IE's -

MS/HS - you do youu!!

Collegiate - you know what to do

^ very big on binder etiquette

Congress -

no rehash

its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech

stay active thru round for high ranks

clash - def gotta engage with competitors for maximum affect

PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last

^ don't make any mistakes or imma tank you

direct questioning is meant for answers/clarification not being rude !!!

don't lie about evidence

PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened) etc ...

I'm very big on the Public aspect of PF

love a good framework or Role of the Ballot round

no email chains for me, either google docs, nsda doc/drive or speech drop - if not oh well

if your file or doc is a mess I am NOT going near it

evidence practices are pretty bad in PF, should you notice it LMK in speech and lets see what we can do

no speed/spreading in PF, talking fast is ok tho - speed/spreading and were gonna have a problem

tech or truth? Somewhere in between the two

Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks

Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it I guess

^ gotta explain it , if not I am not evaluating

resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that

impact cal is an easy voter and is well appreciated

good luck going for a technical knock out

the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof is

paraphrasing is a BIG NO, read actual cards/tags

I will no longer be evaluating Disclosure T as of March '25 -if you run Disclosure its an auto L

^ I will NOT be evaluating any Theory, Non Identity K's, Phil - auto L

^^ wanna run these? go to LD or CX

content in the LD section does not apply to this PF section - non negotiable

what's the deal with a lack of front lining and signposting? If you don't then you're getting an L

when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date

stop going over time !!

make any round more complicated than it has to be and I will look for every/any way to vote against you

MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'

LD - if its a state or bid or RR tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother

if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad

^ not gonna say clear

tech or truth?? somewhere in between

P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you

Trad - I'm an ok judge

K - I prefer judging identity K's.. but non identity K's proceed with caution

LARP - I like it... but can go either way

Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/Disclosure T

^ auto strike!!

^^ unless you're running nihilism Phil don't strike, but if not then strike

NGL - if your case is blippy I am gonna look for everyway to vote against you

this section only applies to LD .. not PF

CX - LOL

unless it's TRAD I won't judge

Worlds - I expect to see clash

don't paraphrase evidence

DO NOT Americanize this event

no speed, this needs to be conversational

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them

not taking any POI's makes you look silly, at least take 1 , but not too many

I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me

style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine

don't try a PF take on this event

the framework and definitions debate can be fair and or abusive ... if abusive then you're gonna loose

Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!

Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !

Amit Rawlani Mission San Jose High School

Reza Rehman Bergen Tech

Youngha Rissler Central HS Springfield

Alice Ross Hire

Masha Rubashkina Stuyvesant High School

Background:
I am a parent who is new to PF competitive debate, although I have years of judging parliamentary debate under my belt. Treat me like a very attentive lay judge- I don’t want to hear any tech or jargon. I’ll evaluate debates based on the arguments presented, logical reasoning, clarity, and overall persuasive ability.

What I Value:

Clarity and Explanation:
I appreciate when debaters take the time to explain concepts in a clear and understandable way, especially when using terminology.
Logical Structure:
I look for arguments that are logically sound. Explain your links clearly- I won’t do the work for you. If a warrant doesn’t have logic behind it, it’s not a very solid one in my estimation. If an argument feels like a stretch or doesn’t follow logically from what was said before, I’m likely to penalize it.
Effective Communication:
Since I’m not an expert, the ability to communicate effectively, slowly, and clearly is crucial. If a debater speaks too fast or doesn’t enunciate in their delivery, I may miss key points and won’t be able to give them credit for it. Please make sure your speech is well-paced and clearly articulated.
Engagement with Opponent:
I want to see clash. A good debate, to me, is one where debaters actively engage with each other’s arguments. I appreciate when participants are respectful but challenge each other’s ideas thoughtfully, providing direct responses to the points made by the other side. Signpost this for me and cover the flow in a clear, organized manner. Also, don’t back down in crossfire, as long as you can maintain respectability/ composure.
Persuasiveness:
I will ultimately vote for the team that presents the most persuasive argument. This means not just winning on technical points, but also on convincing me of the soundness and importance of their case. The overall "why" behind their arguments matters.

What I Don’t Value:

Overuse of Jargon:
If you rely too much on jargon or technical debate terms without taking the time to explain them, I may have trouble following your argument. Make sure to define any terms that are essential to your case.
Speed:
I’m not used to fast-paced debate and may struggle to keep up. If you speak too quickly, it may hurt your case. I need to be able to follow the logic and reasoning of what you’re saying, so please prioritize clear and deliberate speech.
Lack of Civility:
I expect debates to be conducted respectfully. Aggressive or rude behavior toward your opponents will not be tolerated and could hurt your performance in my eyes.

Final Thoughts:
I’m here to listen to the arguments and evaluate the debate as best as I can based on what’s presented. If you take the time to explain your points well, remain respectful, and make a logical, convincing case, I’ll be inclined to reward that. Always assume I need more explanation rather than less.

Edward Rumbos-Perez Flintridge Preparatory

Last changed on Sat September 7, 2024 at 7:18 AM PDT

Hi!

I'm a recent UC Berkeley graduate and an assistant Speech and Debate coach for Flintridge and Westridge. I'm a former debater who mainly competed in Parliamentary debate for Claremont High School. Alongside Parli, I've competed in and/or judged LD, PF, Worlds, BQ, Congress, and several speech events (mainly OO, Impromptu, and Extemp). I always appreciate a competitive and respectful round, so I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say!

General Debate Notes

Please focus on your links! I believe they are just as (if not, more) important than your cards and impacts. Arguments that depend on well-thought out logic are always more interesting to listen to than a random card without much analysis from the debater. I weigh magnitude and probability heavily, meaning I will not vote for your nuclear fallout argument just because you tell me to based on a 0.0000000001% chance.

Please provide a roadmap and signpost in each speech! I want to be able to flow your case and refutations as accurately as possible, but it's difficult when you spew random facts at me for 7 minutes without taglines or titles. Remember, you could have the most beautiful argument to ever be conceived of in human history, but if I don't know where/how to flow it, I can't give you credit :(

For events with Cross, I won't flow every question or answer, but I'll be listening very closely with 100% of my attention. Please utilize cross to point out flaws in your opponent's case as opposed to a reiteration of tags/arguments (unless absolutely necessary).

Lastly, be respectful! Especially during POIs and Cross. That also means avoid making faces or facepalming in person or while your camera is on. I'll tank speaks without hesitation if a debater is being disrespectful throughout the round.

Kritiks & Theory

I'm very open to hearing these arguments as long as you can justify them. There are definitely rounds where these arguments are necessary and will impact my decision. I'm not the most familiar with more unique K's or performance K's, so please explain each component to me! If there's one thing I hate more than spreading, it's frivolous theory/k's that you wrote at camp 5 months ago and decided to shoe into your case without consideration for the topic or opponent. Please make sure the K makes sense for the specific round/opponent (Links matter to me!). Please avoid running K or Theory against novice debaters. Don't feel pressured to run these arguments either, you don't need to use jargon or one singular argument structure to convince me that a definition or argument is abusive/flawed!

Speaking

I'm pretty generous (I think?) when it comes to speaks. If you make me laugh I'm probably going to boost your speaks too. Be respectful to your opponents, being rude is an easy way for me to dock your speaks without feeling bad. Don't Spread, Don't Spread, Don't Spread. If you spread, I'll likely miss important parts of your argument, which will only hurt your chances. Or if you, for whichever reason, feel that you must spread and cannot make the necessary adjustments, at least send a speech doc via the tournament designated file-sharing program.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask them in round! :)

Subrata Saharoy Lynbrook HS

Pravin Sahu Syosset High School

Tequa Salehi-Rad BASIS Scottsdale High School

Haritha Sallagonda Del Norte High School

Anuraag Sarangi CR North High School

Olga Sayyidina SD Academy

Derek Schaible Stuyvesant High School

Andrew Scheufele NS Independent

Roselie Schneider Brentwood High School

Samantha Schonfeld Hunter College

Emanuel Schorsch The Bronx High School Of Science

Jai Sehgal The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Mon October 28, 2024 at 7:36 PM CDT

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2024-25 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
If you would like to read theory, go ahead.
Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.
Sending case docs is a good practice.

Jignesh Shah Del Norte High School

Pavithra Shankar Horace Mann School

Jason Shen BASIS Scottsdale High School

Albert Shore Hire 9 rounds

Sangeeta Shroff Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Sayeed Sidiqyar Brentwood High School

Austin Siefken Lakeville North High School

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 4:54 AM CDT

TL;DR: tech>truth, good with speed, If you want me to vote on something, it needs to be in summary and final focus, well weighed, and extended with warrants, send docs, and have fun.

Hi! I have debated for Lakeville for 4 years and judged for 1. I have competed on the national circuit and have done some coaching/ judging

Email: austinsiefken2024@gmail.com, lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) Please set up the email chain well before the round starts.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

People who influenced my judging and debate style:

Maddie Cook

Naomi Davis

Tejas Neneman

Henry Nomeland

Debate needs to be a respectful and open space; if any of your actions do not reflect that or inhibit people from being comfortable in the debate space, your scoring will suffer. Most importantly, have fun, debate is an activity where you are supposed to learn in a fun atmosphere.

I do not flow cross if, you want me to vote on something mentioned in cross, it needs to be in the next speech.

Preferences

Frontline in second rebuttal, if you don't, I will assume you concede all first rebuttal
Signposting

Meta weighing
Clean warranted extensions
Collapse in summary
Extending stuff in FF or summary (that's the only way I'll vote for what you want me to)
Prereqing/link-ins/short circuits are cool
Tell me exactly what I should vote on
FF should write my ballot
Use a beeping timer to stop your opponents from stealing prep or speech time
Frontlining everything in the second rebuttal if possible
sending rebuttal docs that are well-formatted

Some pet peeves:

Going to the round without preflowing
Paraphrasing
Taking forever to send and share evidence
Just asking for 30 speaks. This will only make me want to drop your speaks
Interrupting people in cross
Taking way too long to ask a question in cross
Being mean or condescending to your opponents
Post rounding
Giving an off-time road map that is more than 5 words
Using the words pathos, ethos, or logos
Saying something was dropped when it clearly wasn't
Saying "we outweigh on _____" and never giving a warrant
Probability weighing feels very fake and subjective. I'll still evaluate it, but I do not find it persuasive.
Reading framing without giving me a clear role of the ballot

Evidence Issues (credit to Maddie Cook):

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence, in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins.
Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
It shouldn’t take you more than 30 seconds to locate a card, and if it takes more than 2 minutes, I’ll strike it from the flow and start dropping your speaker points.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech and then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
I will always prefer to vote for teams with well-cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.

Theory:

I'm not too experienced in theory debate, but I do understand it. That being said, if you are going to read it, just know that my speaker points for the team that introduces the shell are much stricter, as I am expecting better debates. Here are some of my general thoughts on theory you should consider before running it.

Frivolous theory is bad.
I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Teams tend to take theory debates really personally, and they tend to get heated, so please be nice to each other and understand that it is just a debate round.
If you are reading theory, make sure the team you are going against is not novices or new to varsity; it is just a thing out of consideration.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
A counter-interpretation is not an RVI. RVIs are a completely separate (and bad) part of the debate.
If you are going to Read IVIs, please make sure the warranting for drop the debater is good, and please don't introduce them way late in the round (second summary or later)

Kritiks:

I am not super well-versed on most K lit, I would err on the side of over-explaining your arguments.
When extending the K, don't just reread the entire thing.
You need an alt or its going to very difficult for me to vote on it
Understand your own args

Please feel free to ask me any questions about my judging before the round

Hirdesh Singh Westborough High School

Sabina Singh Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Tina Sood Summit HS

Clara Stamm The Blake School

Last changed on Wed October 23, 2024 at 8:45 AM CDT

Hi! I'm Clara and this is my third year debating pf for Blake (second year on the nat circuit). That being said, I think that judging and debating are separate skills and I'd rather that you under- rather than over-estimated me. Basically, when in doubt I want you to slow down and over-explain.

Edit for Columbia- if you are a novice some of this won't apply. Just be polite to your opponents, extend your case in summary/final, weigh it, and you're fine. Don't feel obligated to "spread" because I'm a more technical judge, you guys are younger debaters and will probably be significantly clearer at a slower speed. I have some experience w/the Somaliland topic but it's been a minute. Good luck!!

Prior to Round/General:

Come to round ready to debate

Please add me to the email chain atclstamm26@blakeschool.org. You should also add blakedocs@googlegroups.com. Ideally it would be labelled along the lines of "Tournament Round Team #1 (side, speaking order) vs. Team #2 (side, speaking order)." You should send cut cards, I don't want to sift through your paraphrasing.

Arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic will dock your speaker points and result in an L.

In Round:

I do not care if you sit or stand, what you're wearing, etc.

Please send case and rebuttal before you read them, and wait for the doc to come through. If this doesn't end up happening, evidence exchanges should be quick. I will be extremely receptive to evidence comparison, and I will look through any cards which are contested. This activity is not educational if research, academic lit, etc are all being misinterpreted. Actually, beyond "not educational"- it makes us dumber.

You're fine reading extinction scenarios, frameworks, etc in front of me.

For constructive you would do better to read a smaller number of contentions and have them be well-developed. You can be brisk but I dislike spreading- I'll say "clear" and then put down my pen.

I don't care about cross- I'll be half listening, but you should bring up any key concessions in the next speech. Don't be too aggressive. Teams that strive for "perceptual dominance" are just annoying.

Defense isn't sticky. You don't need to extend in rebuttal, but second rebuttal must frontline. I'm a good audience to just dump turns in front of, but I want them to be weighed and well-warranted.

Respond to your opponents' weighing and break the tie with your own mechanisms. Weighing should be well warranted. I love pre-reqs and link-ins, just give them a ton of explanation.

Theory/Kritiks:

Not the best idea to run this in front of me- I'm more comfortable with theory but the difference is marginal. My opinions are that open source disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and trigger warnings are only necessary if they're actually reading a graphic argument (ie, just saying the words "human trafficking" does not require a warning). I am not receptive to frivolous theory.

The only Ks that I've ever debated are set col, borderlands, and capitalism. I'm probably most comfortable with cap Ks overall. That being said... I don't want to do a K round. Not really.

Post Round:

I will disclose the decision if we have time + give written feedback.

I like when judges explain what different speaker scores mean to them (I think it helps debaters understand the round, and will help me make sure that I'm being relatively consistent). With that, here's my rough chart:

25-26: you were blatantly bigoted or extremely aggressive

27 range: you had significant problems filling time, you dropped a lot of responses, responses were inconsistent from speech to speech, made lots of concessions in cross or had trouble thinking of questions, etc. Potentially you're a newer debater. This isn't something to feel bad about, just something to improve from. We all start here.

28 range: getting the job done. filled speech time, didn't drop anything major, hit all of the major points, had questions and answers in cross (though they might have been soft ball questions/vague answers). This is average coming from me.

29 range: good use of rhetoric/intros and framing statements, made well-warranted and original arguments, indicted their evidence, went deep into the topic, spoke with passion, wrote the ballot for me, asked strategic questions, etc. great

30: this is just a 29 plus something extra (which might be clarified in my RFD). I loved watching you debate.

Final thoughts:

thank you for reading this all the way through! have a good round

to prove that you read this all the way through email a picture of a baby animal to my wonderful debate partner starafder26@blakeschool.org and let me know so that I can raise your speaker points!

Abi Subramanian Horace Mann School

Zahida Subramanian Horace Mann School

Luke Sullivan The Dalton School

Last changed on Thu August 8, 2024 at 8:58 PM UTC

I debated four years pf, ld, and policy in high school and four years of policy in college.

I can flow pretty much everything, and I’ll evaluate all the arguments to the best of my ability. Try to give your arguments impacts and help me create a framework to evaluate the debate.

Update April 2024- some thoughts after a few years of judging pf

I'm considering not allowing off-time road maps as I think they've become super long-winded and silly. It's my preference that you say, "pro case then con case" or vice versa. Sometimes there are extra sheets of paper that's fine, but I've been in too many debates when the off-time road map sounds something like this, "I'm gonna start by talking about the major issues in the round, then I'm going to address some of the things my opponent has said, before frontlining and then weighing at the bottom." That is, essentially, meaningless to me.

I think that debaters should reward punctuality and timeliness. When I was a debater I didn't realize how much judges are on the clock. There is a judging deadline and if the debate starts late, or seems to take forever. Besides extenuating circumstances, I am always trying to be on time and I think it's selfish to make the tournament run late. That means if I only have two minutes left before the decision deadline, I am spending two minutes deciding. It is in your best interest as debaters to give me more time, not less to think about the round.

I've watched a few theory debates this year. I tend to think RVI's are silly. PF theory is not my favorite but I have voted on it before.

I do really like it when debaters make arguments comparative and have a lot of topic knowledge. I'm often interested in these topics and it's nice when you are too.

I won't evaluate "death good", wipeout, or tricks. I also have a high threshold for frivolous theory arguments, although I have no problem evaluating theory debate.

Liang Sun Horace Mann School

Rohan Sundaram Hire 9 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 26, 2024 at 3:18 AM EDT

I am a sophomore at Columbia. I have no experience in American High School debating formats (like LD and PF) and come from a background of debating primarily in World Schools Debating format. I currently do APDA and BP debate but would not consider my preferences and style of judging defined by those formats.

Style

I have a strong preference for slow, confident speakers. You don't need to shout to be confident, but I believe a measured pace is more persuasive -- and anything I don't hear clearly, I don't credit as having been said.
I also believe debating is about persuasion through speech. I understand there are some norms regarding sending fully written out speeches/cases to judges, but I prefer to judge what I hear, not what I read.

Argumentation

I give a lot of weight to direct responsiveness. Even if you make arguments that implicitly rebut your opponents argument, unless you mention exactly what argument you are rebutting and how your argument beats their argument, I will credit it as a parallel/separate point, rather than a rebuttal. And as such, your opponent's arguments will still stand.
Similarly, if you don't rebut something, even if it's ludicrous I will take it as true. And unrebutted arguments often decide my verdicts. This doesn't mean you need to dedicate significant time rebutting each line from your opponent. 1 rebuttal can, and often does, respond to a multiple arguments -- all I need from you is to signpost clearly what arguments your rebuttal is rebutting.
Because I'm not familiar with PF, LD or any of it's minutiae, the jargon and technical terms are likely to go over my head so make sure to explain terms you otherwise think a judge would or should know, as well as why those terms affect how I should judge the round. If your opponent uses jargon wrongly or makes claims about how I should judge the round that are incorrect, call them out for it and if I find that a team was deliberately trying to mislead me on jargon or rules of the format, they will be severely penalized.
Since I come from a parliamentary format, I don't respond particularly well to assertions about the way the world works and example-reliant arguments. Unless the premises of your arguments are well-known and highly intuitive, when given two opposing facts/pieces of evidence, I will award credit to the side that gives me structural reasons why their facts are true (e.g. incentive analysis for why a certain actor is incentivized to act a certain way will usually beat an argument that simply gives me examples of how that this actor has historically acted in this way).
I very much appreciate principle/moral arguments being made, but: Firstly, you need to weigh them against practical/pragmatic arguments. This doesn't necessarily mean contextualizing the principle in practical outcomes (i.e. saying if you don't operate on this principle the world becomes a worse place). Instead, ensure that you spend time explaining how sacrificing practical benefits for invaluable principles are worth the cost. Secondly, make sure you prove the principle rather than just asserting it's a principle we should care about. I tend to appreciate the use of intuition pumps: providing intuitive examples where most people would agree your principle would hold, and proving why those examples are analogous to the situation being debated.

Raja Tadimeti Leland High School

Jeffrey Taylor Rye High School

Sumukh Tendulkar NS Independent

Elizabeth Terveen The Blake School

Hi! did PF for 4 years and Worlds Schools for 3 years.

Put me on the email chain: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

If you're new to debate: a lot of this information probably won't be relevant! Have a good round and ask me questions about any aspects of my decision that don't make sense. Otherwise,

₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹ tldr ₊˚⊹♡₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡ ₊˚⊹♡₊˚⊹♡

I care about evidence more than the average judge, but not as much as some. Read evidence and don't lie about it.

Weighing mostly dictates my ballot, barring a massive flub on your case. Win the weighing debate, and you will most likely win my ballot.

When it comes to theory, my obligation to be "tech" comes second to my obligation to promote good norms; I reserve the right to not vote on theory if I think it promotes bad norms. I will tell you if I do this and why I think the theory is worth intervening against. See the theory section of an explanation of in-depth takes.

I will not flow off speech docs during speech. More on my reasoning below, the short version is I think it undermines a spoken activity and invites cheating.

Otherwise, expect me to evaluate the round based on the flow.

this used to say "tech > truth, weigh, have good evidence" but you can probably tell those three things by glancing at the length of my paradigm and the school i debated for. listed are things i consider to be *relatively* unique perspectives on the activity that i want you to be aware of when debating in front of me)

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹. ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ ݁₊ ⊹ ݁ ݁ general . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ ݁. ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊ ⊹ ݁. ݁˖ . ݁ . ݁₊

miscellaneous notes.

- If neither teams extend, absent evidence questions, I will presume for the first speaking team – it feels less biased than arbitrarily picking certain skills or behaviors to award.

- You can't clear your opponents – they are not obligated to adapt to you. Debaters are free to do whatever they think is most strategic to win the round, whether or not their arguments are comprehensible is up to the judge to decide.

- You don't have to ask me to take prep time – just do it plz :/

- Wins + Losses – at the end of the round I will vote for one of the teams.

- Speech Times – see NSDA rules

- Speech docs: I will not flow off them during speeches, however I will read evidence when round is over. Here's why: Reading off of speech docs enables debaters to spread incoherently. Divorcing spoken arguments from written has various harms. It opens up the possibility of debaters adding content to speech docs that isn't said in round. Intuitively, there is no point in being in an oral activity if the only true manner of communication is reading docs. 'Communication skills' are not what I primarily value debate for, but even if it constitutes only 10% of benefit of doing this activity, that value is not worth annihilating completely. That said, as outlined later in my paradigm, I care about evidence. Enforcing that does require reading cards. So, I will read evidence if it is called out or crucial to my ballot, and if it is bad I will be mad > : (

rebuttal thoughts.

- Frontline in second rebuttal – if you don't, the first reb is conceded and I will consider any later responses new and won't evaluate.

- Do not read defense on your on case. Do not indict your evidence. "I cannot believe I have to put this in my paradigm."

- It seems like some rebuttals like to dump a bunch of blippy and under-warranted analytical responses. If an argument doesn’t have a warrant, I can’t evaluate it – point this out to me and you'll have a much easier job frontlining/backlining.

collapsing.

- Please collapse the debate in the back half! Ideally, you'll be going for at most 2-3 pieces of offense in summary and 1-2 pieces of offense in final focus.

- Extend Warrants. (saying "Extend the links" doesn't count)

defense may be sticky.

- Defense isn't sticky if you're using opponent's defense to kick a turn.You can't concede new defense to kick out of turns after your first speech to respond. For example, if someone reads a turn in rebuttal, you frontline it in second rebuttal and it is extended in first summary, you cannot concede defense to kick out of it in second summary. This is true EVEN IF there was defense read that takes out the turn.

- Defense isn't sticky if it is poorly responded to but not extended. For example, if someone frontlines their C1 but misses a delink, I won't eval the delink unless it is extended.

- Defense is sticky if contention is not addressed at all. If you don’t frontline a contention in second rebuttal, you cannot extend that contention in later speeches, even if the other team doesn’t extend defense to it.

✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°.weighing ✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°. ✧˖°.✧˖°. ✧˖°.

Here is a helpful summary of what I like

weighing turns in rebuttal

i've left the room. <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X-> ballot secured.

multiple weighing mechanisms in summary

i've left the room. <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X-> ballot secured.

metaweighing

i've left the room. <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X-> ballot secured.

spending >30 seconds on the weighing debate in ff

i've left the room. <-----------------------------------------------------------------------X-> ballot secured.

"elaborating" on summary weighing (ie adding new warrants)

i've left the room. <--------------------------------------------------------X---------------------------> ballot secured.

reading new weighing mechanisms in first final

i've left the room. <-------------------------------X----------------------------------------------------> ballot secured.

reading new weighing mechanisms in second final

i've left the room. <------X-----------------------------------------------------------------------------> ballot secured.

Please a) weigh b) answer your opponent's weighing mechs c) compare your weighing mechanisms (i.e. metaweighing).I evaluate the weighing debate first, so if you want to pick up my ballot, you should focus your efforts here during the back half.

I won't evaluate new weighing in second final focus, and I generally won't in first final focus. That said, I'm a bit more lenient on first final to elaborate on weighing done in summary. In particular, if the debate is exceedingly late breaking and collapse is not very clear, I'd rather have weighing than not.

I’ll time speeches. I don’t really care if you go a few seconds over finishing up a response, but I won’t evaluate responses that are started after time is up. My takes have gotten more grouchy on this particular question becausee I've witnessed a disappointingly high number of 5 minute rebuttals when judges get lax on timining.

‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧ evidence ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊˚ ⋅ ‧₊

Debate is about persuasion. It is also about policymaking. Most importantly, it should make you a better person. Lying about evidence is horrendous for this goal, whether or not you read "better person" as getting smarter or being moral.

If any of the things I describe below are unfamiliar, please talk to me after round why I think they are beneficial for the activity. If they seem inaccessible,here is how to cut cards, here is what a cut card case should look like.

Send speech docs. I will boost speaks by .5 for case and rebuttal docs getting sent out.

Send cut cards (when asked). I will cap speaks at 27s if you fail to provide the paragraph that you paraphrase from in a timely manner.

I will only call for evidence a) it sounds like you're massively over claiming things and misconstruing evidence b) if I can't vote based on arguments made in round c) someone asks me to call for it.

(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)progressive arguments(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)(⩺_⩹)

stay clippin

jk don't actually clip – it's against the rules!

I'm going to list my beliefs on theory here, because I think that when it comes to arguments about norm-setting for the activity, my obligation to be "tech" comes second to my obligation to promote education. What this means in practice is that in close theory rounds, I am likely to pick up the team whose practices/behavior aligns with what I believe is good for debate. That said, I'm still willing to listen to theory debates and if the round is an absolute smack down I won't intervene against theory shells I think are unnecessary but not harmful. I add this last caveat because I am open to the possibility that my beliefs on what is good for the activity are not 100% optimal, and I think theory debates can play a role in developing good norms for the activity, so I don't want to shut down all theory I don't already agree with.

Here is a (non-exhaustive) summary on my view towards theory:

Paraphrasing.

strike me if you do it. <-X--------------------------------------------------------> unequivocally good.

Disclosing Open Source.

strike me if you do it. <----------------------------------------------X-----------> unequivocally good.

Disclosing Full Text.

strike me if you do it. <-------------------------X--------------------------------> unequivocally good.

Disclosing Broken Interps.

strike me if you do it. <----------------------------------------X-----------------> unequivocally good.

Round Reports.

strike me if you do it. <-----------------------------X----------------------------> unequivocally good.

Reading Trigger Warnings.

strike me if you do it. <----------------X-----------------------------------------> unequivocally good.

paraphrasing is bad. Para good warrants are balls and my threshold for responding to them is quite low.

disclosure is good. OS (tagged and highlighted ev) >>>>>>> full text (no tags or highlights) > first three last three (read OS interps! disclosure nowdays is kinda egregious)

TWs for non-graphic descriptions of violence are bad. the idea that marginalized groups have to ask for permission to talk about oppression, even when their arguments are edited and censored to be non-graphic, is not slay. That said, if you want to run TWs good I will evaluate it and won't intervene against it – again, I'm listing my beliefs here so you're not surprised how my ballot turns out in close/messy rounds.

Here is where I stand on the various paradigm issues:

competing interps. <--------X-------------------------------------------------> reasonability.

I default to competing interps (risk offense means I'll probably vote on a shell if there's no counter-interp). However, I am sympathetic to reasonability arguments if they are made against IVIs or (clearly) friv theory.

no RVIs. <-----------------X----------------------------------------> RVIs.

Similar to competing interps, although I generally buy the warrants that RVIs chill debates about norms and you shouldn't win for being fair, I am willing to evaluate these arguments when read against IVIs or friv theory.

education. <----------------------------------X-----------------------> fairness.

The warrant that debate is funded because its educational always struck me as a bit silly, but my preference for fairness is very minimal.

drop the debater. <-X--------------------------------------------------------> drop the argument.

I feel like if the terminal impact of the shell is just drop the argument, it probably wasn't necessary to read.

A note on "frivolous theory": I've thrown around the term friv theory without defining it. Tbh, I don't know where the line in the sand is when it comes to these arguments and I don't believe that matters. Don't push it with theory, I will try my best to be open-minded and not intervene against silly interps (round reports cough cough) but the more you get into the shoes theory, 30 speaker point theory, etc side of things the more likely I am to not evaluate it. Even then, I dislike the trend in the circuit towards weaponizing evidence rules/disclosure practices to punish teams with good practices – to me, there is a qualitative difference between reading disclosure on a team who doesn't disclose and reading open sources on a team who does first three last three. Again, I'm not going to intervene on face if you're reading theory in this vein, just don't go too far down this rabbit hole.

On Kritiks: I know thebasics of cap and security Ks, I've only hit and judged performance or survival arguments. To some degree, I take issue with Ks being categorized as "progressive debate" as I think they're much closer to substance rounds than theory. I was primarily a policy debater, so you will likely fare better in front of me the more topical of a K you read. Overall, there are things I like about critical argumentation in public forum (exposure to a novel literature base, fosters inclusion) and things I don't like (substituting jargon for substance, oversimplified views of identity), but I have much less reservations about listening to Kritiks than I do about listening to theory, so as long as you make sure to send docs and explain your arguments clearly, I am open to listening to pretty much anything.

. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. parting thoughts . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁. . ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁.. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁.. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁ ⟡ ݁ . ⊹ ₊ ݁.. ݁₊ ⊹ . ݁

Time your own prep.

Don't say offensive things! (your classic -isms) If something makes you feel uncomfortable/unsafe in round, please email me (lizzyterv@gmail.com) or send me a message on Facebook messenger (Elizabeth Terveen)!

People that have informed my thoughts on debate:SOFA and TRONK

Have fun!

Aaron Tian Bergen County Academies

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 2:34 PM EDT

NOVA Round Robin Champion

3x 4-3 @ Bronx

3 silver bids

I'm good for anything but quite lazy

don't delay the round. send all evidence read in a word document - NO LOCKED GOOGLE DOCS.

* for intramurals*

- please time yourselves and try to fill up all of your speech time

- extend in summary and final focus

- weigh!!! make it comparative to your opponents arguments

- be nice

- organize and signpost your speeches

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

NOT GOOD FOR BLIPPY BACKHALF DEBATES

send all evidence

aarontian.debate@gmail.com

yes speed but be clear - i'll clear you and you can tell if i'm not flowing

my threshold for new final focus implications, crossaps, or extrapolations is VERY HIGH, especially second final focus. You'd have to make good justifications.

will vote on any argument - i have some of my thoughts in my paradigm but they are not strict predispositions

don't be racist sexist etc

postrounding is good but dont be rude

i eval off the flow (tech>>>>>>>>truth) - i think intervention is terrible and will comfortably evaluate solely off of in round extrapolations unless directed otherwise (ie. you make ev indicts/say look at the evidence it's bad) - that being said i think indicts are only significant with counter warranting or opposing ev. Exceptions to intervention are certain reasonability debates on theory, if intervention good is won, or if I feel a need to step in to check certain behaviors.

i dont think links themselves are offense

presumption must be read latest by summary - i default presume neg

i look at weighing first then if there's a link thats won, but I think "any risk" only kinda applies to fw like extinction cause a low risk of a link to ex. recession even if it outweighs would translate to a mitigated impact so you can't access that (that would have to be implicated though). any risk only makes sense in the context of categorically distinct impacts.

assuming they are not in direct clash with each other, weighing arguments will almost never be a wash ex. if one team wins link timeframe + shortcircuit but the other wins impact magnitude , both can be assumed true and still have a decisive outcome. *link weighing is extremely smart and useful, but unfortunately underutilized.

warrants are essential, extensions are as well to an extent - I should be able to reexplain your arguments based on the summary and final extrapolation

im generally unpersuaded by intervening actors - i think most of the time its a late breaking attempt at inserting unwarranted defense but will vote on it if read well or dropped

im also generally unpersuaded by probability weighing

terminal defense takes out try or die - i think try or die is often granted way too much leeway, imo inroads to aff offense with a faster timeframe flip it. that being said good meta weighing on try or die takes out timeframe/inroads is quite fire

presumption requires zero risk - i believe in zero risk from won terminal defense

i enjoy a good k debate but explain things well

i think most k alts are cps or im not sure what they do if they're not fiated

good for reps ks, most basic non util fw (phil), etc, but err overexplaining > underexplaining on anything that differs from policy

i'm very skeptical about discourse alts/voters - will almost never vote on "vote for us because we brought it up" unless its absolutely dropped in which case I will be sad

I'm not as well versed on deep TFWK clashes and I think smart DAs, case turns, or PIKs are more fun. I think T violent/T bad dumps are likely groupeable and a lot more intimidating than they are substantive

Theory

i dislike theory but will vote on it. (this only applies to out of round violations like disclo or round reports, T or in round abuse is different)

theory > ev challenge on ev ethics but i'll eval an ev chal too

i think ivis are fine - they should have the same "dtd" warrants or "voter" justifications as theory ie. you need to explain why it's a procedural issue or why it outweighs

I am not opposed to voting on rvis/ocis

reasonability needs a brightline, a ci can just be defending the violation

good for T - i think a lot of positions stretch the limits of the res

i think the argument that T violates T is interesting but silly

General

mediocre for tricks - explain well in the backhalf if ur going for them

cross is binding but point it out in speech cause I'm not flowing cross

if you're going for impact turns you should briefly extend the link to the res ie. their case but the threshold is very low

i think the same way crossaps are considered "new" responses, implications off existing arguments on the flow are also new to an extent ex. you probably should not get away with new wipeout in final just because the arguments s risk outweighs, ai development inevitable, and an extinction link from the res exist on the flow.

yes "sticky defense" but my interp is that if the second rebuttal doesn't explicitly kick a contention but they don't answer ANYTHING on it the first summary isn't obligated to extend dropped defense and if the second summary goes for that contention the first final is justified in extending rebuttal defense. However, if only specific pieces of defense are dropped on a contention that's frontlined to any extent, the first summary has to extend dropped defense and the first final is not justified in extending straight from rebuttal.

Speaks

high speaks for smart strategic choices and arguments

Biryani Bidder, Chubby Bunny

Qi Tie Edgemont Junior-Senior High School

Ravi Tiyyagura Ravenwood High School

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 2:19 AM CDT

TLDR: Parent judge who votes off Flow
Tech>Truth (except the isms)
Prog, K's, Theory, Tricks - I won't get and you will lose.
If you are discriminatory etc. I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks I can
Squirrelly arguments are fine as long as you can defend your links

Send your case(s) to each other, save time asking and waiting for evidence.
I don’t want to be on the email chain for prelims.
If you are going to read more than 800 words in the elims please send your docs to e95503+pf@gmail.com
Prefer roadmaps.
Please cut cards.
Any indication of stealing prep, forget your speaks.

Speed:
In general, don’t spread. You get better speaks if you convince me with less words. I guess in elims, you will kick me, so send me your docs so I can follow.

Substance:
In general, I look at weighing first. Whichever team has the best link into the best-weighed impact wins the round. If they say the sky is green, the sky is green until you tell me otherwise. I want to see a clash on arguments, don’t just say the same things repeatedly. I will not vote on anything that is not in Summary and FF, please collapse, defense isn’t sticky, and extend warrants. You can’t just say “Extend our Lee 20 evidence” tell me what that evidence said and why it matters. If you drop something in summary you can’t bring it back up in FF, I won’t evaluate it. I don’t flow cross, but I will pay attention and it will impact your speaks.
TLDR: Collapse, extend, and WEIGH!!!

Evidence:
I don’t want to be on the email chain for evidence, but please try and send your case before you speak to speed up the round. Its very boring to wait while you go back and forth requesting and sending evidence.

It's your job to challenge the evidence provided. If there was evidence that was contested and key to the round, I might call for it afterward. If it’s egregiously paraphrased/not cut properly, I will drop your speaks, and if it’s bad enough that it changes the round, you will probably lose. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to pull up a card, I will drop your speaks, so make sure you know where your evidence is.

If you ask for evidence or cards, just wait. Don't chat with your partner or type away.
TLDR: Cut your cards. DON'T steal prep!

Progressive:

Even though my son tries hard, I am yet to be convinced of the merit of a Prog/Theory/K's debate.
TLDR: Run Ks, Tricks, Theory, etc and you will lose.

Miscellaneous:
I’ll give you a 5-second grace period on speeches, after that, I stop flowing.
I will drop you if you are discriminatory and you will get the lowest possible speaks
Be nice in cross
Must frontline in the second rebuttal
Topicality is not a voter, but I will drop arguments if you prove to me they're non-topical
Signposting = Very Good, if you can’t signpost, it will be hard for me to flow
Be chill and sound like you know what you’re talking about and you’ll get good speaks

Have Fun!

Victor Tong Hire 9 rounds None

Kien Tran Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 8:28 PM CDT

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

Bach Tran (he/him)--please call me Bach!

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 (at) gmail (dot) com

If I am judging you in PF please also add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27

1.5 years of HSLD, now (semi) coaching PF for Seven Lakes

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

tl;dr/read before round - scroll down for PF-specifics

Tech > Truth. I flow and the flow will dictate my ballot.I will vote on anything up to and including the Death K or "must read author quals" if won technically. A few caveats, though:

1) I will discard the flow if debater(s) insist the round must stop. If this happens I will do what the tabroom tells me to do. Of course, stopping the round because someone said a slur will yield drastically different outcomes than stopping the round because you feel upset about having to answer the K. I might invoke this on my own in egregious cases. Please be kind and a decent person.

2) Ad homs/character attacks are not arguments--out of round concerns about behaviour are for the tabroom and coaches to deal with, not me. I have neither the capacity nor the interest to referee interpersonal beef between minors that I myself cannot verify.

3) Only complete arguments count--claim+warrant(s)+impact/implication(s). My bar for a warrant is lower than most. For reference, "condo bad--time skew" is not an argument and neither is "conceded MAD checks--terminal defense."

4) New arguments in the 2ar/nr/backhalf are bad but you must call them out. The exception is of course the 2ar where I will try my best to protect the 2nr from nonsense (preemptive instructions from 2ns help a lot). All in all, ballot-instructive language in the rebuttals are great and decreases the probability of intervening.

5) CX is binding. Aside from maybe the granular details of your positions, cx and speeches should be consistent. Cowardice and dishonestly are bad and I will use speaker points to punish you.

6) Explain more if you don't read standard policy stuff. I have a tl;dr understanding of most things, but it's up to you to hash out the nitty-gritty details. This applies equally to things like postmodern Ks or dense CP competition debates.

Speaker points start at 28.8. Points go up if you are technically proficient, strategically courageous, and/or demonstrate excellent research practices. Likewise, points will go down if you decide to be unserious/a jerk. You are playing a dangerous game asking for a 30.

The 1AC should be read at the start time and shared before that. Dead time=less decision time=bad ballots.

Any questions just ask--I have way too many thoughts to put on here. My ballots tend to be shorter and the verbal longer - for this reason postrounds are highly encouraged. Do note that this is different than 3ars/nrs - these will be meet with boomer "go away" energy.

Evidence

- Speech docs/ev sharing is non-negotiable - I will not look at anything that is not a word/pdf document (verbatimzed word docs are preferred).

- Speed is fine, if you are clear. If you think I can flow round-decisive analytics in the rebuttals with at top card speed, you should strike me. I flow on paper without author names - pen time, numbering, signposting and referencing arguments/warrants are all musts.

- You can insert rehighlights up to the point of an objection, provided they are short and the implications explained. Obviously if you are recutting cards you need to read them out loud.

- I refrain from reading ev after round unless explicitly and instructively told to by teams. If I do, I will not bail out incoherent highlighting.

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

Policy: anything goes absent theory but no judgekick if not instructed to. 0% risk is possible. Please explain topic vocab/acronyms. In depth case debates and impact turns are my favorite. Not the best for dense competition debates. Condo is a voting issue, everything else is debatable.

Vague theory interps however are not persuasive to me - "cp results in the plan, voting issue" = just win the cp results in the plan (and if you can do that, why bother going for theory?). Stuff like "no international fiat" is fine though. Reject the team or the argument are both fine, just make the argument.

The K: you should explain & weigh what is offense/uniqueness/solvency under your framework. Framework/ROTB can be anything if you out-debate the other team. These things are done better via the line-by-line and not massive overviews. If you can't explain what the K means/what the alt does in plain English in less than a sentence or two in CX, your chances of getting my ballot are vanishingly small.

Theory/T: no defaults on paradigm issues (read them!) + slow down on analytic walls. Weighing between shells is really important.

I am very good for reasonability against nonsense. Please stop letting the trolls get away with murder.

It takes more than 5 seconds to explain why an IVI is "independent" and a "voting issue." Will not vote on these otherwise.

K Affs: the 1ac should probably defend a change from the squo. Debate is probably a game (plus probably a bunch of other things). Framework is fine, impact turns are fine, CIs also fine. Do whatever you want as long as you can justify your practice but please get off the blocks and interact with the other team (can't really vote for you if I don't know the part(s) of the 1ac that "fairness" is supposed to outweigh...)

Please hold my hands through a KvK debate (especially your vision of competition/perms). I prefer impact calc over "our theory over yours" and so forth, because the latter is almost never resolvable without intervention.

Phil: bad for the tricky variety but otherwise explain and we're all good.

Tricks: please don't - I won't hack but I just really don't like judging them. At the very least read complete arguments not the dumb stuff (looking at you, "no neg arguments"...).

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable. My views are really similar to that of Bryce Piotrowski.

Disclosure/OS is probably good but I'm willing to vote the other way. Paraphrasing is bad and the chance I vote to the contrary is vanishingly small.

Please stop having prepositions as taglines. If "indeed" is all there is then I will, indeed, not flow the card.

Defense is not sticky - frontline in 2nd rebuttal and extend whatever you want to go for in the back-half. The back-half should also collapse.

Link weighing is underrated and usually round winners

Weighing requires explaining scenarios and how the world works, not yeeting buzzwords at each other. The fact that you can win by reading nonsense and then screaming "try or die" for half an hour is ridiculous. Metaweighing/judge instruction on how to resolve different layers wins rounds.

I think K teams get more mileage if they go for (real) impact framing argument instead of yapping about such things as "pre-fiat" or "discourse." I will, of course, vote on them if you win them but that does not mean that they are, in fact, serious arguments.

Liliane Trimouille Valley Christian High School

Minhhy Truoung The Kinkaid School

Last changed on Fri November 15, 2024 at 10:08 AM EDT

Note: I've been off the circuit for quite some time so be mindful. Not familiar with current topic literature.

Flay <------------------*Me*------------------------------------------->Ultra Elite Tech Judge

*I'm somewhere in between Flay and Tech prob

General

E-mail chain: minhhyt@gmail.com

With that being said I am most comfortable with trad/stock/policy arguments.

DA’s - not much to say here other than case-specific stuff is always great.

CP: CP needs to be very clear and obvious, for example, net benefits need to be explicitly extended, explained, and repeated.

Theory: go slow, make sure to clearly articulate why I should vote off of any theory arguments. Winning all parts is needed. If the abuse is not really clear and you're doing something sketchy, I'll be annoyed. I have very limited experience with Theory so if you don’t dumb it down to ELI5 levels i’ll be lost :( Run at your own risk (of me not understanding). On a personal level, I actually do enjoy evaluating theory arguments and want to get better at judging them but alas, my experience is limited. I'm open to arguments about how the way we debate impacts the activity.

K- Not familiar with K literature so take time to explain. If you talk in a bunch of jargon that I don’t understand I will not evaluate it. Run at your own risk. GO SLOW. If you don’t go slow, and I mean slower than you think slow means, I will inevitably vote “wrong” cause I’ll be lost.

If you are still absolutely keen on engaging in a prog debate despite the caution, I will of course still consider evaluating the arguments given. However, please do the following and don't be annoyed if I give a, in your opinion, "wrong" RFD. If that worries you, please strike me.

1. You MUST make sequencing arguments and emphasize them (ie. opponent conceded RoB so evaluate X argument first, theory comes prior to K because X, fairness is important so let me weigh case or else entire AC is mooted). If this is 1 point in a list of 15, that's not what I mean. Specifically, call out the argument. I need to know the "hierarchy" of which level of the debate I should be evaluating first.

2. Absolutely go slow. You don't need to slow down to a conversational level, but please slow down significantly. If you read off a file with 15 different points in 20 seconds, I'm not going to absorb anything. I will not absorb file dumps, you must pick and choose which arguments to prioritize and slow down. Especially slow down when you are collapsing to round-winning points.

3. Do not go in with the assumption that you can blitz through a pre-prepared shell or file and that I will automatically understand everything. You have to dumb things down for me. This is especially true for dense K literature or complex theory args. What do I mean by this? Use more everyday language and if throughout your entire speech, you never look up and try to explain things to me from the top of your head, you're probably doing things wrong and I will absorb nothing. If you choose to blitz through a file dump, at the very very least summarize at the end and highlight your best points.

4. If any of this confuses you just clarify before round.

____________________

Other notes:

Speed is fine but as always, slow down when appropriate such as during tags, theory, analytics. Especially take time if what you’re saying is crucial to winning the round. If you’re going to rapid-fire through analytics pls include it in the speech doc because I’m a poor typer.

Assuming the debate doesn't devolve into condo good/bad, you cannot kick out of an argument by simply saying the magic words "kick" and then it disappears. This is mostly true if your opponent has read a turn that generates offense for them. Be specific about your kick. For example, if your opponent reads multiple turns and includes terminal defense, then concede the terminal defense as a way to kick out of the arg to avoid evaluating any of the turns as offense for your opponent. Of course, different situations require different kicking strats but you should get my point. At the very least you can just argue that your cleaner pieces of offense outweigh any of the turns from your kicked argument. TLDR answer any offense.

Impacts should definitely be framed so I want comparison and impact calc. I need to know how timeframe, probability, and magnitude all compare w/each other.

Overall, I really like case debates but that doesn’t mean I won’t evaluate other stuff.

Again, because of my limited experience evaluating progressive args, don't assume I'm at all familiar with any K literature, common Theory args, etc...

Open CX is okay with me.

Tech > Truth most of the time

No Tricks

ON prep time, flashing/email chain doesn’t count as prep but don’t make it ridiculously long.

PF Specific Notes

I don't have experience with super progressive arguments so run them at your own risk. I will always prefer traditional arguments. If you do decide to engage in K debates etc..., refer to my points in the general section. I am capable but not the best at judging more common theory arguments (ie. disclosure), evidence violations, and problematic author indicts, and am terrible at judging non-T Ks, High Theory, tricks, among others.

Make sure to properly weigh. If you just say, I am winning on timeframe, magnitude, scope, etc... without actually explaining anything, that is not weighing and I will be annoyed. Also meta-weigh when necessary. If both teams claim that they're winning on time-frame and don't do anything further to breakout of the gridlock it's a wash. Make sure to collapse when necessary. Smart collapsing will win you the round.

For final focus please provide clear voters and weigh your impacts. Whatever you bring up during final focus should have been extended cleanly throughout the round. The more you outline for me why you are winning, the easier it is for me to vote for you. Judge instruction is critical in this speech.I will be hesitant to vote for any 1-liner blippy arguments unless you spend the time to properly contextualize and implicate why that argument matters for the ballot.

Open CX/ Flex Prep is fine.

If you don't signpost properly I can't flow your argument and thus I can't vote on it.

All aspects of the performance should have a purpose, whether that be body movement or the use of various rhetorical devices. In the same way, just as things can be underdone so too can things be overdone. For me, I prefer if speeches do not feel over-performative or dramatized. Though this may change depending on the event, I generally like to see more natural gestures. In all, I really want to be drawn in as a part of the audience rather than spoken at. Your speech should be able to immerse me into the topic. Part of doing that is making sure to have a clear organization (distinct points, thesis statement) and always staying on topic. As a side note, my biggest pet peeve is if you talk in a completely monotone voice for the entire presentation, so be mindful of that.

Teresa Uthurralt Stuyvesant High School

Alexander Valcarcel Christopher Columbus High School

Christian Vasquez The Blake School

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 7:09 PM CDT

For the postseason tournaments:

I will intervene if I don't see a value to a theory debate in public forum. Times are too short to turn a debate into a sandbagging contest, and I won't listen anymore. Whether debate is a simulation or a game, I don't think these debates should determine the outcome of championships or bubble rounds. You initiating a theory debate means you have to believe there's truly something egregious going on. Disagree? You're welcome to, please strike me.

I do think people are still overestimating me in K debates. I have a passing understanding on most issues, but anything beyond the beaten path will leave me to my own thoughts on how an argument works, which isn't fair to any party involved. The last time I was reading anything close to most K literature was at least five years ago, and I'm more than likely far behind the times. Really, I have enough background knowledge to be dangerous but not helpful when left alone.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.

My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.

This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedebatedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.

I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.
I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?
Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a white pomo tradition/understanding(French high theory). Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are fine(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Madhu Venugopal Leland High School

Phillis Wan The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri October 18, 2024 at 5:44 AM PDT

Unionville '23

4 years CX, 3 years LD. i hated reading thru paradigms so i'm keeping this short :)

tech > truth. be nice, have fun! pls add me to the email chain: unionvillewn@gmail.com

feel free the email any questions after round!

To LDeRs:

1 - stock Ks, policy args

2 - creative phil

3 - theory, T

4 - confusing CPs, Kant & Hobbes (smh), pomo Ks

5/S - tricks, friv theory

Anyways I was a flex debater until I specialized in the (awesome) Cap K in my junior and senior year, so go for whatever arg that you're comfortable going with, I most likely would understand most things u say if you explain it well (as long as spreading's clear).

- Start slow then build up, takes a bit time to adjust to circuit speed.

- CLASH pls pls pls

- pls explain complicated CPs

--> would prefer to have less than 5 neg flows

CX:

did all speeches at some point lol. My partner was more policy-focused while i was more K-focused, read plans on aff and neg strat was a combo of DA, CP, and cap K. So i'm def familiar with most argument style and had plenty of rounds on both sides of K v plan.

--> would prefer to have less than 6 neg flows

--> explain your CPs, would say that I'm def not the best judge there for complicated CPs, usually find them hard to understand & interpret. Also I do think that some random niche process CPs are probably abusive?? Not to say you shouldn't run them, all depends on the round and what's strategic

--> threshold for voting on theory might be slightly lower than your average policy judge bc of LD experience

--> love clever cross-apps and turns

--> love a good K debate

--> love a good clash debate w/ good weighing

for novices:

1 - please use up all your speech time!!! If u still have time left, default to doing some weighing or summarizing your case, those can never go wrong.

2 - Rebuttal Speech Structure (not required but it helps to be organized) should follow a SAR structure: Summarize, Answer, Respond. First, summarize your contention (this is your offense), answer the defense that your opponent has read against you, and then respond and attack (offense) against your opponent's case.

3 - Extending your case--> There's often a misconception that if your opponent drops something, then it's auto-assumed that you win it and it is true. It's only true if you also summarize your contention and provide warrants for why your contention is true and how it outweighs your opponent's impacts

speaks:

+0.1 for sending over a good debate meme!

+0.2 for being paperless, debate doesn't deserve to waste that much paper. remind me at the top of ur doc

+0.2 for not spreading when you go against novice or traditional debaters, make the debate educational and not inaccessible. pls don't read theory or tricks against them

NO SPEAKS BUT

- If you read cap and want a cap K masterfile (mostly cut by myself), i'm down to share and discuss strats outside of round!

Wanjun Wang Cary Academy

Daniel Xiao Hire 9 rounds

Weiyao Xiao NS Independent

Yibing Xin Sharon

Christina Xu Lincoln East High School

Jun Yan Livingston High School

Jianli Yang North Allegheny

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:38 AM EDT

General:
ESL - DO NOT SPREAD
NO PROG
Truth > Tech
Keep Calm
Speak Loud And Clear
Maintain Proper Body Language
Keep The Topic On Track
Respect your Opponents

I am a lay judge and will vote based on who explains their argument most clearly and weighs the best. DO NOT SPREAD, I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Being respectful and clear are my main priorities. Below is more event-specific information written for more experienced debaters, but if you follow my general preferences, you will not need the information below. PLEASE DISCLOSE SPEECH DOCS BEFORE EVERY SPEECH cici.qindao@gmail.com. It makes it easier to sign my ballot and waiting for evidence can delay the tournament.

PF -

Second Speakers: If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Start weighing as early as possible, preferably during rebuttals. This is not needed but much appreciated so I can know what your main points are. I only know trad debate, so please do not venture into the depths of prog. If you do begin making Ks or T shells, make sure the explanation is impeccable, similar to explaining to a child. Do not bring up new responses in FF unless it is pointing out that your opponent had some type of rule infraction, like bringing up new responses.

First Speakers:
NO NEW RESPONSES IN THE SECOND SUMMARY. I will drop your team for new responses in the second summary. If you do not weigh in summary, then I have nothing to vote off of in your FF, so this is a necessity. If you give an off-time roadmap, you have to follow it. Do not give the roadmap if you do not follow it. Once again, do not make prog arguments because I am only a trad lay judge. No spreading, and keep yourself organized.

Policy -

Do not spread, and make sure to disclose your cases at least 10 minutes before the round begins to give me ample time to read and understand your case. No trix, and don’t use any overly complex K or T arguments. If you make the argument, make sure you explain it like you are explaining it to a baby because I have no experience in judging policy.

LD -

I have no experience with LD judging and will need every argument to be very clearly explained. Do not use niche or hard-to-understand frameworks because I will not be able to follow their complexities. I will not be able to follow the circuit LD spreading even if their arguments are disclosed. If this tournament allows, STRIKE ME FOR LD

Jimmy Yang Ridgewood HS - Ridgewood, NJ

Yan Yang Tri-Valley Coalition

Nan Yao Summit HS

Luciane Yoshikawa Ravenwood High School None

Patrice Young The Hewitt School

Hello debaters! Here is how I approach judging rounds in Public Forum Debate.

Background

I’m a high school science teacher with one year of experience advising a debate club and spectating numerous debates. I’m familiar with debate structure and terminology. While I may not catch every specific reference, I value well-explained arguments that connect clearly to the resolution.

I use traditional paper flowing to track arguments and evidence, so clarity and signposting are very important to help me follow the debate.

Decision-Making Priorities

Quality of Arguments Over Style:
- I focus on the strength of your arguments and the evidence you present rather than flashy delivery or stylistic flair.
- Persuasion is important, but logical coherence and robust reasoning weigh more heavily in my decisions.
Framework and Weighing:
- If you provide a framework for how I should evaluate the round, explain it clearly and show how your arguments align with it. If neither side presents a framework, I will default to the most clearly impacted and well-explained arguments.
- Make explicit weighing comparisons, such as “our argument outweighs on magnitude, probability, or timeframe.” This helps me make a fair decision.
Clash and Responses:
- Engaging directly with your opponents' arguments is essential. I value rebuttals and refutations that demonstrate critical thinking and careful analysis of your opponents' case.
Evidence:
- Evidence quality matters, but overloading me with cards without analysis is not effective. Tell me why the evidence matters and how it supports your claim.
- I will call for evidence only if there’s a specific dispute over its accuracy or relevance.
Signposting and Organization:
- Clearly indicate where you are in the round (e.g., “on their second contention,” “back to our first point”). This helps me keep my flow accurate and follow your arguments.

Role of the Final Focus

The Final Focus is crucial. This is your opportunity to crystallize the debate. I will weigh only the arguments extended and sufficiently developed in both the Summary and Final Focus speeches. Dropped arguments are considered conceded unless refuted earlier in the round.

Other Notes

Speed: While I prefer moderate pacing, I can follow some speed as long as you are clear. If I can’t flow it, I can’t weigh it.
Crossfire: Use this time strategically to clarify or expose weaknesses in your opponents’ case. I will observe but do not weigh crossfire directly unless it is brought up in speeches.

Good luck, and I look forward to judging your debate!

Tyler Zabolio The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Tue October 8, 2024 at 8:46 AM EDT

Debated NDT-CEDA at Gonzaga 2021-2024 and am currently coaching at Niles West High School.

TLDR

Yes email chain - tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Time yourself and time your opponents

I have experience with most types of arguments but don't assume I have read your author/lit already. Explain your theory/complex legal args in language that is understandable

Impact calc wins rounds

speed is good but outside of policy it's cringe

Tech over truth within reason (ie a dropped arg with no warrant or impact doesnt matter)

I don't care at all what you say and will vote on anything that is not immediately and obviously violent

Not a fan of the super-aggressive debate style - unless executed perfectly it comes off as cringe 99.9% of the time

Judge instruction please

Some of the most interesting debates I have judged have been T debates against policy teams. In a perfect world the negative should explain what the in round implications of the untopical aff were as well and probably more importantly what it would mean for debate if their interpretation was the new norm.

Going for T doesnt mean you cant extend a case turn you're winning

Limits is a very convincing argument for me - I probably agree that a ton of small affs would be bad

I have read both policy and K affs

Debating about debate is cool but if it is distracting from x scholarship it is less cool

Bad K affs are not cool but good K affs are cool

K affs that don't address the resolution/stem from topic research are not good and start from adeficit

I find myself pretty split in FW v K Aff debates. If the aff sufficiently answers/turns FW I have no problem voting aff to forward a new model of debate. I find this specifically true when the 1AC has built-in or at least inferential answers to fw that they can deploy offensively.

At the same time if the negative does good FW debating and justifies the limits their model imposes I feel good voting on FW. I am not convinced that reading FW in and of itself is violent though I recognize the impact these arguments may have on x scholarship which means that when this gets explained I am down to evaluate the impacts of reading these types of arguments but I don't think its a morally bankrupt argument to go for or anything like that.

Debate bad as an argument is not convincing to me, we are all here by free will and we all love debate or at the very least think it is a good academic activity. This does not mean you cannot convince me that there are problems within the community .

Switch side debate probably solves your impact turn to framework - affs that undercover SSD put themselves in a really tough spot. I often find myself rewarding strategic 2NR decisions that collapse on SSD or the TVA (or another argument you may be winning).

Fairness is always good

Debate is a game- I am severely not convinced by "no it isn't, debate is my life" - it is inarguably a game to an extent and everyone chose to come play it. Unlimited other places to advocate for X literature means no reason debate is unique.

Theory

Theory is good.

If you read like 6 reasons to reject the team I think some warrants are necessary. ex:"Reject the team, utopian fiat bad" is not an argument - why is x thing utopian?

If you are going to go for a theory arg in a final rebuttal ensure your partner extended it substantially enough for you to have adequate arguments to go for or give a nuanced speech on the specific args extended by your partner - generalized rebuttals on theory are bad. At the same time I am cool with hailmary rebuttals on theory because you are getting destroyed in every other part of the debate

I tend to lean neg on condo stuff but not by much

Will vote on perf con

Dont read your theory blocks at 2 million wpm

Bonus points for contextualizing your theory args to the round they are being deployed in

If you want to go for theory spend more than 7 seconds on it when you are first deploying the argument

Cool with a 1 off and case strat

Kritiks are cool

Vague alts are annoying and if I cant understand how the alt solves case and you don't have good case stuff I am gonna have a tough time voting neg unless the link debate implicates that (and is articulated)

Explain links in clear terms and be specific to the aff you are hitting. Specific links are better than generic like state bad links but if you have a generic link please explain to me how the aff uniquely makes the situation WORSE not just that it doesnt make it better - these are different things

Pull out CX moments / sketchy 1AC decisions and EXTEND them as specific links

I am totally cool with performance and love me some affect but if you are reading cards about how performance is key to X and your whole "performance" is playing like 10 seconds of a song before your 1AC and you don't reference it again then I am cool voting neg on "even if performance is good yall's was trash" (assuming this arg is made lol)

Winning FW is huge but you still need to leverage it as a reason for me to vote on X. Just because you are "winning" FW doesn't mean I know how you want me to evaluate args under this paradigm. So, when you think you are winning FW explain how that implicates my role as the judge.

Apply arguments please - K debate is becoming increasingly broad (ie. if I win my theory of power I should win the debate) which I don't disagree with but it does mean specificity in argument application is more and more important. Tell me what you want me to do with the arguments you are making and which of the arguments your opponents made are implicated.

CPs are great but 10 plank conditional counterplans are kinda silly.

2nc CPs (or CP amendments) are lit

Advantage CP defender

Probably should be functionally and textually competitive ig

DAs are awesome and CP DA strat is a classic

UQ is extremely important to me. A lot of links are ignorant to UQ so explain the link in the context of the UQ you are reading

Explain your impact scenario clearly - bad internal links to terminal impacts r crazzzzzy

I did PF in HS but it was trad so I am likely going to evaluate the round through a policy lens.

Will vote on theory

Cool with K stuff

Pretty much same as PF - never did LD but I have judged it a ton so I will likely judge how you instruct me to but default to a policy lens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Debate is hard and stressful but relax and be confident and have fun!

Feel free to email me with any questions tzdebatestuff@gmail.com

Melanie Zhang Hire 9 rounds

Ilya Zharov Skyline

Nan Zhu Del Norte High School

Ying Zou McLean High School

Login to Tabroom

Columbia Invitational 2025

2025 — NSDA Campus, NY/US

PF Paradigm List

Judges