Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '26

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes & Isidore Newman. President of the University of Houston policy debate team, 2x NDT qualifier.

If you're interested in debating at UH, shoot me a message!

PF note:

1) please add sevenlakespf [at] googlegroups [dot] com to the chain.

2) please make the subject of the chain: "[Tournament] 24 PF Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (NEG)" or something similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) pre-flowing is pre-round prep. if you're pre-flowing during round start time, you should be taking prep for that.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- please do not refer to me as ma'am, miss, etc. my pronouns are they/he. if you have questions about this, please ask!

- i do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. if you have concerns, please let me know and i will work with you to try to resolve them.

- feel free to email me with questions! i love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- have a good debate! have a good performance! have a good attitude! and most importantly, have fun!!!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate (Policy, LD, PF):

if you’re WSD, you don’t have to read this section and can scroll below for the WSD section.

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

- put me on the email chain. set up the email chain even if i'm not in the room yet. email chain >>> speech drop unless there’s an issue with school emails or wifi.

- debate is for debaters! you do you and i will adapt accordingly! i'll vote on almost any arg. specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. offense over defense.

- yes, spreading is okay with me. yes, i’m okay to read ks in front of. no, i don’t care how you look or if you stand or sit, etc. just feel comfortable while you’re debating!

- probably not going to vote on condo bad.

- "nine" > "judge”

- i will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. i will not disclose specific speaker points.

- i flow on paper, so give me pen time and slow down for analytics. you can ask to take pictures of my flows after the round! yes, you can email me with questions later too.

doing prefs? here’s what i’m good for and what args i’m most familiar with. (you should still read the rest of the paradigm though):

- i'm good for both policy and k arguments. i coach and go for both policy and K arguments, and will be good for a policy v policy, K v policy, and K v K throwdowns.

- i’m less good for high theory, phil, and tricks/blippy theory. but, if they are read in front of me, i will evaluate them as best as i can, and i am likely looking for clarity/explanation of the argument and an impact to vote on. burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. if i can’t explain your theory/shell/k/argument back to you, i won’t vote on it.

want more explanation? here’s the longer version (in no particular order):

i can not express this enough: debate is for debaters. i will adapt to your debating style accordingly. you do you! i will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. most importantly, have fun :-) !

- tech >>> truth. exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. everything else is fair game.

- stealing prep is bad. i will dock speaker points if i catch you stealing prep and tell you to stop multiple times. taking the time to take out analytics/to make a send doc is using prep. time your opponents' prep/speeches and hold them accountable.

- i flow on paper and flow each advantage and off case position on separate sheets of paper. give me pen time to flip pages between sheets. slow down on analytics. when you give an order, give me time to flip between my sheets.

- i flow based on what i hear. i will be listening to YOU, not a doc. that means that you should be very clear when spreading.

email chains/evidence:

- email chains >>> speech drop. add me to the email chain. please make an email chain before i’m in the room---i want to start on time. speech drop is fine if there are school email issues or if there are wifi issues, otherwise, please use an email chain.

- card docs are appreciated

- clipping cards: i will give a warning if i catch someone clipping cards. depending on how bad it is, i will either stop the round and/or dock speaker points

- ev ethics: missing paragraphs in between highlighted parts, misquoted/misattributed authors, cards starting in the middle of paragraphs, incorrect cites, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round. if an ev ethics challenge is called, i will stop the round and evaluate the evidence unless tournament rules say otherwise (ex: UIL tournaments). i generally err on the side that i should strike the card not drop the team unless the team has already been notified of the ev violation.

- for PF: paraphrasing is bad. actually formatted cards are good.

speed:

- yes you can spread at top speed but slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

- clarity > speed. i will yell "clear" if i can't hear you or if you are unintelligible. if i yell it enough, i will stop flowing.

- i have minor hearing damage in both ears and it flares up once in a while. i will let you know beforehand if i'm having a bad hearing day and if you need to be extra clear. i will say “loud” if you need to be louder.

cross-examination:

- i will take notes on CX on a separate sheet of paper sometimes. but, if you want the answers from CX to be applied to your speech, you need to say it in a speech!

- CX is so under-utilized. debaters need to be making more arguments during CX and aligning it with your speeches. please use CX to make arguments!

- i will boost speaker points for actually good CXs. (i.e., not spending the entire time on clarification questions, not doing flow check questions with the exception of status/reasons to reject housekeeping questions)

framework:

- you should have an offensive reason to prefer your model of debate or the aff.

- specificity is best, reading generic framework blocks is unpersuasive to me. you need to apply it to the aff.

- TVAs are nice to have but not necessary

- the best fw arguments implicate the aff's theory of power and/or describe why fw turns case.

- please give me judge instruction, framing points, etc.

- i really like implications to skills and iteration/testing. i like fairness if you’ve implicated it to case/the method.

case:

- yes case turns, yes impact turns, yes case debate. there isn't enough case debate in most instances.

- i am comfortable on voting on presumption if there is enough defense and/or i could not tell you what the aff does by the end of the round.

- for PF: defense is not sticky.

topicality:

- more teams should read it!

- T debate is best when the violation args are specific to the aff. but, don't miss the forest for the trees–you should still do comparison on the model/world of debate.

- i default to competing interps, can be changed in round

- will vote on reasonability if a reasonability arg is made, but this can be changed in-round.

K:

- yes, read the K if you want to.

- don't expect me to fill in gaps. don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them.

- if you're going for the alt, tell me what it looks like and how it applies to the aff. you can kick the alt if you don't think it's strategic, but you need to flag it and tell me how you win on everything else.

- link turns case args that are specific and contextualized to the aff are >>>>>>!!! please make more of these arguments!!!

- Ks with links to the consequences of the plan are the most intuitive links to me. but don't let that deter you from going for links to reps, framework, or similar non-consequence based arguments

DA:

- don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. i don't have opinions on specific DAs, read whatever you like.

- i will look for a clear link first then evaluate the impacts. link/DA turns case is always nice

CP:

- i don't have strong opinions about any type of CP. go ahead and read any flavor of CP you like, even if they’re “cheaty”.

- uncarded and/or multiplank advantage CPs are fine but generally require more explanation on how they solve. they should be relatively intuitive and/or based on aff warrants/cards. read as many planks as you want (read: condo thoughts in the theory section).

- i default to judge kick. but, this can be reversed in-round as long as there’s ink on my flow for it.

theory:

- condo is good. my threshold for answering condo bad is very low. i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped.

- RVIs are silly to me, especially when they're just thrown out without a warrant.

- don't have strong thoughts on other theory issues.

- don't blitz thorugh pre-written blocks. again, i flow on paper. give me pen time to write down the analytics.

K affs:

- i like the education/real-world implications of K affs. i really like well thought out, thematically tight, content-packed, and well-structured K affs, especially if there are performance aspects to it.

- i like negs strats v. K affs that engage with K aff's theory of power (which can also include framework!), and am comfortable voting on presumption/framework

speaker points:

- (updated to match reigner's speaker point scale): i start at around 28.8 and go up or down from there. i try to adjust a bit based on the tournament. i evaluate speaker points based on strategic choices and articulations.

- debate can get heated and i don't mind mild roasts or whatever, but if you are just being flat out insulting and making people feel uncomfortable, i will lower your speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

World Schools:

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

– yes, i know the format. i primarily did WSD in high school and used to primarily coach WSD.

– i flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. i would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– i value organized speeches!!! messy speeches = sad nine = sad ballot. ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) enumerate your responses, 2) signpost your arguments, and 3) condense into clash.

– i would much rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. please have offense. i want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

want more explanation? here’s the longer version:

– format: follow it. that means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (i start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 pois, etc. that also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). you’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in wsd, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– explain and characterize! the best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– strategy and style are important! i value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed pois, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. but don’t sacrifice style for content. i'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. the best strategic choices debaters can make in wsd is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments i should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. the best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. ex: if there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion i have of fiat. or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. i expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. i'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– replies: the replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. tell me what i should be writing down in my ballot. tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– ideological lean: just because i do policy debate does not mean i lean towards policy style arguments. i truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. seriously, you do you. i'll vote on any kind of argument.

– principle debates: if it becomes a practical v. principle debate, i'm expecting a lot of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. i'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). for instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). if you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. i love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– model debates: both models and countermodels need to be characterized. teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where i usually see prop fail). opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model and why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). i think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

if the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, i will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speech/interp:

a speech/interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. but i guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

you do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

for extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). i prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, i still take presentation seriously. i don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

for oo/info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

for interp, i'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

Ex-HS policy debater, but that was 15+ years ago, so you'll need to slow it down for me.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: regancelestebaker@gmail.com

////////////

I value:

• Quality of speeches (e.g. delivery, pronunciation, logical though, flow, etc.) - slow speaking strongly preferred
• Stock issues - will be flowing key issues (to the best of my rusty ability) and prefer speakers who are signposting for me as I go
• Friendly competition - will dock speaker points for disrespectful interactions.
• Open to whatever the teams want to introduce into the round (e.g. counterplans, etc), but it's been 15 years since I debated - so my preference is that you avoid progressive arguments like K's, conditionality, and theory. If you choose to run that kind of argument anyway, you need to make it really clear to me why it matters.

///////////

I will give the W to the team that speaks the best, has the clearest arguments especially on stock issues, and explains to me logically why they should win.

down for anything:

• deep left politics
• tricks
• phil
• policy / util
• performance
• pomo
• micropol
• T
• etc etc etc etc etc

only paradigm is mutual implicit assumption to minimize intervention

speaks are based on strategic competence and efficacy

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

As a judge, I am receptive to almost all arguments, but I am personally triggered by arguments centered on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Please refrain from running arguments around this topic in front of me.

The roll of the ballot is always to vote for the better debater - The one that I understand and that makes sense.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it isimportant! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

SPECIFIC NOTE FOR POLICY DEBATE

Although I have been around policy debate for over two decades, I am still relatively inexperienced as a judge. This is a lay round. DO NOT SPREAD. Explain to me what your case is. Do not use debate jargon until you have explained it. I can only vote on what I can understand. Be logical and clear and I will vote for you. Be debate-y and fast and I may not be able to. If both teams do not follow these guidelines and I am unable to make an accurate assessment of the debate, I will make my best decision based on my limited understanding of the round.

- For any round-related correspondence, please utilize the following email address: jasondbarton15@gmail.com.

Background:

- I am an assistant debate coach at Albuquerque Academy in ABQ, New Mexico (mostly coaching CX and LD).

- I recently finished my Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of New Mexico. I specialize in German Idealism, hermeneutic phenomenology, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

- I debated CX, LD, and PF (though mostly PF) in Dallas, TX and the surrounding areas throughout high school (2011-2014), and I debated on the NPDA/NPTE circuit with Rice University more recently (2015-2019). My partner and I finished second at nationals (NPTE) our senior years. I consider myself to be comfortable with traditional and progressive styles of debate.

- My pronouns are he/him/his.

Crucial Points:

- Please attempt to be as courteous to one another as possible.

- In terms of argumentation, I do not necessarily have a preference for which kinds of arguments you present (e.g., policy affirmatives, DAs, CPs, Ks, Theory, etc.), but I would like them to be thoroughly explained, well-warranted, and impacted out (including weighing/impact calculus) throughout the debate.

- I gravitate towards evaluating framework very highly in the round (e.g., sequencing claims pertaining to competing methodologies). It is very likely that, if you are winning the framework debate, you are ahead in the debate (according to my assessment).

Theory/Topicality:

- I approach theory and topicality by analyzing the interpretation/violation layer first and the standards/voters layer second. If the opposing team wins a "we meet," they have effectively no linked the argument in my judgment (and thus need not even address the standards/voters).

- In assessing the standards/voters layer of the theory/topicality debate, I am looking for (a) extensive comparison between the respective standards of the interpretation and the counter-interpretation with respect to the voters (i.e., internal link analysis) and (b) priority claims in regard to voters (How do the voters interact with one another? Does one ground the possibility of another?).

CPs/Ks:

- On CPs and Ks themselves, I would prefer clearly marked solvency for both positions (I think CP/K solvency is pretty important - especially the question of "how do you solve the aff?" if this is an aspect of your position).

- I would like K links to be specific to the affirmative as opposed to more generic K links ("you use the state/capitalism/etc.") - if that's not the case, I am receptive to "no link" arguments from the affirmative.

- I think framework debates on Ks can be really educational, and I value framework pretty highly when considering which impacts matter in the round. Root cause claims can function as tiebreakers between competing frameworks.

DAs:

- I like DAs with precise/lucid uniqueness stories and specific links to the affirmative.

- I enjoy arguments from the affirmative about how the DA links to the CP. I think some valuable offense can be garnered from these.

Perms:

- I believe perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, but I'm willing to evaluate the contrary.

- Also, if the perm text doesn't make sense (e.g., "do both" when alt text says "reject aff"), I will consider this argument in relation to the viability of the permutation.

I spent thirteen seasons solely working in policy. I have spent the last several seasons working in public forum. In addition to coaching and judging, I served as the Tournament Director for the NYCUDL, the Vice President for Policy Debate for the BQCFL, part of tab staff for NYSFLs, NYSDCAs, the New York City Invitational, and the Westchester Invitational, and in the residence halls for DDI.

What this means for PF debaters is that I am very flow-centric and expect good sign posts. If you give me a road map, I expect you to follow it. While I understand that you will not read evidence in-round, I do expect you to clearly cite your evidence and will listen to (and reward) good analysis of evidence throughout the round.

What this means for policy debaters is that I typically spend more time running tournaments than judging in them. My flowing skills are not what they used to be. You need to SLOW DOWN for your tags and authors or else they will not make my flow. You should also SLOW DOWN for the actual claims on any theory or analytic arguments (Treat them like cards!). My flow is sacred to me, if you want me to vote for you, your flow should look like mine. Lay it out for me like I am a three year-old.

As for arguments, I consider myself a stock-issues judge. That said, I have voted on all types of arguments and performance styles in debate. If you want me to vote on something that is not a stock issue, you better explain it to me like I am a three year-old. Even if you want me to vote on a stock issue, you should explain it to me like I am a three year-old.

I do not typically ask for (or want to) examine evidence after the round. It is your job to explain it to me. There is no need to add me to an email chain. That said, if there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says, you should make a point of that in your speeches.

As for paperless debate in general, I like my rounds to start on time and end on time. If your technical issues are hindering that, I will start running prep. I will do my best to accommodate debaters, but you need to know your tech at least as well as you know your arguments.

I am a lay judge and am not familiar with very technical debate “jargon”. Plain English is my preference. I prefer to be hands off and let students determine the tone and tempo of the debate. I value strong, well reasoned arguments, backed by evidence over number of contentions. I like logical flow and follow through during a debate. I prefer moderate speed and can not understand when you spread! I prefer it when you hone in on some salient contentions by the end of the debate. I like teams to be respectful of each other. I prefer not to disclose.

nicholas.borgmeyer@palmbeachschools.org

Tech > Truth

Progressive arguments are fine, but err on the side of over explanation for voting issues

Extend everything

Cross is binding

I have more experience judging substance

Competition- Salina South High School (KS): 2018-22 (immigration, arms sales, criminal justice, water), Missouri Valley College 2022-2024 (NFA-LD elections, NDT/CEDA nukes), Western Kentucky University 2024-Present (Energy)

Coaching- Rock Bridge High School (MO): 2022-2024 (NATO, fiscal redistribution)

I use she/her pronouns, but you can just call me Sage or judge, whichever you prefer

Yes email chain: sagecarterdb8@gmail.com

Hit me up if you are interested in private coaching from me, I am very available and my rates are incredibly negotiable

The Short Version:

Judges should adapt to the debaters and to what the debaters say. I don't like intervening and love when debaters clearly explain their route to the ballot. I decide the debate on the flow, giving me good taglines and soundbites to help my flow is appreciated and will help you. I enjoy just about any style of debate, but I do have some biases and things I default to with certain arguments, these are outlined in my paradigm and can easily be changed with good argumentation. Please ask me if you have any questions regarding anything before or after the debate.

Notes on flowing-

Generally when judging I flow on an excel sheet with the doc pulled up next to it. I do not flow arguments from the 1AC and the off case positions from the 1NC, but I start flowing case args in the 1NC. I do this so I can read along with the cards to get a better understanding of your arguments and the warrants you'll be using. I keep the doc open so I can read along throughout the debate, I will not reconstruct my flow from the doc, what I hear is what goes on my flow, that means you should not rely on me having the doc open to catch your words. Speedbumping your tags, going slower on analytics, and just generally trying to maintain clarity is essential if you want me to flow what you say.

General Misc. Things-

I love theory debates, but a lot of them that I have seen have been very fast and hard to keep up. If you are going for theory or on a theory argument, I encourage you to slow down just a bit. I'll try to be clear if I am not keeping up with you, so try to be looking for my expressions.

Doing impact work is incredibly important for me. I usually start my decision at the impact level, deciding what the biggest impact is in the round and then who solves it better. Starting there and working backwards is probably the best way to get my ballot in every 2AR/NR.

T/Theory-

Default to competing interps and no RVI's

I like to see T as if I am voting for the best model of debate. This means that you need to clearly explain what your interp looks like for debate, and why that is preferable.

Small school specific standards/impacts and bright lines are some of my favorite standards when debated well. I don't have a massive preference on your standards/voters so long as you warrant and impact them out

I don't think I have any real opinions on many of the T arguments on this topic, I do think many of them are a little aff leaning but if you can debate it well go for it. I might be a secret T-Subsets lover...

I vote neg on T when they establish that the affirmative does not fit their model of debate, and allowing affirmatives like that leads to a much worse debate outcome than not allowing it. I vote aff on T when they establish a better model of debate that includes at least their affirmative, if they meet the negative interpretation, or if the negatives model harms debate more.

T-FW-

I think these debates are fun, internal links are probably the thing that ends up being the tiebreaker here more often than not, do more weighing work with internal links as well just like offense.

I'll evaluate just about any impact as long as it is clearly articulated and warranted as to why the other sides interp causes it, weighing it makes it easier to vote for it.

Make sure you answer the aff at some level so they don't just get to outweigh you the entire debate

I like good aff counter-interps, clearly outlined standards make them even better

TVA's without evidence are probably an uphill battle, be able to defend it well

C/A the voting explanation from regular T

DAs-

I love when teams use the DA strategically across multiple sheets. Link turns solvency, internal link turns solvency, timeframe impact calc, use the DA to act as multiple arguments.

Do impact calc, the earlier the better

I vote neg on the DA if they explain to me how the DA creates a worse world than the status quo or if they avoid the DA through a different action. I vote aff on the DA if they show that it should have happened, it has happened, they don't link, they turn the DA, solve the DA themselves, or just outweigh.

Counter Plans-

Counter plans can have a little logical reasoning, as a treat. I like seeing specific solvency, but don't need it, though I would like an explanation on how your mechanism specifically solves for the aff.

I need offense with a counter plan, solving better isn't reason enough for me to vote for it.

Explain your perms and your answers to the perms and we will all be happier

I enjoy counterplan theory and think it needs to be utilized more. PICs and international fiat bad are some of my favs.

Not super familiar with counterplan competition so you may want to avoid it but you do you

Love condo debates <3. I usually flow condo on the CP sheet, if you do not want me to do this make sure you tell me. I can be convinced that a team should not have any conditional advocacies, but that's pretty difficult. I don't really lean any side on condo, but if you read more than 4 conditional advocacies, the more I sympathize with the aff. I like arguments about why the certain number in the interpretation is necessary and time skew arguments.

I vote neg on the counterplan when the neg effectively shows me that the counterplan is mutually exclusive and they can solve for most of the affirmatives impacts and one of their own that the aff cannot solve. I vote aff on the counter plan when they show me the aff and CP can exist together, it has major solvency deficits, a DA of its own, or if you win the theory debate.

Ks-

I love the K and have gone for it in many 2NR's and judged that, I prefer line by line work to overviews but if you combine them be clear about the argument you are referencing. I love framework debates but they can often get muddy, clear framework debating goes a long way on my ballot. For literature bases I have read a lot and argued with, I am familiar with capitalism, biopolitics (Agamben specifically), queer/trans theory, settler colonialism, security/racial IR, militarism, and university/academy Ks. Not a huge Fem IR or psychoanalysis fan, I'll still vote on it, but I find arguments about how those fields of thought are transphobic or problematic in other ways very persuasive.

I'd like to think if I am not super familiar with a lit base I can catch on quick in a debate, but if your K is like super complex and hard to understand, you may want to put it up. Feel free to ask how I feel about your K lit base and how much I know.

Being clear about why the K comes first helps a lot

I think the aff needs to do more than throw their blocks of state good, policy making good, and extinction outweighs. Doesn't mean you can't read those arguments, I just like when teams make smart analysis on how you don't link or in line with the alternative.

Explaining what your alt does, looks like, and how that solves for the impacts throughout the debate will put you very far ahead.

I vote neg on the K when they win it's mutually exclusive their framework and a link (a note for this, just because you are the only side that presents a framework and they don't read a we meet doesn't mean an auto win. If they can win an impact turn on the K that makes it not fit the framework then I won't vote for it.), or when they show how the aff makes a bad thing much worse and they win a way to avoid that. I vote aff on the K when they win their model of debate, they show they don't link or link turn, they win an impact turn (that is not morally egregious), the alt is bad, or a permutation that makes sense and is explained well.

K Affs-

I'd prefer it if the aff defends something, it makes your life much easier, but if you are not going to then you better be ready to defend that.

It is probably a good thing if your aff is connected to the topic, and especially your mechanism, but if you want to not even mention the topic then go for it.

I like argument's related to the education of the topic and good impact work with those

Clear solvency is essential here, be ready to answer the what happens when the judge votes aff questions

Performance is cool, make sure to relate it to the topic and please attempt to garner offense off of it or include it in the rest of the debate in some capacity

I vote neg when they win an alternative model of debate is better and potentially includes the affirmative, the affirmative advocacy does not actually solve for their impacts, the aff advocacy creates more impacts than solvency, or if the neg wins a counter advocacy. I vote aff when they win their model of debate is preferable, the advocacy is able to create some solvency and not create impacts, or they win that they can exist with a counteradvocacy or that advocacy is not preferable.

LD-

I did some LD in high school, it was mostly trad value/criterion though so I am pretty inexperienced with circuit LD.

I am probably better for policy (y'all call it LARP?) and K arguments since that is my background. Phil seems interesting, but I have no experience with it or many of the arguments. I know some Rawls and Kant, but if your phil args are not super easy to understand you may want to read something else.

I don't entirely know what tricks are, if its just theory then great! I love theory debates. But, if it is more cheap shot, one line theory args or just silly args, I am not your judge and more than willing to hold the line on arguments I think are not pedagogically valuable.

I think the rest of my paradigm should answer most questions you may have, but if it does not, ask me anything! I don't really know what a good LD paradigm looks like so I def missed something. I am still super excited to judge your round!

Stolen Paradigm Lines I Agree With

"I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way."- Nadya Steck (Her entire paradigm could just be mine)

"Impact framing is essential for all arguments, regardless of content/form. I almost always vote for the team who better frames "what is important" and explains how it interacts with other arguments. The magic words are "even if..." and "they say ... but". Winning 2NRs and 2ARs use these phrases to 'frame' the big picture of the debate."- Eric Lanning

"I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot."- David Bowers

Parent judge. I value evidence, and likelihood not theoretical ideas. The faster you talk the less comprehension I will have. Do not spread or run theory. Have fun everyone!

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jordandebate@googlegroups.com

General

I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger
i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

speed is good, pls slow down on analytics. i do not flow off the doc and will not vote on things that are not on my flow. i'll clear you twice and then give up. please get off the doc in the back half of the debate - i am much more interested in your analysis than in hearing the same docced responses that i've heard ten times in the tournament. major kudos to people who have paper flows and are doing line by line work from the flow

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

CX:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.
I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.
all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD specific:
Tricks:
no thanks
LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

PF:

if your evidence does not have a tag at all, or it is functionally nothing (ie “concludes”, “explains”, etc), I will not flow it. use good evidence ethics practices and don't paraphrase

Congress:

I am a debate judge, and I flow Congress. However, your delivery is also important. I want to be persuaded by your speech. To borrow from Calen Calber, "introduce new arguments. In questioning, I look for fully answering questions while also furthering your argument. I notice posture and gestures -- and they do matter to me. A clean analysis will rank you up on my ballot as well. Don't yell at each other. Overall, be respectful of one another. Don't rehash arguments. An extra speech with something I have already heard that round is likely to bump you down when I go to rank." CX matters a lot to me - you should use it efficiently and strategically without getting heated with other people in the room. I strongly dislike people being unprepared for Congress (ie. having to take in house recesses because people are not prepared to speak) and breaking cycle and it will be reflected on my ballot.

PO's typically start at a 5 and go up or down depending on: 1) how well the round runs and 2) how good everyone else in the room is. Again, from Calen Cabler, "A clean PO in a room full of really good speakers will likely be ranked lower on my ballot."

I am a first time parent judge. Please speak clearly and make well-rounded arguments with evidence. I want to clearly know why I should vote for you. Please be respectful too.

I am in my 26th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit College Preparatory. Persuasion, clarity, and presentation are priorities for me. While I have a working knowledge of many progressive arguments, I prefer traditional, topical debate. Since I do not judge frequently, it is crucial to speak clearly and articulate the points you want me to focus on. If you go too fast and fail to follow this advice, you risk losing me. I will not vote on arguments I do not understand. Make your path to my ballot clear.

I will accept certain theory arguments, such as topicality or disclosure, and will vote on them if there is demonstrated abuse. However, I firmly believe debates should center on the assigned topic.

I also believe in pre-round disclosure, as it helps level the playing field for all participants. I value well-supported arguments backed by evidence. Drops matter, as does impact calculus. Providing clear, compelling reasons why you are winning on offense is the simplest way to secure my ballot.

For all email chains, please send to both:
jcrist1965@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

E-mail for email chains and/or questions: Travis.Dahle@k12.sd.us

tl/dr - I prefer old school argumentation but won't intervene - I'm also old and slower on flowing 5/10 - evidence sharing needs to be quicker.

Be kind, we're all idiots.

Overarching attitude in Speech & Debate

Be kind, be friendly and show grace to your opponents, win or lose. Our time on this ice rock is short, embrace the joy of the time we have here and respect your opponent, their coaches and the judges spending their precious time with you.

My Role as a judge

To quote one of the most famous ballot ever from Scott Harris "This ballot represents my opinion on who made an argument in the debate that was more persuasive to me." What is more persuasive changes each round - but I neither endorse nor reject anyones arguments - you were either more persuasive that round or you weren't.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

I have very little national circuit experience in LD as I primarily judge public forum and policy debate (see more on that below). In LD I am more of a traditional judge as in I like a discussion of the resolution from the standpoint of a value and value-criterion and contention debate. That being said, I've voted for K's, theory, etc, but I have a low threshold for them. So if you are competing against a traditional case, winning my ballot with a K or theory will become a lot harder - not impossible, but harder.

I'm about a 5/10 on speed. I'm old now and prefer to actually hear the evidence of the debate rather than read the evidence on an e-mail chain...

Public Forum Paradigm

Public Forum should NOT be a shorter version of Policy Debate. With that said, in some areas Policy Debate has ceased to exist. We can argue one way or the other as to why that is the case (I have my theories) but the fact is, some areas only have PF or LD. Just like LD, I'm more of a traditional judge and will probably be persuaded more easily on those types of arguments.

****EVIDENCE SHARING****

This should absolutely NOT TAKE SO FREAKING LONG!!!!! Either have your evidence ready to be shared or get set up on an email chain.

Big Questions Debate - I don't judge BQ a ton, however, I'd look at my paradigm much like the PF and LD paradigms below.

tl/dr - Slow down, enunciate, use evidence and weight the debate at the end - do it all respectfully to your opponent

Extemp Paradigm

I am a mix of content and delivery when it comes to judging. When it comes to sources, don't make stuff up. With the internet available now, if I suspect you are making things up, I will probably check it when you are speaking. You don't have to make stuff up - unlike the olden days where you hoped to have a file on the Togo questions Washington put out each year - you can literally google your info and bring it up instantly.

Also - ANSWER THE QUESTION - don't waffle - pick a stance and tell me why you choose that way. Pretty simple.

Don't overly fidget or dance around - but don't be a robot either.

Have fun!!!!

Policy Paradigm

In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I've coached multiple teams to nationals from 2002 to 2019, but Policy has died in SD, so I don't do it much anymore.

Speed: I've gotten old here and have grown weary with blazing speed - put me down as a 5/10 on speed. I'd rather have the ability to hear the evidence instead of having to read through everything on an e-mail chain. If you go too fast I'll let you know - you won't automatically lose, you'll just annoy me a little - unless you ignore me, which if I'm on a 3-judge panel and I'm the outlier - I totally get.

Tag-Team CX - It's okay, but I'm not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.

Arguments I like: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

Case Debate - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

Economic DA's - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.

Arguments I'm not wild about: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

Politics DA's - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

K's Read at blazing speed - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposedly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

Performance - this is just my inexperience with performance. I've probably only judged it a couple of times, so if you do performance, I may not understand how to evaluate it and might default to the policy framework - so you need to make sure to explain to me the role of the ballot and my role in the debate. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!

Email chain please: gdetuya@columbushs.com

PF:

PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE. YOU RISK JUDGE INTERVENTION WHEN EVIDENCE ETHICS IS QUESTIONABLE

PF/LD

1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc.

2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1)

3. Speed is... okay I guess. I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. I definitely prefer slower more traditional rounds. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason. With that said I will still vote on T args like disco, but be clear on your interps hand harms.

LD: Though I used to judge policy years ago - in the intervening years y'all have gotten better at speed while also running tons of tech. Hard for me to keep up with both. My level of experience says I should be able to handle tech rounds, and I wont drop on some principal that all tech is bad ~(unless you're running tricks ), but be aware that you're running the risk that I dont catch something.

4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. I don’t like K debate. Most Ks stitch together noncontextual links, but if it isnt, I will vote on it if done well. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. Links should be lock tight. The round will be messy because of if not, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade.

2. Principled arguments >>> specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence.

3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response.

4. Keep your eye aware for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion. If you're asking POIs, keep it to 15 sec or less, dont badger your opponents with multiple back to back attempts at asking.

5. Framework is something that should basically be agreed on by the end of the second speeches. In instances where it isnt (and for most cases, it really shouldnt be - lets have reasonable grounds for debate here) disagreements should then be handled as permutations (their highest ground, our highest ground) so I at least have responses on each side if framework is a push or if I am eft to decide who presented the most common sense definitions/burdens/etc. Win on substance. Please.

I have a competitive background in debate both in high school (public forum) and college (ethics bowl) and have a little experience coaching and judging as well. I will keep a detailed flow and can follow technical debate but I also believe debate is a performance, debaters are more than just conduits for ideas, I like to see good and persuasive speaking and style. I think framing and weighing arguments is the heavy lifting in judging a debate round and you should be telling me how to do so. I will be vigilant for and frown heavily upon bad faith argumentation.

**Arturo Féliz-Camilo**

Hello! I’m the head coach at Colegio Bilingüe New Horizons.

I have a background in law and have been teaching AP US History for a while. I tend to prefer economic, social, and historical arguments. Since 2013, I’ve primarily coached Public Forum (PF).

When judging, I really enjoy a good clash of ideas and creative analysis. I’m open to just about any argument, as long as you explain it clearly, warrant it, and back it up with relevant evidence. That said, being "open to anything" doesn’t mean I’m okay with distasteful arguments—keep it civil and respectful.

I don’t strictly fall into either the tech>truth or truth>tech camps. Think of me as closer to a lay judge, (specially at varsity or TOC level tournaments) Just because “there’s a card” doesn’t mean I’ll automatically buy the argument. Make sure your arguments are well-explained and warranted. I need to understand what you're saying to be persuaded, so clarity is key.

Communication is crucial. If I can’t follow due to speed, I may not flow it. I won’t ask you to slow down. I prefer to avoid intervention, but if you’re spreading, that’s going to be a problem. I can handle a reasonably fast pace, but don’t expect to win by brute force.

I appreciate a respectful CX. If you need to ask for evidence, that’s fine, but don’t turn the round into an evidence battle. If you call for evidence, I hope you plan to do something with it. I listen to CX but don’t flow it. I’ll make note of interesting points in hopes they come up in the speeches. I almost never review evidence unless there’s a serious claim or ethical issue. If I feel like you misrepresented or misused a card, you’ll likely lose the round. I definitely prefer debates that are more conversational in pace.

Feel free to give an off-time roadmap—no need to ask, just go ahead.

Explain, analyze, and warrant your case—don’t just read it. Weigh the arguments, link them, extend points, crystallize the round. Without clear framework and weighing, I’ll default to what’s standing at the end of the debate. Please don’t introduce new arguments in summary or final focus.

As for T's and K's, run them at your own risk. I’m not totally against them, but I tend to favor a good RVI and I’m not a fan of running these against inexperienced or novice teams. I also think T's get abused too often, so be honest with it. I’ll weigh what makes sense, including any real-world harms like abusive behavior or bad-faith misgendering.

Pettiness won’t win me over, but you should still stand your ground. A little sass is great, but there’s a fine line between sass and pettiness, so be mindful of that.

If you’d like feedback after the round, I’m always happy to share my thoughts, but know that I submit my ballots before offering feedback. I understand that some rounds matter a lot, but I don’t check records before submitting my decision. I hope that regardless of the outcome, you leave each round feeling that it was a meaningful experience.

Please add me to your evidence chain: **arturo@arturofeliz.com**

Hello! My name is Andrew Fostiropoulos and I was a former PF debater for 4 years @ Delbarton from 2016 to 2020. I'm currently a coach at Delbarton, and this is my first year where I am back judging after a long layoff.

To win a round, you obviously need to have extended, fully, a piece of offense, meaning link warrant and impact need to be extended throughout summary and FF. Weigh, and weigh well. If you don't weigh, I have to weigh, and that makes me sad. I'm going to look first to clear offense at the end of the round, and use the weighing that is done to decide the round there. An effective summary and final focus should mirror each other, and they both should be doing weighing.

I would recommend that clarity be an emphasis, and signpost well. In terms of pace, I'd say I'll clear you if you're going too fast or you're not being clear, but to pre-empt this maybe go at a more moderate pace with me.

Other Notes:

- Be nice to each other

- I'm pretty expressive

- I'll be nice with speaker points, 28.5 as an average. I don't really know what to tell you on how I'll determine who gets what score besides good argumentation and good speaking == high speakers.

- I'd prefer you do not run progressive argumentation

- Analytical responses that are thoroughly warranted probably mean more to me than an unwarranted card that just asserts something. Also, do evidence comparison when you can.

Please adddrewfostir@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Dear debaters,

I am the debate coach at Trinity. I debated for Stuyvesant PF 2013-2017 and then Columbia Parli 2017-2022.

I'll try my best to vote on the flow. Quality> quantity. Please go slow slow slow.

You can run K's if they are interesting and innovative. Theory is ok if there's a truly egregious offense. BUT: you might not be happy with how I adjudicate these sorts of args because I am not so experienced with these sorts of arguments.

Warm regards,

Zach

For Parli:

I’ve never judged Parli before. I’d say to be on the safe side, treat me like a lay judge who knows what debate is.

For PF:
I am a flay judge, more so on the flow side. Currently a college sophomore judging for Fairmont. I’ve done PF for 6 years and I’ve qualified to TOC three times and went 4-3 twice.

My microphone on my headphones aren't working so I will be speaking through the chat during the round.

Please send case and rebuttal cards through an email chain before the respective speech for the sake of time.

My email is rohunx12@gmail.com

Speed is fine with me as long as you are clear and send a speech doc.

To win my ballot, you just need to win one contention or turn (aka offense) and then also explain to me why that matters more than your opponent's offense (aka weighing).

To win your offense, you must extend each step of the logical link chain and the impact. I don’t really care about card names as long as the warrant is extended unless the card name matters in the round. You only need to extend in summary and final focus (aka the back half).

However, if you do not extend a key link in the offense you go for, I won’t automatically drop your argument unless it is the 2nd final focus. Your opponents must point out that mistake and use it as a response/defense. That means that if a team only talks about their contention by name and doesn’t extend it properly, they can get away with that if the other team doesn’t point it out. I’m only a blank slate after all.

To win your offense, you must also respond to your opponent’s responses (aka frontline). I prefer if the responses are responded to immediately in the next speech, which means 2nd rebuttal should ideally frontline the offense they intend on going for in the back half. It’s not a must, but it will get you extra speaks and a competitive advantage in the round for the reason below:

Defense is sticky from 1st rebuttal to 1st final focus. In other words, the 1st summary does not need to extend defense from the 1st rebuttal if it is not responded to in the 2nd rebuttal. Otherwise, defense that you want on my ballot must be extended and also defended from your opponent’s responses to it (aka backlining)

No fancy rules for weighing, just make sure you do it. If both teams do it, make sure you explain why your weighing mechanism matters more than theirs. Debate is comparative at the end of the day. My whole job as a judge is to compare y’all’s sides with my own analysis, so why not do that for me and write my ballot?

Finally, if you want to run prog like theory and Ks, I’m completely open to it. I’ve ran theory before and I generally believe that disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad.

HOWEVER if the round has multiple theory shells (excluding the counterinterp of course) OR if the round is a K round, then you’ll have to treat me like a lay and go slow. I have a minimal understanding of K’s and I have found that for me, the round becomes hard to follow if there are multiple theory shells presented on both sides so you just gotta dumb the round down for me.

If the debate is substance though then go as tech as you want. Use defense to kick out of offense, go for a double turn, do whatever.

Pre-round paradigm

Hello! I am good with pretty much any argument as long as it is developed as an actual argument. I much much much prefer clash to avoiding argumentation. Something isnt an argument just because you say it is, it has to actually be an argument.

Prefs paradigm

Please put me on the email - Harvanko11@gmail.com - but I probably wont be reading ev during the debate I enjoy all types of debates as long as they are done well, I will try my best to be tab and adapt to whatever style of debate you are used to rather than having y'all poorly adapting to what i am used to. I am fine with most things as long as you take your opponent seriously. go at like 70% of top speed. I obviously do have opinions on things as everyone does so the rest of this will be trying to be transparent about what those are. None of this is set in stone and I will try my best to rid myself of any ideological bias during the round.

For quick prefs i hate you if u read tricks and will happily evaluate everything else

POLICY AFFS

I enjoy all of them from the most stock aff on a topic to an in-depth process aff as long as they are debated well and I am given a clear story of the advantages/what the aff does to solve them.

K AFFS

Go for it, I would much prefer if the aff had *some* relationship to the topic either being "in the direction" or telling me why I shouldn't like the topic (and more importantly why that means I should vote aff) and I do not really like an aff that is just something that can be entirely recycled every topic. With the framework debate I probably err towards a well thought out counter interp than just straight impact turning everything but both can be viable and winning strategies.

THE CRITICISM

This is what i have debated with, read, and coached the most so this is where I am most familiar (and subsequently hold harder lines for explanation). I enjoy innovations in critical literature quite a bit so long as it can be well explained.

For both, if you are not black, do not read afropessimism. I will not vote for you. I will generally have a strong predisposition against you if you read it in other rounds and change it in my round. I think that this is unique to afropessimism given how strongly the authors are have addressed the theory being uptaken by non-black scholars.

PHIL POSITIONS

I have at least some experience in most philosophies. I have a hard time believing that all the philosophies that y'all claim don't care about consequences actually don't care about them (kant is an obvious exception). With a policy against a phil debate, I would prefer having some spin as to why your offense is relevant under their framework than just going all in on their framework being wrong or yours being normatively true but either can be a winning strategy.

COUNTERPLANS

I really enjoy a good counterplan so long as I know both how it competes and what the net benefit is (competition from net benefits is competition enough but there can be more). I really really enjoy process counterplan debates as long as I understand its distinction from the aff.

Counterplan theory is pretty much the only theory that I am wholeheartedly for. I come from LD originally and have moved into policy so my thoughts on condo aren't really clear yet, for LD I can be easily convinced of either side.

DISADVANTAGES

I don't really have any strong opinions about disads. I would like a lot of impact and turns case analysis if the disad is the only thing in the 2nr. I don't think I would be comfortable voting on a disad if the aff has a comparable impact without some level of solvency push by the negative.

THEORY

I can get behind most theory debates as long is there is actual abuse. I know I know, reasonability is arbitrary but I think there are affs that clearly are not abusive. I think that fairness is a good internal link but not an impact in and of itself (and I imagine that that will be hard, but not impossible, to convince me of). I actually find myself hating judging theory debates nowadays because they are usually way to fast for me, so with that, I would prefer if you slowed down quite a bit if you're going to be making hella quick analytic args (this is generally true but especially true for theory debates). I really don't like disclosure in most cases unless the aff has been broken but isnt disclosed online and isnt disclosed in person before the round.

TOPICALITY

Go for it, I am predisposed to think that t isn't an RVI but can potentially be swayed otherwise. The more contextualized definitions are to the topic the more I like them. I think t can be incredibly persuasive against k affs as well (not as a framework position but actually going for t)

TRICKS

I've come around, maybe tricks aren't that bad, but only if everyone there is able to know what is going on. I do not like hidden arguments in the middle of a block of analytics and i probably won't vote on the resolved apriori but I think that a lot of phil arguments (e.g. skep, trivialism, etc.) get a bad rep and aren't evil and are sometimes interesting to ponder thru. This is a philosophical forum after all. This is all to say: please don't read rapper trix, you can go for kant is the only way to resolve skep and maybe that skep argument is a presumption/permissibility trigger.

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

- CX is binding but I probably wont write anything down unless you explicitly direct me to in the moment.

- Speaks start at around a 28.5 and I look to go up or down from there based on strategy, efficiency (not time efficiency but if you are too repetitive on an argument), and clarity.

- Please ask me questions before the round if you are unsure of anything!!!!!

- I welcome you all to post round me, we are all in debate for a reason and i love to argue

I prioritize articulate expression, respectful dialogue, and persuasive power. Key principles include clear communication, respectful interactions, and maintaining eye contact. Participants should present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence, anticipate counterarguments, and engage constructively.

To ensure a productive environment, I emphasize civility and the absence of rudeness. I also discourage "spreading," as it detracts from meaningful discussion. Additionally, debaters must manage their own preparation time effectively. When requesting evidence, please do so judiciously, as excessive requests can hinder the flow of debate. I will flow the round and make my decision based on the entire discussion, considering the strength of arguments, effectiveness of counterarguments, and persuasive ability throughout. By focusing on these principles, I aim to create a constructive and enlightening discussion.

In the end for me its about your story, is the world a better place in the pro or con world? That will be my reason for decision.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms being a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might read and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feelings about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

Synthesis

1. Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
2. Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
3. Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
4. Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.
   
   

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally to your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

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!
  

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

PF

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.

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

LD

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.

Update for Presentation 2024(updates to LD sections and overview)

Themost important thing you read from this paradigm is my view on speech docs. Do not assume at any point in time that I am on the speech doc. I will download it etc so I can use it if necessary, but I am absolutely not reading along your speech doc while you speak. I will listen to you and flow the best I can, but if it's not on my flow then it's not in the debate.

If you want me to look at your evidence for some reason, you can do that in a few ways. You can put the evidence at issue in some manner (author quals, evidence comparison, evidence indicts, evidence ethics, etc.) or you can literally just say "go look at the X card" (and not "go look at the entire affirmative case").

This is just forward notice! What this means is please do things like pause when transitioning between arguments or flows, indicating clearly when you are reading new evidence or analytics (examples below), and generally slowing down during analytics that are important for you to win the debate.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate.

Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am currently one of co-coaches for Team USA through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated October 2024]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., LW (living wage) that are topic-specific or super niche Act titles)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Speaker Points:[Updated October 2024]

Biggest things to do while debating in front of me that will get you better speaker points and increase the chances I understand your arguments:

(1) SLOW on taglines, EXTREMELY slow on author names/dates, and I am flexible on top speed through text of cards if you are clear and emphasize key warrants

(2) I need to understand an argument, at least with some surface level understanding, to vote off of it. You can heighten the chance I can understand it by explaining the function of your arguments (perhaps this is "judge instruction" but if it's a way you canwin or a way your opponent canlose, it needs to be flagged)

(3) Have fun, establish your presence in the debate, and try not to be rude to your opponent! Even if they started it!

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points:for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Currently the Coach at Jasper | Consulted with Hebron & Southlake & TAMS in the past | Worked at Dartmouth & Harvard Debate Camps

Debate should be a fun and educational experience. Abuse of any kind will not be tolerated. Remember, judging starts the moment you walk into the room. Conduct matters.

Congressional Debate

• Content and quality matter, engage with previous speeches and further arguments.
• Direct, sharp questioning is key, dodging or grandstanding weakens your credibility.
• When you speak matters, even if recency or precedence isn’t on your side, learn how to adapt your speech and respond effectively to arguments.
• Don’t pre-crystallize.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD)

• I evaluate the framework you give me.
• Weighing is important, show me why you win.
• I evaluate real theory abuse, but don’t run frivolous shells, if you do, make sure it’s airtight and something you actually understand.
• No tricks. Debate should be about substance, not gimmicks.
• If your arguments aren’t clear and well-structured, you’re making my job harder. Help me help you by making it easy to evaluate the round.
• Speed is fine. Be clear. I will not ask twice and I will stop flowing.

Policy (CX)

• I prefer rounds centered on stock issues, disadvantages, topicality, and clear, straightforward counterplans.
• If you run kritiks or theory, they must be clearly explained, relevant to the round, and something you fully understand. Don’t run them just for fun or as a gimmick.
• Make the round as straightforward and strategic that are easy to follow and evaluate.
• Comparative impact calculus is essential, show me why you win.
• Speed is fine, but be clear. I will ask once and then I will stop flowing, be mindful of your spreading it should be easy to understand.

Public Forum (PF)

• If I have to piece together your arguments, you are making my job harder. Be clear and organized.
• I do not like K’s. Keep the debate grounded in the topic.
• Speed is fine. Be clear. I will not ask twice and I will stop flowing.
• Weighing and voters are key, show me how you won.

Speech Events

• Performance should be engaging, well-structured, and clear. Keep my attention and be captivating that I get lost in the performance.

• Confidence, clarity, and connection with the audience elevate your speech.

• I value strong delivery just as much as well-developed content

Make the round an educational and enjoyable experience! Let's have a great round!

I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.

Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).

I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.

Email chain info: nathanmichaeljohnston@gmail.com

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind) - I find myself to be compelled by genuine in-round abuse stories more than potential abuse.
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

tl;dr - tech and speed good, but I'm not doing work for you. The resolution must be in the debate. Though I think like a debater, I do an "educator check" before I vote - if you advocate for something like death good, or read purely frivolous theory because you know your opponent cannot answer it and hope for an easy win, you are taking a hard L. I tab more than I judge, but I'm involved in research. Last substance update: 2/22/25

Email chain: havenforensics (at) gmail - but I'm not reading along.

Experience:

Head Coach of Strath Haven HS since 2012. We do all events.
Previously coach at Park View HS 2009-11, assistant coach at Pennsbury HS 2002-06 (and beyond)
Competitor at Pennsbury HS 1998-2002, primarily Policy

Public Forum

1st Rebuttal should be line-by-line on their case; 2nd Rebuttal should frontline at least major offense, you get some leeway in extensions in Summary, but not to dump a bunch of new stuff in 2nd Summary.

Summary should probably be line-by-line and thus I recommend ditching some issues so you can add depth, not just tag lines. If it isn't at least on the flow in Summary, it probably isn't getting flowed in Final Focus.

Final Focus should continue to narrow down the debate to tell me a story about why you win. Refer to specific spots on the flow, though LBL isn't strictly necessary (you just don't have time). I'll weigh what you say makes you win vs what they say makes them win - I like defense.

I have a Policy background but believe that is a different event - if you want to have a Policy round, please do Policy, the speeches are longer for a reason. I am planning to flow this PF round on two sheets of paper. I do not believe counterplans or kritiks have a place in PF. I also have no problem intervening and rejecting arguments that are designed to exclude your opponents from the debate.

You win a lot of points with me calling out shady evidence, and conversely by using good evidence. You lose a lot of points by being unable to produce the evidence you read quickly.

I don't care which side you sit on or when you stand, and I find the post-round judge handshake to be silly and unnecessary.

LD

My LD experience is mostly local or regional, though I coach circuit debaters. I'm comfortable with traditional, value-centered LD and util/policy/solvency LD.I probably prefer policy debates, but not if you are trying to fit an entire college policy round into LD times. As in Policy, I like Ks that have real links, but aff must defend the resolution.

If somehow you are a deep phil debater and I end up as the judge, you probably did prefs wrong, but I'll do my best to understand. If you are a tricks debater, um, don't. Arguments have warrants and a genuine basis in the resolution or choices made by your opponent.

Policy

I almost never judge circuit Policy rounds at this point. I am a little old school in that I still think you should go slower on tags than on card text and would like you to explain your arguments in your overviews (but after the 1AC/1NC) - I'm not going to backflow from your speech doc, and I'm flowing on paper, so you probably don't want to go your top speed.

1. The role of the ballot must be stable and predictable and lead to research-based clash. The aff must endorse a topical action by the government. You cannot create a role of the ballot based on the thing you want to talk about if that thing is not part of the topic; you cannot create a role of the ballot where your opponent is forced to defend that racism is good or that racism does not exist; you cannot create a role of the ballot where the winner is determined by performance, not argumentation. And, to be fair to the aff, the neg cannot create a role of the ballot where aff loses because they talked about the topic and not about something else.

2. I am a policymaker at heart. I want to evaluate the cost/benefit of plan passage vs. status quo/CP/alt. Discourse certainly matters, but a) I'm biased on a framework question to using fiat or at least weighing the 1AC as an advocacy of a policy, and b) a discursive link had better be a real significant choice of the affirmative with real implications if that's all you are going for. "Using the word exploration is imperialist" isn't going to get very far with me. Links of omission are not links.

I understand how critical arguments work and enjoy them when grounded in the topic/aff, and when the alternative would do something. Just as the plan must defend a change in the status quo, so must the alt.

3. Fairness matters. I believe that the policymaking paradigm only makes sense in a world where each side has a fair chance at winning the debate, so I will happily look to procedural/T/theory arguments before resolving the substantive debate. I will not evaluate an RVI or that some moral/kritikal impact "outweighs" the T debate. I will listen to any other aff reason not to vote on T.

I like T and theory debates. The team that muddles those flows will incur my wrath in speaker points. Don't just read a block in response to a block, do some actual debating, OK? I definitely have a lower-than-average threshold to voting on a well-explained T argument since no one seems to like it anymore.

Notes for any event

1. Clash, then resolve it. The last rebuttals should provide all interpretation for me and write my ballot, with me left simply to choose which side is more persuasive or carries the key point. I want to make fair, predictable, and non-interventionist decisions, which requires you to do all my thinking for me. I don't want to read your evidence (unless you ask me to), I don't want to think about how to apply it, I don't want to interpret your warrants - I want you to do all of those things! The debate should be over when the debate ends.

2. Warrants are good. "I have a card" is not a persuasive argument; nor is a tag-line extension. The more warrants you provide, the fewer guesses I have to make, and the fewer arguments I have to connect for you, the more predictable my decision will be. I want to know what your evidence says and why it matters in the round. You do not get a risk of a link simply by saying it is a link. Defensive arguments are good, especially when connected to impact calculus.

3. Speed. Speed for argument depth is good, speed for speed's sake is bad. My threshold is that you should slow down on tags and theory so I can write it down, and so long as I can hear English words in the body of the card, you should be fine. I will yell if I can't understand you. If you don't get clearer, the arguments I can't hear will get less weight at the end of the round, if they make it on the flow at all. I'm not reading the speech doc, I'm just flowing on paper.

4. Finally, I think debate is supposed to be both fun and educational. I am an educator and a coach; I'm happy to be at the tournament. But I also value sleep and my family, so make sure what you do in round is worth all the time we are putting into being there. Imagine that I brought some new novice debaters and my superintendent to watch the round with me. If you are bashing debate or advocating for suicide or other things I wouldn't want 9th graders new to my program to hear, you aren't going to have a happy judge.

I am more than happy to elaborate on this paradigm or answer any questions in round.

1. Clarity of thought and how you make your point.
2. Eye-contact: maintain good contact with all involved and not talk to one person.
3. Tone- should be assertive and not aggressive.
4. Overall body language/ gestures when in debate- avoid being dismissive about your opponent.
5. Time management.
6. Send me a case (or I will drop your speaks): srkapure@gmail.com
7. Do Not Spread (If you spread I will vote against you, IF BOTH teams spread my decision will be a coin flip Heads: aff Tails: neg.

Hello! I have judged several PF rounds and know the general layout of the round, and have some preferences.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If you are going to spread, do it mindfully. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your argument, and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

But most importantly, don't forget to have fun!

TLDR: 2010s tech judge who likes the K

Updated September 2024

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is charlesdebate7@gmail.com

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach PF and LD.

This is my 11th year involved in debate overall and my 7th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

Top Level

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most K authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I appreciate good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

While I am a strong believer that judges should not categorically prevent debaters from reading certain styles of arguments, there are certain behaviors and norms that I believe should be modeled in the debate space:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I think about the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

4] Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have high expectations for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its expectations this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX and prep ends as soon as the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Public Forum

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating, and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

RVI’s are not a thing in PF. Ideally, theory isn’t either.

I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Don’t do it.

Lincoln-Douglas

LD is the event that I’m most comfortable judging – most of my coaching and judging experience is in this event.

I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default.

My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).

I am a lay judge.

Provide an off-time roadmap of the order your speech will help.

Tell me 3 reasons, no more than 5, why I shall vote for you.

Give a big picture in the summary and final focus.

Value solid argumentation and reasoning over speed.

Please:

Talk slower so that I can understand.

Logos, pathos and ethos.

NO Theory.

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Debated College Policy for a year at the University of West Georgia

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas, First Round At Large Bid recipient, NDT octofinalist.

TOC SILVER PF:

Most of what lies below is designed for LD and Policy. Five things you need to know for PF prefs:

a) I have judged a couple of PF debates and have basic familiarity with the format, but nothing much beyond that. I'm a college policy debater who did local LD and Policy in high school, and coach phil and K debate in high school LD. Whatever you wish to extrapolate from that, feel free, but I'll evaluate whatever argument you put in front of me and don't have strong argumentative preferences as it relates to content. Read whatever you would normally read.
b) If you want an argument to be evaluated, it has to be extended in each speech. i have no idea how to evaluate a debate otherwise.
c) I do not know or care about any of the norms of circuit PF. Anything related to the form of PF (arguments about speech times, PF-specific theory norms, PF specific rules, etc) needs to be overexplained, because I just have no clue what you're talking about. I am told you all do evidence challenges far more often - if that happens, I'll consult relevant rules and render a decision based on them.
d) I am best for well developed arguments with good evidence accompanied by efficient, technical line-by-line debating. I am worst for strategies that stake debates on arguments that are not sufficiently developed.
e) I really like high quality traditional debates with technical debating and high-level analysis. If that's the debate you want to have in front of me, I will likely enjoy it far more than I would a shallow theory debate. It is easy to see "college policy debater, LD coach" and think you should adapt by reading more "circuit" style arguments. This is not the case in front of me. Debate is best when every debater debates how they would like and the judge evaluates the debate technically and fairly.
If you have really specific argument questions, read below, but it shouldn't matter, because I will evaluate pretty much anything you put in front of me as best I can.

GENERAL:

I will flow on paper with my computer closed. If I do not have paper and cannot borrow it, I will flow on my computer and will not have the speech doc open. I will not attempt to reconstruct my flow from the speech doc. I will attempt to flow in a line-by-line format, but may flow pages top-down if the content of the debate warrants it (e.g. debates where one team or both do not do the majority of their debating on the line by line).

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in any LD, Policy, or PF debate. Yes, this includes planless affs, yes this includes framework, yes, this includes tricks, yes, this includes death good. I do not care. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. I will evaluate each debate exclusively based on the words on the flow, where dropped arguments are true and the qualifications for being an argument are claim, warrant, and implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I will hold a strict line on claim-warrant-implication, and will flat out refuse to vote on words on the flow that do not reach this standard.

ARGUMENT THOUGHTS:

I do not treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it." I will probably enjoy specific and nuanced debates more than the fiat k or signing statements. What I enjoy has no bearing on what arguments you should read.

No serious predisposition about framework debates. I've been in a lot of these debates, am very familiar with the nuances on both sides, and believe if debated evenly I would vote aff/neg about 50% of the time. I would say I'm equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies and don't have a strong fairness vs clash preference. I will default to evaluating the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative framing mechanism. I am most persuaded by affirmative strategies that defend a large disad to the neg's interpretation or performance coupled with judge instruction and defense to the neg's impacts, and I am most persuaded by negative strategies that concretely deal with the aff's offense by either framing it out via impact calculus or accessing it via link turns. I am substantially better for impact explanations that justify the value of fairness or clash on their own terms instead of relying on "key to your offense" or fairness paradox-esque arguments. Those seem to me to be helpful impact comparison mechanisms rather than the primary basis of a terminal impact claim.

The only arguments I won't vote on are explicitly discriminatory positions, arguments based on the other debaters' appearance or dress, and arguments that ask me to not evaluate speeches.

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question, unless I also could not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it. Status, net benefits, reasons to reject the team don't count - "did you read this card" does.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Happy to answer other questions preround or by email.

Parent judge with some experience

I will take notes

Don't spread, you will lose me

Extend all your arguments

If its in cross but not in a speech, I won't vote on it

Weigh your impacts

Please avoid technical arguments

If there is an email chain add me: srivatsan.laxman@gmail.com

A note for TOC: I understand that most of you prefer tech debate and will want to go fast regardless of what I say in my paradigm. However, you may not be happy with the decision I make, and I will be less inclined to resolve unclear parts of the debate in your favor if you go fast, don't warrant or implicate things well, or read progressive arguments that I have little understanding of.

First and foremost, I am tech over truth. I understand how the flow works and will evaluate technicalities -- dropped arguments, subpar or lacking extensions, and other technical elements of the debate will factor heavily into my decision. However, this comes with several caveats.

I would suggest you treat me like a flay judge, only in the sense that I prefer slower, well-warranted debates that fully flesh out case arguments, responses, extensions, and weighing. I very strongly dislike the current tech meta of dumping as many arguments as possible on the flow and making rounds incredibly messy for no reason. This does not mean that you should drop responses or debate as you would in front of a lay judge. Just slow down, speak at a reasonable pace (~800 word cases max), extend well, and provide warrants and implications for everything you say (especially frontlines and weighing). The more you explain something, the more likely I am to vote for it. The less you explain something, the more likely I am to intervene and vote for the argument that makes more sense to me.

Briefly, other preferences include:

- I don't read cards unless you explicitly tell me to in a speech. Don't start an evidence debate unless you are confident that your evidence says what you say it says because I will use my discretion and intervene.

- Read prog at your own risk. I hated debating theory and Ks when I was a debater so keep that in mind. And, I am not the best judge to evaluate any of these arguments or the jargon associated (i.e. I have absolutely no idea what reasonability v. competing interps means).

- I do not flow off speech docs. I am not able to flow spreading and will miss things on the flow.

Hello, my name is Wei

I m a lay judge + relatively new - i've judged a several LD rounds and only a few PF rounds

some general things i want yall to follow:

SPEAK SLOWLY + no jargon. english is my second language - if yall are talking fast i wont understand ur args and ill default to case.

SEND SPEECH DOCS. you must send your case before the start of round. i also want to be added to email chains. my email is: weili01720@gmail.com

be respectful + kind! no racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. comments or you'll get dropped

no theory or ks

pls signpost + weigh

truth>tech - but if u warrant + provide enough ev ill prob buy anything

have fun!

Judging Criteria

Clarity of the speech: Not too fast (please don't do 200 wpm), not too slow. I am flowing the entire session with all of you, so I appreciate everyone do not miss any important contentions. I won't give you the credit if I cannot follow your speech!

Facts and figures: Whenever you cite a number, please include the source. Reputable sources command a higher winning score. Your interpretation of the source is required; don't just quote it without explaining how it validates your position.

Professionalism: I pay special attention to all speakers' eloquence; being aggressive is okay, but not personal insults. Confident speakers usually come with well-prepared speeches, and I look forward to an educational exchange of rebuttals and crossfire.

Points: All speaker points start from 27, and extra points are awarded for logical links, extending good warrants, and impacts.

I would appreciate it if you could connect the dots for me, as to why your contentions make more sense compared to your opponents.

I will not call for cards unless I need them for my flow verification.

Content warnings for sensitive topics need to be disclosed at the very beginning.

"I have little to no understanding of theory, run it at your own risk!"

In General

Please be courteous and respectful. I have zero tolerance for ad hominem attacks or unnecessarily aggressive styles of debating. You should win a debate through the strength of your arguments, not the force of your emotions.

I tend to be tech over truth, i.e. I judge you based on what you argue and how effectively you defend it rather than judging you based on my own knowledge and assumptions about how the world works. But like most people, I will be annoyed if you say things that I know to be factually wrong (even if I end up voting for you).

I was an LD debater in high school and did various forms of legislative debate in both high school and college; I am now a high school English teacher.

Public Forum

This is a debate event designed for a general audience. I am judging you not only on the flow of the debate, the coherence of your arguments, and the strength of your warrants and impacts, but also on how well you speak, how convincing you are as a speaker. I prefer that debaters not spread in PF, but if you have to spread to get through your speeches, please make sure you're slowing down and being clear when making key points. (I am okay at flowing debates but definitely not the best.)

That being said, I very much enjoy seeing a technically sound round of PF and I will almost always vote for the team that wins the flow.

Side note for the April PF Topic: I have a masters degree in environmental engineering, take a personal interest in energy and environmental policy, and teach a class on environmental literature, so I'll still aim to be tech over truth out of principle but I'll probably also have a lower tolerance than usual for bad cards and empirically dubious claims about nuclear energy.

Side note for the TOC:Please also see the Policy section of my paradigm below.

Policy Debate

I'm still relatively new to judging Policy. I have judged about a dozen rounds of CX at this point, but mostly JV/Novice and local league.

Progressive Debate: I'm open to whatever - K's, framework, theory, etc. You can argue anything. Just don't expect me to be an expert. Be sure to link, explain significance, convince me of your approach. Usually progressive debate involves some sort of paradigm shift in how we think about debate or the warrants and impacts of a debate.

Cards and Evidence: Please share your cards with me and your opponents at the beginning of the round and as necessary throughout the round. However, I do not tend to look closely at cards unless I am instructed to. The burden is on you as the debater to draw my attention to any weaknesses in or misreadings of your opponents' cards. You also need to explain the significance of a card (or series of cards) in the flow of the debate. Do not expect me to do this for you. In general, Policy is an event that allows debaters to get into the weeds of specific plans and policies, and I welcome this. Just be sure to clearly and consistently frame the significance of your warrants, cards, and impacts in the overall flow of the debate–how do they respond to your opponents' arguments, how does it defend your own, how does it win you the debate. I should never be left to wonder why you are making a particular argument or introducing a particular card.

Speed: I am okay with spreading in Policy because I know it is part of the event, but I also assume I don't need to fully understand something whenever you are speaking too fast for me to follow. I expect debaters to slow down and speak clearly whenever making a major point that significantly affects the flow of the debate. I'll do my best to flow the debate and I make my decision based on what I was able to flow and understand.

Dropped Arguments: If your opponents drop an argument, you have to point it out and explain why this argument is significant. You do not automatically win the debate because they dropped an argument, all you automatically win is the dropped argument. You have to convince me why the argument wins you the debate.

Speech Events

I did OO and Extemp in high school. I have a good sense of what makes a strong DI, HI, Duo, OPP, Expos, OA, and Impromptu, events that were part of my local and state circuits back in the day. I am a lot less familiar with other events.

Congress

In my view, a good Congress round combines some aspects of speech events and other debate events but is also uniquely its own thing–a form of legislative debate. Top-level competitors should demonstrate that they are well-researched and well-prepared but should never simply read a pre-prepared speech. If you have a pre-prepared speech you should perform it. But the best competitors adapt themselves to the flow of the debate in their chamber, incorporating and addressing the arguments of their peers, just like any other form of debate, which requires more extemporaneous speaking skills. A winning competitor in Congress is always competing for the top position even when they are not speaking: through their motions, questions, knowledge of parliamentary procedure, amendments, even the number of times your placard is raised, etc. A winning speech is one that significantly influences the overall flow of the debate in the chamber through clash and new arguments. Lastly, a truly competitive chamber requires you to find a way to stand out in a large crowd of equally excellent debaters and, just like any other speech or debate event, that means knowing what style of debate suits you best–some light humor, wit, oratorical flare, social intelligence (because, yes, a great Congress chamber is also a social body with its own particular dynamics). Whatever brings out your strengths and makes you unforgettable in a round.

I’m a high school teacher and former parli debater. I coach congress. In debate I want to see the topic debated. I’m not really interested in complex theory debates. Please don’t spread. I’ll do my best to flow the round and reference it when you argue why your team has won.

I am your typical parent judge -- pls focus on logic, clarity and quality. Explain and give reasoning to evidence/responses.

Do not speak fast or I will not be able to catch the arguments.

In final focus, please write my ballot for me -- comparatives, weighing, etc. Tell me where to vote.

Do not run arguments that are progressive (theory, etc. if I do not understand it I will drop it.) -- make it a lay debate.

Be polite. Good Luck!

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

ALSO-if you are second rebuttal speaker, I expect frontlining.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

toc tldr:

i come from a trad circuit in SOUTH DAKOTA so like keep that in mind but im flow judge and have basic understanding of most prog args (wont eval cp, plan, or trix tho). also you prob better than i was as a debater so take my rfd with a grain of salt. ummmm and like be nice to opponents and you should be good:) ask me ANY questions before round so theres no confusion in my decision making process.

experience:

(2x) gold pf toc qualifier from sf roosevelt in south dakota now @ georgetown university in washington dc

key things:

tech>truth

flow judge

defense not sticky

pls dont spread (speaking at a faster pace than like a normal convo is okay)

theory is okay but i h8 friv

i understand the basics of K but have ZERO experience with literature so run at your own risk (so dumb it down pls)

no trix, cp, plan bc i dont understand that and like i dont want to be unfair

PLSSSS set up email chain before round (email is im540@georgetown.edu)

no i dont disclose speaks nor will give extra if u say smth random

I'll flow the round and won't vote for any argument I don't understand.

This got too long, I wanted a summary. The full thing is below.

Do what you want in round.

Yes I want to be on the chain, email: mightybquinn@gmail.com, backup: mckenzieb@trinityprep.org

Speaker points are for speaking well (eg. clarity, speed, civility, etc), Wins and Losses are for winning the arguments in the round. They almost always agree (unless this is WSD, then they do always agree, obviously).

I am a wizened old soul flowing in a cooky lil spreadsheet, judge instruction is important.

If there are specific arguments or preferences you want to know about, or if you have unlimited time to scan through paradigms, go look at the stuff below.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Have fun go wild

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers, not out of spite or anything, I just can't summarize it. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3. Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you should probably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply to all the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I will not flow off the doc, but I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Counter Interps: I think that counter interps are latently defensive unless you tell me otherwise. Honestly, I don't even need a warrant, I just want it specified when you read it that you're trying to gain offense. IMO if it's a "counter" interp it's structured to be defense within the game, if you're styling it as a different, unrelated interp, that just HAPPENS to be about the same thing as the interp they read, I will assume that's offensive. If that's the case though, then it will come down to a model comparison, which is probably what you wanted anyway. This is not like, a carefully thought out assertion or meta-theoretical opinion btw, this is just how my brain will work when I'm flowing what you say at speed, hence I need you to clarify.

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure (including rebuttal docs) is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea. It's been a while since I've seen someone read a role of the ballot on a theory shell tbh, bring it back.

RVI's: I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI. If we get into a "no RVIs" vs "Yes RVIs" debate I'm probably presuming "No" but like, if that's not extended or warranted or if the "yes" is conceded then it is what it is.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me, though it may need to be warranted more clearly than a post-fiat alt would. Why does the ballot matter to your advocacy?

Other progressive case-ish positions: I'm interested to hear them. I'm traditionally susceptible to de-dev arguments, but tend to be predisposed to disliking "death good" style claims. I'm not intervening to vote up or down either way, just making you aware of preferences.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link and an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Updated 2/17/25

I did policy debate for 4 years in high school to moderate success, and debated at Georgetown for a couple years. These days I’m doing my PhD at the University of Florida.

Add me to the email chain - medeirosb2002@gmail.com

Do what you do and do it well and you will be fine.

(Note: The majority of thoughts about debate enumerated here areold, and I am not particularly ideological as a judge. This is to say, most of what's said in my paradigm is very flexible.)

LD-specific thoughts:

--> Phil - Not really my thing, so my threshold for argument explanation will likely be higher than most judges... that being said, not opposed to these kinds of arguments & have voted on them before.

--> Tricks- I don't really like them, but I'll evaluate them. If you're reading tricks for the purpose of skirting clash, though, your speaks will probably not be phenomenal.

--> Friv Theory - Will evaluate these arguments, and am willing to vote for them, but my threshold for arguments and warrants is probably higher than most judges.

Things that are non-negotiable:

- Blatant racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia is an auto loss, and I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Some things to keep in mind:

- I typically ascribe to the belief that speech times and the structure of the debate are not flexible, but I guess I'm open to being persuaded otherwise here.

- I do not typically feel comfortable making decisions based on issues that occurred outside of the debate round (with exceptions for things like disclosure theory).

- Presumption flips negative by default.

- Beyond the above, my only strong disposition is the negative team gets to do pretty much whatever. I can probably be convinced otherwise. That said, I've included a list of miscellaneous dispositions loosely organized by argument.

Risk Calculus:

- Tech > Truth.

- Frame the debate however you want, but do it well and explain why it matters.

- Author qualifications matter. Debate is a research activity, and debaters should do good research.

- Spark is a terrible argument. This isn't really "risk calculus," but I felt the need to say this and wasn't sure where else I could.

Theory:

- Conditionality is good (usually).

- All theory arguments other than conditionality are (usually) a reason to reject the argument. (I have found myself adhering to this belief less and less as I've judged more LD debates.)

Topicality v Plans:

- Limits are awesome, but only if they are precise.

- I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability is not an argument if it is not coupled with a reasonable counter-interpretation.

Disadvantages:

- Topic disadvantages are great.

- I like politics disads! They are often admittedly pretty silly and contrived though, so I am amenable to aff arguments pointing out the absence of obvious internal links.

- The disadvantage should probably turn the case.

Counterplans:

- Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive.

- Process counterplans and consult counterplans probably do not compete.

- Word PICs probably do not compete.

- I will judge kick the counterplan unless I am told not to.

Kritiks/Planless Affs:

- Fairness is an impact.

- I am fine with any and all genres of kritikal literature. That said, I don't have an extensive background with every field of critical literature that debaters like to talk about, so I may not understand what you're saying unless you go out of your way to explain it.

- In K v K debates, make the interactions between different theories of power very clear. I will happily adjudicate these debates, but am likely to end up a little confused.

Hello!

I have been judging PF this past year. I am knowledgeable in Public Forum Debate and Lincoln Douglas. As far as speaking preferences go, please try to keep it relatively slow, and don't spread. Make arguments clear to me and if you want me to believe something you say, explain why I should, don't just state I should believe your point. NO PROG ROUNDS!! I will not be flowing cross-examination, but I will be paying attention and writing down key arguments, so please keep that in mind. Please time your own speeches, and keep yourself accountable.

If you have any questions on my speaking or judging preferences, feel free to ask in round.

The most important thing is that debaters stay respectful and have fun.

Be kind. Have fun. Don’t be afraid of me — I was once you!

⸻

TL;DR: I care deeply about this activity and the people in it. I value kindness, clarity, and educational growth. I’m tab-leaning but happy to be directed—just tell me what you need. Be nice to each other, have fun, and ask me questions if you’re unsure!

⸻

Speaker Points Philosophy: Speaks are heavily influenced by the level of kindness and congeniality shown in round. Be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me. I’m judging because I love debate as much as you do, and I want to help you improve if I can!

⸻

Current Affiliation:

• East Chapel Hill High School
• Yale School of Management — Associate Director for Digital Communications (outside of debate)

⸻

Previous Affiliations:

• The Bronx High School of Science (2011–2015) — Coach for Public Forum and Congressional Debate (started as an extemp coach).
• Columbia University — Competed in policy debate for one year
• River Valley High School (Mohave Valley, AZ) — I competed in policy debate and judged/coached PF in the years after graduating. I also competed in several speech events (e.g., extemp).

⸻

Paradigm Overview:

Tell me what to do—i.e., tabula rasa to the extent that anyone can be. I will try to evaluate the round based on the framework you give me. Explain to me what my ballot should look like and why - you are writing my RFD. Ask me questions before round if you’re not sure what I’ll be fine with — I will answer!

Run what you want: hypotesting, retro theory, dense phil, nothing at all. I’ve seen a lot and I’ll keep up. I’m less receptive to lightly-developed theory shells than I used to be. If you’re banking on a low theory threshold, make that expectation explicit early in the round.

Ultimately, I believe in “Debater > Debate.” This is an educational activity, and your well-being comes first. Speak up if anything makes you uncomfortable—tell me, your coach, or a trusted adult right away. I believe in the platinum rule: treat others how they want to be treated.

Let’s make the round a safe, respectful space. You’ve got this!

⸻

Event-Specific Notes:

Since I get this question a lot...

"On Speed / Spreading":

I’m comfortable with speeds above 300 WPM — I can keep up. That said, clarity and strategic control is key, and unless you’re confident in your enunciation and signposting, I’d recommend maxing out around 220 WPM. If I can’t flow it, I won’t evaluate it. Be strategic with your speed—go faster where it’s warranted, slow down when it matters.

Lincoln-Douglas (LD):

• I enjoy well-developed value/criterion debates and dense philosophical argumentation when it’s explained clearly and accessibly.
• I’m comfortable with progressive arguments (theory, K, tricks, etc.), but I want you to warrant your args, collapse clearly, and tell me how to evaluate the round.
• If you’re "spreading", signpost and slow down on tags, especially if you’re new or in front of a mixed-experience judge pool.
• I enjoy well-developed value/criterion debates and dense philosophical argumentation when it’s explained clearly and accessibly.
• Weighing and framing matter. I’m less inclined to evaluate theory that is poorly contextualized or feels frivolous, especially if it becomes abusive in practice.
• Please extend your advocacy clearly in the 2NR/2AR and do the comparative work.

Public Forum (PF):

• I’m a "flow judge" who believes PF should be rigorous but accessible. Yes, I mainly competed in Policy, but remember I've mainly coached Public Forum and have likely judged more LD rounds at this point. You don’t have to talk fast—just be clear, strategic, and responsive.
• It is your job to represent the evidence in round. I will only call for cards if you give me reason.
• Frontline efficiently in rebuttal and weigh early—I reward teams who collapse smartly and don’t leave me to do the work in Final Focus.
• Framework debates (like util vs deont or strength of link vs probability) are welcome and can help resolve messy rounds.
• Turn comparison, impact calculus, and clear summary strategy will win my ballot more often than card dumps or overviews with no clash.

I am a Spanish teacher at Cranbrook Schools. I am looking for participants to speak clearly and concisely. I value a good debate, with strong arguments and supporting details. Important components that I will always take into account are listening to your opponents, being respectful to everyone, not talking over each other, and presenting yourself with the upmost decorum. Debate can open your mind and help you consider points that you may not have before. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn from each other and having a good attitude is key. I would be considered a lay judge that is interested in facts.

I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 12th year of coaching and my 13th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate. Please focus on weighing the debate and using impact calculus. I appreciate debaters explaining why I should vote under their framework and impacts. With Kritiks and theory tell me what my roll as the judge should be and what the roll of the ballot is.

Tldr: top 5 things to know (applies to any debate event you do in front of me)

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument - details below but basically this means i'm tabula rasa as long as you have complete claim-warrant-impact arguments, and i place a premium on logical analytical work, evidence comparison, and impact comparison; importantly, quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence

• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language)

• doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing, & analysis, not just a card & block war)

• in national circuit style - esp policy or ld - i prefer the depth and clarity of 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [much happier with the depth in a 1-4-ish off situation] rather than full fast

• please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (you need claim-warrant-impact for it to be a voting issue - and reasoning for the voting issue when you first assert it's a voter)

everything below this line mainly includes background info, advice, and event-specific predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you focus on the basic ideas above!

**************************************************************************************************

about you:

thanks for being here and for your commitment to speech & debate! i deeply respect your work in this life-changing activity. please communicate with me if you need any support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain (unless it's a chssa tournament...)

• current debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty High School in San Jose, CA

• policy: i've coached a spectrum from slow lay debate to fast circuit style but have recently focused more on lay & "medium" debate for regional tournaments, CHSSA [California] State, nsda , & cat nats; i enjoy all formats of policy!

• former head coach with experience coaching all speech & debate events

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i normally judge 40-50+ practice rounds a year

• coaching experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-2024- policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments) + assistance for other events as needed

• 2024-present - debate & speech coach at Archbishop Mitty

SPEAKER POINTS

• i adjust to a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; on the national circuit, i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here's my personal rubric so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet
  

GENERAL PARADIGM FOR ANY DEBATE EVENT: (see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech)

i’m a critic of argument open to most arguments (exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or create harm).

If you’re unfamiliar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, think of me as a tabula rasa judge who is:

1. tech > truth, as long as arguments have a claim-warrant-impact

2. open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want...but i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

3. will default to the best-warranted logical argumentation (analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the best control of comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

4. evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence>analysis:

• Arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Reading evidence alone doesn't trump analysis or judge direction. Instead, the quality and quantity of warrants - and the comparisons of these warrants - will be persuasive.

• Contextualized analytics with clear logical warrants / reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, etc.) easily beat evidence missing clear warranting other than having a non-impressive source.

• Flagging fallacies and a lack of warrants in opponents’ arguments moves you up the believability spectrum.

• Source quality is persuasive as a separate metric.

5. most impressed by these things (highly rewarded with speaks):

• in-depth comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

• detailed, well-substantiated analytics;

• clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

• cross-examination as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks - and then to the round IF you apply cx concessions during speeches;

• a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos

• comparative overviews BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus (saving all your impact comparisons for the final rebuttals seems unfair and poorly develops the debate)

General Preferences Across Debate Formats:

• rate / speed: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate. Please include the whole panel’s preferences when deciding a rate. If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. Ad hominem, rudeness, and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior - whether careless or intentional - which are repeated without apology after an objection is raised (by myself or anyone else in the room) may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i won’t vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round.

POLICY DEBATE ADVICE / PREFERENCES (remember it’s all up for debate / persuasion)

• Number of off case / depth vs. breadth in arguments & cards: as a critic of argument, you'll fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in a smaller set of quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

• CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility / foundation for arguments

• Overviews: love them! impact calc and a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

• Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing, so please argue which impact / implication comes first and why.

• Theory / condo: enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on tagline theory debates, even if conceded; limited conditionality is probably good, as long as it doesn't force the aff into untenable advocacies

• no automatic judge kick for cps: waiting for the neg to pick an advocacy and i’d prefer it by the neg block

• Topicality / Framework

• • i default to competing interps / models with an eye on education unless given another lens

  • i appreciate distinctly warranted standards & voters, case lists, & descriptions of the quality of debate those case lists create, plus the *importance* of the ground you've lost; no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments

  • a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how you solve it is often pretty persuasive

  • framework specifically: what does your model of debate do? why is it better? both sides can provide a lot of clarity by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve.

  • willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me why i should; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 1980s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Case debate - yes! offense is great but case defense can also be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk). yes, i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should)

• K affs and K v K: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot; though i'm open to hearing K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. don’t assume i know your lit and give me strong sequencing arguments, please!

• Performance: be very specific in telling me how to evaluate it with the role of the ballot and judge; explain how your performance is uniquely valuable and effective

• Disads: yes zero risk exists; i heavily lean towards link strength + analysis ; love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency; well-explained uniqueness + link specificity > long uniqueness walls & link walls

• Ks: excited to hear Ks but i'm not steeped in high theory lit, so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those; the link story and overall position need to be clear, as well as your role of the judge & role of the ballot; please contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links alone; please separate sections (framework / perm / links / implications / alt); also, alt specificity matters and it's frustrating and unfair when debaters are evasive about their alts

• Counterplans: if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency, given that affs should have solvency

DEBATE EVENTS BESIDES POLICY:

i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument with some policy offense / defense flavor

PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus; my policy brain treats summary speeches like 1ar / 1nr in policy and can't figure out how it's fair to view that otherwise (makes final focus too unpredictable)

• can you please just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests?

• crossfire / grand crossfire are important for argument testing and argument resolution - and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should apply cx concessions in speeches if they want crossfire to be part of the decision

• theory - fine if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting theory without placing yourself significantly behind on clash, so choose wisely

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me. i'm dismayed by the paraphrasing i've seen in PF lately: paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names. These things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions. I also often see PF debaters adding their OWN power-tagged claims to these paraphrases and this really seems unethical and superficial.

• this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence…but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim.

• i won't go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round.

• you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o any tether to detail in your evidence. i believe this whether or not a tournament explicitly follows NSDA rules, but NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point: See NSDA High School Unified Manual (Feb. 2025 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 38: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

LD Debate:

• rate & style: any rate is fine unless your opponent requests a slow round based on access or comfort concerns; i'm comfortable with traditional or progressive LD but let's be real about what's reasonable to cover in a 1ar and not get too wild with the number of positions; i thinkdepth is more important than breadth anyway; sooooo open to condo bad in LD when the 1nc is 5+ off

• i rely heavily on the criterion debate in assessing my decision, unless the debaters argue another approach

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans")as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

Parliamentary Debate:

• fine with larp or K but i hold the line on T

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting & a tight case debate linking plan provisions to advantages and the weighing standard for the round; will apply other frameworks if you argue them

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; "drop the argument" or "drop the team" need to be heavily substantiated - preferably with potential or in-round abuse

Hello. This is Stephen O'Brien, pronouns he/him.

For distributing docs, email: spobrien1@gmail.com

VLD

I am a lay judge. Speaking quickly is ok, e.g. for the 1AC/1NC if the cards are distributed, spreading not recommended. I care about whether the debaters have a good grasp of the material they have acquired. The debate is intended to challenge debaters to address the complex ethical questions. That will be part of the assessment. Otherwise the rubric I follow will be scoring based upon the classical LD evaluation:

Burden of proof: Which debater proved the resolution more valid. Value Structure: Which debater established clear relationship between argumentation and value structure. Argumentation: Which debater presented better logical arguments with evidence, which debater performed cross well. Resolutionality: Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution. Clash: Which debater showed the better ability in attacking/defending their case. Delivery: Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear and professional manner.

After 5 seconds over the given speech time, I will be obliged to cut you off - so watch the time please!

I'll do my best to be fair and impartial. Respect, courtesy and tolerance are all being observed. Tone, energy and conduct matter, but be passionate!

I look forward to watching the debates and may the best debater win.

For speaker scores, I was provided with the following guidelines:

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker

29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round

26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (MUST come to tab)

WSD

Good luck everyone! The winning team is the team with most points.

Style: 40% of the total score. Speakers should communicate clearly using effective rate, pitch, tone, hand gestures, facial expressions. The use of notes will not be penalized unless it hinders delivery. However, speakers should not read their speeches.

Content: 40%. Focus is on argumentation separate from style. Weak arguments are marked accordingly, even if the other team does not expose a weak argument. My personal beliefs or specialized knowledge will not influence the scoring.

Strategy: 20%. Whether or not the speaker understands the importance of the issues in the debate and the structure /timing of the speech. Debaters should identify the most substantive issues and allocate their time to covering issues based on their relative importance. Strategy may also consider answers to POI and choosing when/how to address them. Strategy is not content: a speaker show answers the critical issues with weak responses would get poor marks for content but good marks for strategy.

Scoring Constructive Speeches:

For Style/Content/Strategy/Overall

Exceptional 32/32/16/80

Extremely Good 30-31/30-31/14-15/74-79

Good 28-29/28-29/14/70-73

Satisfactory 27/27/13-14/67-69

Competent 26/26/13/65-66

Poor 25/25/12-13/61-64

Minimal Quality 24/24/12/60

Scoring Reply Speeches:

For Style/Content/Strategy/Overall

Exceptional 16/16/8/40

Extremely Good 15-16/15-16/8/37-39

Good 14-15/14-15/8/35-36

Satisfactory 13/13/7-8-14/33-34

Competent 13/13/7/32-33

Poor 12/12/6-7/31-32

Minimal Quality 12/12/6/30

VLD

I am a lay judge. Speaking quickly is ok, e.g. for the 1AC/1NC if the cards are distributed, spreading not recommended. I care about whether the debaters have a good grasp of the material they have acquired. The debate is intended to challenge debaters to address the complex ethical questions. That will be part of the assessment. Otherwise the rubric I follow will be scoring based upon the classical LD evaluation:

Burden of proof: Which debater proved the resolution more valid. Value Structure: Which debater established clear relationship between argumentation and value structure. Argumentation: Which debater presented better logical arguments with evidence, which debater performed cross well. Resolutionality: Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution. Clash: Which debater showed the better ability in attacking/defending their case. Delivery: Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear and professional manner.

After 5 seconds over the given speech time, I will be obliged to cut you off - so watch the time please!

I'll do my best to be fair and impartial. Respect, courtesy and tolerance are all being observed. Tone, energy and conduct matter, but be passionate!

I look forward to watching the debates and may the best debater win.

For speaker scores, I was provided with the following guidelines:

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches – hard to imagine a better speaker

29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round

26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat (MUST come to tab)

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.

Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.

Zoom Specific:

My campus's wifi is not very nice, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at roseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts if you are planning to spread. Ddd me to the email chains while you're at it!

can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit

I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent

Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!

General:

My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities.

I'm tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round - this is why i suggest teams to send me their cases)

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points

If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me

Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so

I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary

2nd rebuttal should frontline offence

extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you

impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round

please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD

Interlake 23, Emory 27.

Email: michi.debate@gmail.com. Appreciate this subject line: Tournament - Round X - Team Code Aff v. Team Code Neg.

TL: I've said both policy and K positions and am happy to judge either. I will try to minimize intervention as much as possible, flowing and evaluating the debate technically following explicit arguments and judge instruction, absent that I will default to my own understanding of debate math/opinions to render a decision. I have opinions about debate (below) but am also incredibly gullible and tech > truth so any thoughts can be reversed through coherent, technical debating. I think I am a decent flow and do not flow off the document, sorry if I miss something :(. I think I am fairly expressive but don't read into it too much. I get to end the debate if something obviously objectionable happens.

Clash: I've said K Aff, but my AT: T win rate was abysmal, so good for either side! Aff notes: I find impact turns strategic, dislike when the 2AR is too new, impact comparison please. Neg notes: I find ballot scope arguments persuasive, limits DA needs a case-list, should adopt Aff language when answering offense.

K: Framework first, I will decide an interpretation and work from there. K teams should leverage tricks (framework, PIK, link turns case, ballot proximity, etc.) to moot/turn/outweigh the Aff. Aff teams should impact turn for wins or link turn for speaker points (lol).

Policy: No hot takes, slow down on T/theory/analytics.

LD: Explain arguments, interested in philosophy, less so in 'tricks.'

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.

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 4 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

I am the Director of Debate at Sioux Falls Roosevelt High School in South Dakota.

Email:zcpogany@gmail.com

Please include me on any email chains prior to the round starting.

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible. If I have to do the work for you, it’s probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become a little bit more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably won't have flowed everything you've said

-I flow on paper

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. If you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-Tech over truth always.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are what some would consider more "traditional arguments". However, that's not to say I won't listen to or evaluate progressive argumentation. In fact, I've judged quite of few of these rounds this year and have thoroughly enjoyed them. When going this route, please slow down as much as you can and be clear in what the argument is and how my ballot functions.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, you should have fun and learn from debate. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

Policy Debate:

I have not judged very many rounds on this topic.

I'm trying to revitalize this event at my school and my state so I thank you for letting me be apart of the rounds you are competing in! I will be learning a lot.

If I am not told how to evaluate the debate, I will default to a very basic offense/defense paradigm.

LD:

I very rarely judge this event. LD debate in South Dakota is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go but here are my specific preferences for LD (1 meaning I love it and 4 meaning I don't love it):

Tricks- Absolutely not

Ks-1

Policy/LARP- 1

Philosophy- 4

T/Theory-4

PF:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated in my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in prior sections should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your arguments vs your opponent's. Reference it throughout the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

Make sure you have extensions throughout the round of the arguments you will be going for. I need to understand the link story and how it resolves the offense. If I don't, you probably won't win the round.

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Hello debaters,

Please add me to the evidence share: email: patrick.pope@k12.sd.us

I approach debate with a focus on substance and argumentation, emphasizing the importance of clear communication and effective case development. Here are key aspects of my judging philosophy:

1. Flow-Centric Evaluation:

   • I prioritize the flow as the primary tool for decision-making.
   • Debaters should clearly articulate and extend arguments throughout the round.
   • I appreciate organization and signposting to enhance the flow.

2. Impacts Matter:

   • I give weight to well-developed impacts that are linked to the resolution.
   • Impact calculus is crucial. Clearly explain why your impacts outweigh those presented by your opponent.

3. Technical Proficiency:

   • I value technical proficiency in debate. Solid understanding of debate theory and effective cross-examination will be rewarded.
   • However, I do not automatically vote on theory. Make sure to connect theoretical arguments to tangible impacts on the round.

4. Clarity and Signposting:

   • Clear, concise, and organized speeches are key. Clarity in communication helps me understand your arguments better.
   • Signpost consistently to help me follow your line of argumentation.

5. Adaptability:

   • I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategy based on the flow of the round.
   • Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to adjust to your opponent's arguments will be recognized.

6. Framework and Weighing:

   • Framework is essential for framing the round, but it should be applied in a way that enhances substantive clash.
   • Effective weighing of impacts is crucial. Explain why your impacts are more significant in the context of the round.

7. Disinclination towards Theory Arguments:

   • I am not a fan of theory arguments. While I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash, relying heavily on theory arguments may not be as persuasive to me. I will listen to them though.

8. Respect and Sportsmanship:

   • Maintain a respectful and professional demeanor throughout the round.
   • I don't tolerate any form of discrimination or offensive language. Such behavior will have a negative impact on your speaker points.

9. Evidence Quality:

   • Quality over quantity. Well-analyzed and relevant evidence will carry more weight than a flood of less meaningful sources.
   • Reference your evidence appropriately and be prepared to defend its relevance.

Remember, this paradigm is a guide, and I am open to various debating styles and arguments. Adapt your approach to these guidelines, and feel free to ask for clarification on any specific preferences before the round begins.

Hi, my name is Ameya (he/him)

ameyapuranik25@gmail for the email chain.

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

Defaults:

CI > Reasonability

Yes RVI's (both sides get this)

DTA > DTD

Presumption flows neg

Yes 1AR theory

K > T

Any argument you make will override my defaults

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

I'm decent on the flow; most arguments are fine if read properly.

Debate is a cake, so I evaluate layer by layer i.e. K first, but you can make arguments for me to evaluate it another way if warranted well.

For speaks, please be nice to everyone, and read a blip if you wish.

I like disclosure and clarity. Spreading is fine but please focus on clarity so don't go top top speed.

If your opponent is uncomfortable with something, please try to adapt i.e. don't read a floating pik against a new debater.

Overall, just do warranting please!

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

General Pet Peeves and random things:

- Do not threaten me

- I will not make your links for you

- Do not run an argument you cannot explain

- explain your theory of power very well for K affs

- be inclusive

- terminalize your impacts

- signpost

- don't pick up dropped args

- if you call for a card pls send it to me as well

- please put your K framework in your constructive!

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

IPDA specific Paradigm:

Be respectful and try to persuade me. Although I judge debate on the flow, I judge IPDA based on who spoke the best. This can be proven to me in three ways 1] whoever makes the best arguments 2] who has the best speaking style and cadence 3] who was the most entertaining. This doesn't mean you should be scared to read quirky arguments; just read them slowly and in a way that your opponent can easily understand them!

Stuff I like seeing

• Weighing, bonus points if you meta weigh
• Jokes
• being witty
• arguments that have a broad scope

hiii everyone! I'm aarthi, a former debater for american/eagle independent and a current freshman @ ucla. add me to the email chain/google doc: aarthiraghavan06@gmail.com

notable awards: 12 toc bids, toc digital 1 & 3 champion, toc digital 2 finalist, 2nd @ california state championship, peak #4

PLEASE SEND SPEECH DOCS FOR EVERY SPEECH bc i'm lowkey so bad at flowing spreading

GENERAL:

Speaks: as a debater, i understand how annoying it is to get low speaks. i will honestly give every speaker above a 28.5 UNLESS you make racist, homophobic, or similar comments during the round. really good speeches, clever implications, and crossfire questions will earn you more points.

PUBLIC FORUM PREFERENCES:

i'm a flow judge, but that being said, it doesn't mean i don't somewhat value presentation. make sure to maintain a good pace and try not to stumble over your words too much. you can get technical, but don't go to the point where you are spreading over 250 wpm. go somewhat fast, but be understandable, and don't sacrifice implications for speed.

tech ----|----------- truth

Defense/Offense: defense and offense need to be extended through summary and final focus. if something is dropped, i'm not going to vote on it. I LOVE IT when teams extend dropped turns and implicate/weigh them really well because that's what i used to do and it's just a good habit.

Collapsing: PLEASE collapse. for those of you who don't know what this means: in summary (or second rebuttal), hone in on one argument that your opponents have little or bad responses to. then blow this up, i mean tell me why it is the most important argument in the round!! don't forget to extend though, as in extend the most important evidence from this contention (example: the most important argument in this round is our first contention on ___, we extend Barnes 22 which tells you that ___, and our impact is the economy, as Roberts 21 quantifies ____)

Weighing: ALSO weigh. tell me why your argument is more important than your opponent's argument. don't just throw around the words "magnitude", "timeframe", and "scope", TELL ME WHY THEY MATTER. metaweighing is good to break the clash on messy weighing.

Frameworks:i read structural violence framing and fem framing a ton so i know a lot about framing debates, run frameworks if u want! something you can do as well is add prefiat offense to ur framing

Rebuttal: i was a second speaker, so i'm hoping that everyone gives fire rebuttals at this tournament. make sure to SIGNPOST (meaning tell me which point you are responding to) and also NUMBER RESPONSES PER CONTENTION (this means you should say stuff like "on their first contention of ___, we have 10 responses" and then go through each one of them). please don't miscount your responses by saying that you have 10 and just reading 3 because it makes me sad :((

Progressive args: GO SLOW when reading theory. i want to be able to catch every single thing you say. anyway, I'm fine with theory, just make sure it actually makes sense and your opponent made a reasonable violation (disclosure theory is acceptable, just don't be mean about it). i ran disclosure sometimes in high school but don't run disclosure theory with formats (like running open source on a team that full texts). i'm not going to vote on frivolous theories like shoe theory or formal clothes theory. k's are fine as well, just make sure to go slow and have good warrants and run at ur own risk.please don't run paraphrasing theory unless the violation is REALLY BAD :) i love ivi's too if they're reasonable.

let me know if you have any questions about my paradigm/preferences + have fun debating!

I coach with DebateDrills - the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy, code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form: https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

In an LD debate I will not flow more than 3 off case arguments!

Debate for me first and foremost is an educational tool for the epistemological, social, and political growth of students. With that said, I believe to quote someone very close to me I believe that it is "educational malpractice" for adults and students connected to this activity to not read.

Argument specifics

T/ and framework are the same thing for me I will listen AND CAN BE PERSUADED TO VOTE FOR IT I believe that affirmative teams should be at the very least tangentially connected to the topic and should be able to rigorously show that connection.

Also, very very important! Affirmatives have to do something to change the squo in the world in debate etc. If by the end of the debate the affirmative cannot demonstrate what it does and what the offense of the aff is T/Framework becomes even more persuasive. Framework with a TVA that actually gets to the impacts of the aff and leverages reasons why state actions can better resolve the issues highlighted in the affirmative is very winnable in front of me.

DA'S- Have a clear uniqueness story and flesh out the impact clearly

CP's- Must be clearly competitive with the aff and must have a clear solvency story, for the aff the permutation is your friend but you must be able to isolate a net-benefit

K- I am familiar with most of the k literature

CP'S, AND K'S- I am willing to listen and vote on all of these arguments feel free to run any of them do what you are good at

In the spirit of Shannon Sharpe on the sports show "Undisputed" and in the spirit of Director of Debate at both Stanford and Edgemont Brian Manuel theory of the TKO I want to say there are a few ways with me that can ensure that you get a hot dub (win), or a hot l (a loss).

First let me explain how to get a Hot L:

So first of all saying anything blatantly racist things ex. (none of these are exaggerations and have occurred in real life) "black people should go to jail, black death/racism has no impact, etc" anything like this will get you a HOT L

THE SAME IS TRUE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO GENDER, LGBTQ ISSUES ETC. ALSO WHITE PEOPLE AND WHITENESS IS NOT THE SAME THING

Next way to get a HOT L is if your argumentation dies early in the debate like during the cx following your first speech ex. I judged an LD debate this year where following the 1nc the cx from the affirmative went as follows " AFF: you have read just two off NEG: YES AFF: OK onto your Disad your own evidence seems to indicate multiple other polices that should have triggered your impact so your disad seems to then have zero uniqueness do you agree with this assessment? Neg: yes Aff: OK onto your cp ALL of the procedures that the cp would put into place are happening in the squo so your cp is the squo NEG RESPONDS: YES In a case like this or something similar this would seem to be a HOT L I have isolated an extreme case in order to illustrate what I mean

Last way to the HOT L is if you have no knowledge of a key concept to your argument let me give a few examples

I judged a debate where a team read an aff about food stamps and you have no idea what an EBT card this can equal a HOT L, in a debate about the intersection between Islamaphobia and Anti-Blackness not knowing who Louis Farrakhan is, etc etc

I believe this gives a good clear idea of who I am as judge happy debating

Regarding general norms, I look for debaters to be respectful and kind to each other in round.

For debate specifically:

NO SPREADING!!! I am a parent judge and will not tolerate spreading. Argument wise, run anything you want: any K’s, counter plans or topicality arguments are fine with me. Just make sure to explain all of your arguments clearly as you read them. I judge based on the flow - so make sure to respond to all of your opponents arguments and defend all of your own. Furthermore, make sure to extend everything as I will not grant you full access to a contention when voting that is not fully and cleanly extended. Evidence is also important. If you make a claim then I expect you to have sufficient evidence to back it up. Evidence relevancy and recency might become a factor that decides my ballot. I wish all debaters the best of luck!!!

*Pronouns: they/them
Put me on the doc chains: pgreddy411@gmail.com, (only for college policy debaters, please put: masondebatedocs@gmail.com in addition to my personal email)

Assistant Coach at GMU, 4 years of debate experience starting as a college novice, I primarily work with JV/novice debaters

PF Coach at The Potomac School

PF

-------

I'm starting to get frustrated with the amount of teams reading disclosure theory and making it the core of their strategy. I would much rather judge rounds that have substantive debating about the topic and think that theory as it's being deployed is actively harming schools with less coaching resources to learn about how to answer it effectively. You can still probably win the theory flow in front of me, but your speaks will reflect this perspective.

I'm semi-new to the PF community, but I've judged several rounds and am now coaching for Potomac. I tend to draw from my experience in the college policy community for my argumentative preferences/biases. For the most part, I think you'll be fine running whatever cases you've prepared in front of me. I don't care much about presentation or what speed you make your arguments. So long as I can flow you or you adapt successfully if I clear you, then you'll be good doing pretty much anything.

Policy

---------

Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. If you are reading a policy aff that has little relevance to the topic, or a very small portion of it, you should have good defenses for doing so. I try to vote off of the flow as much as I can, and then look to evidence secondarily unless told otherwise.

CPs/CP Theory:

Slow down while reading theory/CP texts

You need to provide a detailed explanation of how the CP solves all of the aff's internal links starting in the 2NC. If it does not claim to solve 100%, there needs to be a lot of explanation coming out of the block explaining why I shouldn't care about the solvency deficit as part of your sufficiency framing. You need to disprove perms well. Multiplank CPs with a plank to solve various internals are fun, though planks should be unconditional. CPs should have solvency advocates.

DAs:

Priority for me is link over uniqueness. If you're going to group sections, answer each argument made against that section, don't just read a generic link wall and assume that I'll connect everything on the line-by-line.

Case:

Case debates are great. Impact defense is the most important argument to get on these flows. I will vote neg on presumption, but you need to spend a lot of time on it. Disads on case are cool. Impact turns were amongst my favorite arguments in debate, and I love to see them.

Kritiks:
Top Level: I debated policy all 4 years I participated, but I’ve spent my recent time in grad school engaging in critical scholarship within public health. So, I at least feel mildly more comfortable listening to a K. Due to this, I'm probably interested in hearing your args but will lack somewhat fundamental “debate” knowledge/will lack the experience to relate the concepts in your literature to policy as it exists in-round. This is especially true when using literature bases that are less common/higher theory.

However, if you wind up with me in the back of a round both teams should be careful with if you’re giving enough time to comprehend/incorporate every warrant you want me to get. Giving some extra pen/brain time, like even more than you think you needed, will help you get my ballot more easily. If you’re trying to go for a late-breaking PIK, then flag what args you’re pulling it from earlier in the debate with your explanation.

My default is that the aff gets a perm. It's up to the aff to explain to me why the kritik is not mutually exclusive. Neg teams can win no perms, but I haven't been in the back of a round where this arg was won or made effectively.

FW: I try to be as blank template as I can be for clash rounds. But, despite personally believing in/studying critical discourse, I am too inexperienced in these rounds to register the args a K team would make on framework without giving more time to process them compared to what a policy team would need. At the same time, I'm not great when it comes to parsing through framework/T against K affs. I'll need clear judge instruction for what my ballot should be in these rounds.

Other:

-Clarity should never be sacrificed for speed, though I make exceptions if you're trying to squeeze out one last card. This is especially true of online debate. I'll do my best to flow you, but I could be missing args you want to make if you're not at least differentiating between args.

-I've got worsening audio processing issues and spreading with online debate only compounds this. I'll do my best to try and keep up with you, but don't be surprised if you think you made an argument and I don't catch it. Going slower than your usual speed will definitely improve the chances of me flowing your argument properly.

I am a lay judge. Content and delivery that drives persuasion of the argument is important for me. Speaking at the right pace is recommended. Quality is more relevant than quantity.

Columbia Update: STRIKE me if you don't send constructive docs for virtual tournaments, it is required. I wish to have access to your evidence because it helps check back for miscutting, etc., and helps with internet cutting out. Anything off the doc will not be flowed.

Sending rebuttal docs is not required, but you will get a speaker point boost.

Add me to the email chain for ev/docs: srdebate24@gmail.com

For the most part, truth > tech. I am a traditional PF judge and won't evaluate arguments like spark, dedev, etc. Nuclear impacts should be related to the resolution, otherwise I drop the ballot and your speaks. I will not evaluate Kritikal arguments or theory, either, as this is PF and not policy. I will not evaluate disclosure, paraphrasing, or other such arguments. I will almost always vote for the team not inciting theory.

I dislike speed, so keep speeches <200 wpm. I will flow the round and evaluate based on quality of argumentation, not necessarily how you present it (although that is important for good speaks). Cross is good for the debate and for speaks, but will not influence the decision itself. Please refrain from postrounding me, as it will not change my decision.

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on performance and strategy.

Lastly, have fun and be respectful. Debate should be a fun, educational activity for us all. If you have any questions, ask me before the round. Good luck!

Affiliation: Strake Jesuit

Treat me like a traditional judge with an emphasis on clear communication. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Please do not assume I know the jargon you use. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Signposting and crystallization are hugely helpful. Telling me where to start on the flow is a great idea. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend through every speech. I want to see lots of weighing: rounds without weighing are very difficult to adjudicate. Make it easy for me to vote for you.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Personal Note: I discovered at my last Diwali party that I am developing some difficulty in processing accents, especially in groups of voices at onces like Berkeley tables. I have a hearing appointment coming up, but I will yell clear to let you know.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

If you attempt to exceed a speed that your enunciation can handle, I will yell "clear" at least once before I stop flowing and try to focus on what you are saying

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed in Policy, sofast can be ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

DISCLOSURE: I regard disclosure as a tool for rich schools with multiple employees to prep out schools with less resources. This is not a theory arg I am synmpathetic to.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

https://victorybriefs.substack.com/p/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor

ASK ME ABOUT THE TEXAS DEBATE COLLECTIVE AND/OR THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP

EMAILS - yes, “at the google messaging service” means @gmail.com

All rounds - esdebate93 at the google messaging service

Policy - dulles.policy.db8 at the google messaging service

LD - dulles.ld.db8 at the google messaging service

TOC PF Update: Congratulations on qualifying. This is a huge accomplishment, of which you should be proud. Since my paradigm is mostly in the context of Policy and LD, I want to lay out some Topic/PF specific thoughts. First, sending evidence that will be read in a speech via email before the speech is best practice for high quality debates and avoids the awfulness of deadtime while you read over each other's shoulders. Second, this is a policy style topic, which has two major implications for how you should approach debating in front of me 1.) Neg gets presumption because the resolutional statement is a departure from the status quo, 2.) I will be much happier if you treat this like a traditional style policy debate over central topic controversies rather than running to the margins, as you and your opponents have not had a full year to think and prepare materials over all aspects of the topic like you would in policy debate. This is not a prohibition on content. Feel free to read your kritik, just know I am generally skeptical of their strategic viability in PF given the lack of time you have to develop, explain, and contextualize the argument. Finally, defense is not sticky. You must extend an argument in summary if you plan to extend it in final focus.

QUICK GUIDE- My preferences/self-assessment. You are free to decide that I am great/terrible for any given form of argument.

Policy - 1

Kritiks - 1

Topicality/Framework - 1

Philosophy - 2

Theory - 3

Tricks - Strike

ABOUT ME

I am currently the program director at Dulles High School, where I also teach AP Psychology and AP Research. I primarily judge Policy and LD. I've been in debate since 2007 and have judged at every level from TOC finals to the novice divisions at locals; you are not likely to surprise me. I have no significant preferences about the content of your arguments, except that they are not exclusionary in nature. I like research dense, content heavy strategies. As such, I am best for Policy v Policy, KvK, substantive phil debates, and Clash Debates. Quality of evidence is more important than the quantity of evidence for me. I believe that Aff teams, regardless of style choice, must identify a problem with the status quo (this can be the state of the world, the state of thought, the state of debate, or something else) and propose some method of solving that problem. I believe that Neg teams, regardless of style choice, must disagree with the viability, desirability, and/or topicality of that method. If you are a graduating senior and do not wish to sit through the RFD/comments after your last round, let me know.

DECISION MAKING

I am deciding between competing ballot stories in the 2NR and 2AR, evaluating their veracity and quality using my flow. Tech > Truth, but blatantly untrue things are harder to win. Spin control > me reading a card doc, but I will read evidence if the spin is roughly equal in quality. Judge instruction is the highest layer of the debate. Speaks start at 28.5 and move up or down from there. 30s should be rare, it is unlikely you earned it. Don't ask for one.

THINGS I CARE ABOUT

1. Respect for Others - Don't be a jerk. Use people’s preferred pronouns, provide accommodations when they are requested, be prompt and ready to go at start time, and be mindful of the power dynamics in the room. I will defer to how the aggrieved party wants to handle the situation should an issue arise. If I’m not picking up on something, let me know.

2. Investment - Apathy sucks. Caring about stuff is cool. Whether you’re more invested in saying stuff that matters or chasing competitive success, I just want to see that you care about some aspect of the thing you are giving up a significant amount of time to do. Take notes during feedback and ask questions.

3. Transparency - I believe that disclosure is generally good, as it enables people to read, think and prepare better (obvious exception for when it raises safety issues). Don't be a jerk about it with people who don't know better. Shiftiness and lying are bad. If you are reading arguments that implicate the desirability of transparency, that is perfectly fine. This is just a starting point.

4. Flowing - Do it. Preferably on paper. Definitely not in your opponent's speech document. If you answer a position that was in the doc but was not read, your speaks will be capped at 26.5. There is no flow clarification period. If you're asking questions, it's CX or prep time.

5. Clash - Compare warrants and weigh. Rehighlights are fine, but your speech should explain why it matters. I am not sympathetic to strategies that attempt to dodge clash, like tricks. Specific links, counterplans, topicality interps, etc. are way better than generics. K links should quote the aff.

6. Line by Line Organization - The negative team sets the order for arguments on the case page. The affirmative team sets the order on off case positions. Number or label your arguments as you go down the flow. Overviews are fine, but your whole speech should not be a blocked out overview with no attempt at line by line argument/evidence comparison. Jumping around between pages is extremely annoying and will impact speaker points.

7. Debating the Case - Both the affirmative and negative teams should center the case. If you’re aff, the case should go first. If you’re neg, don’t treat the case page like an afterthought, and certainly don’t focus solely on the impact level. Contest uniqueness, link, internal link, and solvency claims. Making the case page K 2.0 with nothing but cross-applications is both boring and unstrategic.

8. Judge Instruction - The top of the 2NR/2AR should be what you want my ballot to say. Tell me how I should be thinking about arguments and their interactions. Tell me what matters most. When Neg, anticipate 2AR arguments, prime me for skepticism, and tell me which lines to hold. When Aff, assume I'm voting Neg, figure out why I would vote Neg, and beat that ballot.

9. Complete Arguments - Arguments have a claim, warrant, and implication. I will evaluate arguments, not isolated claims. If you make a warranted claim without explaining the implication for the debate, you invite intervention.

10. Projection and Enunciation - I like fast debates, but if you are unclear I am not going to pretend like I understood you and flow it.

Other than these 10 things, don’t overadapt. Do your thing, do it well. Feel free to ask any questions you have before we start, and I'll do my best to answer.

I like debates to focus squarely on the resolution. I prefer that debates on the theory and practice of debate take place in people's spare time. I also have little patience in debates for the word normally in spelled "critique" in English. That said, I judge debates based not on my preferences but rather on what debaters say in the round, and if two sides want me to decide a debate based on arguments focused on some issue unrelated to the topic, I will do so. I prefer that debaters speak at the pace of a normal conversation, though I realize for many debaters today that's, unfortunately, become anathema. I will let you know verbally or by putting down my pen and staring at you with a quizzical look if I am unable to follow you. I prefer ordinary language to debate jargon, and you should not assume that my understanding of the debate jargon you're using matches yours. I will rarely ask to see a piece of evidence since I believe it's up to the debaters to argue during the debate over the relative merits of the evidence they present. If I do ask to see evidence, I expect it to be readily available and for the context from which it was drawn easily apparant.

Hello all,

I am a new parent judge and I would prefer that you talk at a medium to normal pace and with good clarity. I will be judging based on which argument I believe is the best, so please give clear arguments for your points and good rebuttals to the opponents points. I will take into account your tone of voice and how passionate you sound about this topic. Most importantly I care about how you demonstrate your points to me and whether or not they are easily understood by a person with little experience on the topic. Please also keep me in the email chain(jigneshpshah@yahoo.com) so I can better know your arguments.

Good Luck and have fun!

I am lay parent judge who has recently (early 2024) started judging PF debates. I appreciate a straightforward approach that is slow, clear and effective – if I can't follow your arguments, it'll be challenging to vote off of them. Please make sure to repeat important, uncontested arguments throughout the round. Last but not the least, be respectful and kind to other team members and have fun!

Hello, my name is Suzanna Sinapyan. I graduated from Woodbury University with a Masters in Business Administration.

I've judged several PF rounds and have some preferences when it comes to rounds.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If I cannot understand you, speaker points might be docked. If you choose to spread, keep it at an understandable pace and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

Hi, I am a parent judge so please go slow and speak clearly

Please do not give me a handshake.

For the last several years, I have been a speech and debate coach and classroom teacher. At the middle school level, I have experience judging all Individual Events, LD, PF, and Congress. At the high school level, my focus is on Congress, Extemp, PF, and Impromptu events.

In all debate events, my preference is strong argumentation, respectful clashes, and a showcase of unique personalities. While a bit of humor is acceptable, and I appreciate some entertainment, the quality of arguments should be the highest priority. When questioning your opponent, be respectful by letting the student finish their question/answer, avoid laughing at your opponent, and be wary of your volume.

The sole focus of your speech should not be criticizing your opponent’s arguments; rather prioritize supporting your own arguments with evidence, warrants, and reasoning. Simple arguments that are organized and well-constructed are often more likely to succeed than over-complicated arguments full of technical jargon that the average judge would not know.

I also look for good oral delivery in all events. Making eye contact, enunciating clearly, using vocal variety, and gesturing naturally can be the things that set you apart from your opponents when there is a close tie. Your argument will be much more impactful if your delivery is engaging and effective.

For Congress:

• Do not allow your legal pad to be a distraction, i.e. moving your legal pad from hand to hand, reading off of it the entire speech, etc.

• Bring unique rhetoric into your speech, especially during the intro/conclusion.

• All evidence should be presented with explanations that articulate your points. Arguments should have a clear warrant and reasoning tied to your evidence.

• I enjoy professionalism from presiding officers. Though having a personality is good, being too humorous may be a setback. Being an effective PO requires a great deal of practice in efficiency and fairness. Thus, a successful PO can easily be in the top 4 if they have ran the chamber smoothly and fairly.

For PF:

• Oral delivery: I flow as much as possible during the round; thus, speaking clearly and enunciating words well is essential to grasping your argument. I cannot handle spreading, so the faster you speak, the harder it is for me to flow.

• Evidence: I don’t typically call for evidence. My assumption is that competitors are entering the debate with accurate and trustworthy evidence.

• Crossfire: This is an important time for competitors to show that they know their arguments and that their side should be voted on. Lots of stuttering or repeating the same statements does not look good. If you need to think about a response, take a moment to think to avoid saying needless words. What is said in crossfire is binding; therefore carefully consider your answers/concessions.

As a judge I am looking for the following aspects in the PF debate.

1. Plan, and flow required through out the debate 2. Clear Argumentation and Refutations. 3. Compare and weigh the impacts from both sides with conclusion.
2. I would prefer if you sent me a copy of your speeches so more I am able to follow along.
3. Here is my email: sailaks@gmail.com

did pf for a minute

Send cases and rebuttal docs w cut cards

anbeastdawson@gmail.com

Preflow n flip n everything before round

If you are flight 2 make sure everything is ready before flt 1 ends, i dont like wasting time

If the round ends within 40 mins after the scheduled start time then I will give block 30s

Do something fun

I read Theory, Ks, and Tricks when I debated but read whatever you can explain clearly. Even if I know what argument you are trying to make I won't do any work for you. That being said even if you pull smth I'm not familiar with like a unique K or phil I'll vote off of it if u explain it well.

Should go without saying, but annoying strats raise my threshold for execution(warrants, extensions, etc.), lower my threshold for responses, and can affect your speaks

Speed is fine but hella annoying. If I miss something that's on you. If I were you, I wouldn't because I am bored and generally uninterested

If the round is too unclear for me, i'm not even gonna want to listen to the backhalf when you try to slow it down, im just gonna flip a coin or vote on vibes

Tko rule applies

For worlds:

Havent judged worlds alot

Treat me like a trad pf judge

Will boost speaks if you're funny

I value arguments backed by data and numbers. You must speak clearly and make sure i understand you. No spreading, I’m not a professional debate judge. Don't argue about minor details. I consider Impact Calculus. I like probability. I’m unlikely to decide the winner on technical points.

Flay judge with 4-5 years judging experience and knowledge of topic. May speak fast but has be comprehensible by me. No spreading please. Please include me in the email exchange on all speech docs and cards shared during rounds. I flow the debate, check cards when asked for, and weigh impacts as presented. I expect respectable exchange during crossfire. Good luck.

i'm probably a pretty standard tech judge but please check for my opinions on things that might be important to the way you debate (ie theory, ivis, speed, docs, tko, tricks, ks, etc.) it is long because i shouldn't have to say these things in round you should check for them if you do anything that has any chance of needing judge preference knowledge

harvard note: you probably should not read either of the following negs in front of me:

• 'we need to exploit immigrants for labor' arguments
• 'placate israel' arguments

if either of these are read i welcome and encourage you to read an ivi. this is the borderline ONLY time i will EVER encourage teams to read an IVI in front of me (thing you should read my thoughts on below if you want to read one PLEASE). i will have an extremely high threshold of responding to an ivi that says 'it is bad to argue that we shouldn't deport immigrants so that they can be exploited for labor in conditions comparable to slavery.' please do not defend evil things for the sake of a debate argument i know there are other sufficiently winnable arguments with good evidence.

I did PF at Westlake for 4 years (graduated 23) and qualled for TOC 3 times (kind of)

email cheriewang835@gmail.com. send CASE AND REBUTTAL docs (to everyone preferably but at least send to me)

almost every default here can be changed if you warrant that. e.g. if you forget to extend something in summary but warrant why extensions don't matter during final, i will disregard the lack of a summary extension. however if you say something racist you will not change my mind about if being racist should be allowed.

IF YOU DO NOT EXTEND SOMETHING say goodbye to it. if your opponents do not extend something please say something!! and then u don't have to respond to it.

conceded defense is sticky - if you don't frontline one of your contentions in second rebuttal don't go for it in summary. if ur first speaking u don't need to extend defense against a dropped contention. if second rebuttal drops one of the pieces of defense on a contention they do go for, i would like the first summary to explicitly extend the response but you could argue that you don't need it idc

PLEASE TIME SPEECHES cus i'm not going to. stop your opponents if they go 10+ over

things i like (order is prioritized):

• speech docs/disclosing
• bears trick
• they all saw a cat. trick
• early weighing/collapsing
• impact turns/defense
• polls trick
• cool arguments
• wolf in sheeps clothing trick

things i don't like (in no particular order):

• reading progressive arguments poorly

• most IVIs (read my section on IVIs if u plan to read one)

• going too fast for me

• signposting poorly.

• being offensive

• the liar's paradox (and most other paradoxes)

• not doing speech docs. if ur opponents doesn't want speech docs u don't have to send them, but if ur the team saying no speech docs i will dock speaks

tech>truth. i judge how i am directed to in round. my preferences will reflect in ur speaks but generally, read and do whatever u want and i will do my best to evaluate it

don't go too fast; i can only evaluate what i can flow.i will not pretend i heard stuff in rebuttal that was too fast for me.for reference u should top out ~900 words in constructive and that's being pretty generous. I DO NOT FLOW OFF DOC.

be nice or get 25s.

SIGNPOST. i do not flow things that aren't signposted. if there’s 100 different arguments and no one explains how they interact, they are all meaningless to me so i won't bother flowing them

u are extremely welcome to post round either verbally after round (unless tournament is running super late) or via email. i am happy to answer questions about the decision/strategy/etc. i do not expect teams to always agree with me

random things

my 2 biggest pet peeves are 1) fake norm setting and 2) wasting my time.

PLEASE DO NOT pad your time by reading the same responses with different cards multiple times. instead do weighing or make analytics i don't care if they are bad, i would rather flow that than another card saying the same thing.

hege args need real warrants too. also i will not like it if ur hege warrants are kinda racist.

if you read weighing and call it a prereq when it isn't actually one, i will not treat it like one.

i like analogies fine but not cliches (except for poking/feeding the bear i like those ones. generally speaking i like bears)

i don't believe in TKOs or 30 speaks theory and probably won't waive that

pf substance stuff

second rebuttal needs to frontline everything that they want to extend later. i would love to see some collapsing.

i have a decently high threshold for extensions but they don't need card names, just warrants and impacts. please don't go for more than one link/warrant when extending case if u don't have to. i really like being able to see strategy in every speech and largely decide speaks based on this.

i presume with my own coin flip unless told to do something else in round. i would love to be told to do something else in round. i will do literally everything i can think of to avoid presuming if no one tells me to presume, especially in a substance round.

warrant things

weigh things

extend things

IMPACT DEFENSE IS HEAVILY UNDERUTILIZED IN PF. please read impact defense when someone reads a terrible impact

love a card heavy rebuttal (not as much as an analytics heavy one) but if i hear the same response with different cards a bunch of times it isn't going to trick me into thinking you read more than one response. i cannot stress how much it annoys me to hear a rebuttal with no strategy

SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST SIGNPOST

trigger warnings. they're getting their own section now

u don't need to read this section if u aren't reading/hitting tw and don't need a tw for case--generally, i believe trigger warnings should be read for graphic arguments that talk about traumatic subjects, that's all u need to know.

trigger warnings should have an opt out dont just list a bunch of triggering things prior to talking about them for 4 minutes.

trigger warnings have real impacts on safety that are key to preserve the balance between people reading arguments about serious issues and people not being triggered in a closed room for 60 minutes. i feel strongly that they should be read. if you read something graphic i will be extremely sympathetic to tw theory against u.

performative theory that pretends to set a good norm and does a bad job of it is one of my biggest pet peeves in debate and often actively harmful. please do not read trigger warning theory in front of me for no reason. please give good opt outs. if you are trivializing this issue i will still evaluate the round but i will tank your speaks.

IVIs

other prog stuff is below this. i need a section for IVIs sorry.

IVIs on bad ev or offensive behavior are totally fine. would love to evaluate both of those actually BUT U NEED TO ARTICULATE THEM CORRECTLY. if u want me to care about an issue and independently vote on it, u should care enough to build up that issue as an independent voter (what did they do wrong, why is it bad, why should i down them).

the two scenarios i described are the only ones where it makes sense to me to read an IVI instead of a shell. do not read disclosure in front of me and call it an IVI. do not read spec as an IVI. do not read T as an IVI. T is T.

i also believe that IVIs are often used as a way of doing more performative theory while skirting RVIs. please do not do that. i will tank your speaks forever. i am not forgiving on this issue.

theory

i love judging theory but i will take mediocre substance over bad theory any day (this does not refer to people who are new to reading theory all i'm saying is your brain should be on when you read theory no matter how advantageous it might be for you).

friv is great if you are chill and do a good job reading it.

i should never feel bad for your opponents if you initiate theory, especially friv. you should be the most polite person ever if you initiate theory. do not play dumb in cross fire. explain how to engage with the shell.

all parts of the shell + implication need to be extended in summary/final but not rebuttals.

going for RVIs/DTA/reasonability are cool strats that i think are underutilized in pf!

im a big fan of os disclosure. down to evaluate marginal misdisclosure shells if you can do a good job reading it.

my opinion is that disclosure is good but i won't hack for it if u can't defend it. content/trigger warnings are good on graphic args but i won't hack for it if u can't defend that.

tricks

don't really know what i'm doing but these are fun and i'll vote on them

don't really like paradoxes. i think polls is funny. eval after 1ac and gcd are ok. i dont know that many tricks

i need to see them on the doc! if i missed them, i will be a lot less willing to evaluate tricks and very open to hearing reasons the way the trick was read is unfair and should disqualify it. don't hide them in the card but the tagline is ok

Ks

please talk to me in round. if you don't talk to me before round i will probably just not vote on it. 100% open to hearing it just if ur going to u should talk to me before round and gauge the vibe idw to write another big fat section in my paradigm ab it

Doing an email chain? I'd love to be on it: amwelter12@ole.augie.edu

I prefer sending speech docs before speeches rather than calling for cards during prep.

Extend warranted offense, break clash, and weigh and you’ll be fine.

I prefer topical debates on substance--that's where I've found that I'm least likely to get lost. I also prefer judging debaters who are doing what they love and do best, which doesn't need to be substance or topical. I will do my best to follow you wherever you lead the debate.

I will very easily vote for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in all debate events, circuits, and tournaments. If someone runs disclo on you and you assert that they don’t actually care about the norm, your speaks will suffer.

If someone runs an identity K/aff and you assert that they don't care about the argument or cause itself, you will lose. If there's a clear perfcon, then maybe; otherwise, telling a student that they don't care about something as personal as their own identity argument is destructive and something a student shouldn't have to hear.

—

South Dakota specific stuff -

I find the argument that “defense is a voter” incredibly unpersuasive. Give me offense to vote on. Avoid extending through ink. New args late in the round are unacceptable. Layering and “even if” statements are like cheat codes for getting my ballot.

Please do not tell your opponent to “go do policy”. It’s particularly stinging since we’ve killed it off in our state.

In LD, winning your framework is rarely sufficient to win the round. You’ve gotta win the offense under the winning framework. Far more often than not, I see debaters spend substantial time on framework without telling me what offense is filtered out or prioritized by the framework. If you’re prepped to just run 7mins of turns against the aff, I’m excited to hear it.

In PF, frameworks are becoming my new pet peeve unless they have warranting and you connect your offense to them explicitly in the round. Providing a warrantless framework and then using it to handwave away your opponent’s offense is not consistent with my understanding of offense/defense/weighing--this is less of a worry the more established and warranted the framework is. Framework isn't my jam in PF, but I'll get there just fine if your warrants lead me there. I default to evaluating the resolution as a question of comparative worlds – is the pro world or the con world better?

—

Prefs -

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 2

T/Theory: 2

T/Theory w/o speech docs: 4

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. You will lose my attention if you speed talk.

Make a clear summary of your arguments upfront. Focus on your key arguments and provide substantive evidence. Do not waste time on less important, peripheral arguments.

Clear counter-arguments (with evidence) to your opponents' points can make or break your case.

Do not talk over each other in cross. Be respectful.

Please refrain from using debate jargon.

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Dont like over exaggeration to extinction.

Dont really care about framework but you can read it if you want.

Good luck and have fun!

Email: yiwen.wu76@gmail.com

Please add both yiwen.wu76@gmail.com and mcleanpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I am a parent judge. I have judged a few PF tournaments in the past (mainly on the local circuit).

PF: Please do not spread; explain your logic clearly. Do not use debate jargon, I probably won't understand it.

I will flow what I hear. Sign post with arguments not authors.

I will not evaluate arguments with weak or misleading evidence/warranting.

All offense/defense you want me to evaluate must be in both summary and final focus. Please weigh.

I will not understand or evaluate progressive arguments. 

Speaker Points: Please be polite and respectful at all times. I will take off speaker points if you are not doing well/rude in cross.

This is my second year judging. Here are a few key points from my perspective,

- Respect & Kindness: Please be kind and respectful to your opponents throughout the debate.

- Clarity & Delivery: Aim to make your speech clear and informative rather than overwhelming.

- Depth Over Surface-Level Analysis: I value logical reasoning and explanations over simply comparing numbers—context and justification matter more.

- Understanding Over Just Reading: Demonstrating knowledge of the topic is important; I prefer analysis and application of evidence rather than just reading it aloud.

********For March 2025 Debaters********

(I think) I have above-average knowledge of AI.

Hi Students

Email for chain - emankumar@gmail.com

I have not Judged Feb topic yet so coming in with a blank slate.

Please self-time.

I have judged middle school debates for 3yrs and this is my second-year judging HS PF. Consider me a lay judge. I do flow during the debate but not an expert yet. I will not flow CX.

Talk slow. Please do not run Theory, Ks or other progressive argumentation. Keep it simple and civil. I'd prefer the basics - front-lining, extending, weighing and a solid back half strategy.

Thanks

Eman

I am relatively new at this but am slowly getting my swing. Convince me that what you are saying really is true! Speak slowly and clearly.

I am unfamiliar with debate jargon so make sure to explain the meanings of the terms you are using. Make sure to stay organized so I can keep up with the round. I expect you to self-time, but I will also keep a timer just in case. Make sure to time all prep taken. Be respectful and have fun!

Remember you are doing this for fun! Don't stress.

I am a parent judge. I value logical and well-spoken arguments. Do not speak too fast and please speak clearly. Be respectful and kind to your opponents. Lastly, I do not vote on Theory or K arguments.

I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.

Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.

If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.

Be confident, respectful and have fun.