Please add me to the email chain: kvaoki2000@gmail.com | kvaoki2000 AT gmail DOT com

Background + Top Level

West High School SLC '18

Harvard '22

Currently an assistant debate coach at Harvard

Have some background knowledge on the college topic through research + judging. Have a minimal background on the high school topic. Explanation in both, particularly at the beginning of the season, is always helpful.

I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win.

Line by line is appreciated and minimizes intervention I must make after the round. Further, the more granular the debate (like debates over particular terms of art, specific details, etc.) and/or the closer the debate is, the more I'll look to evidence to break ties. Please engage in evidence comparison to limit the degree of intervention I have to do in a debate.

Quality > Quantity of arguments particularly in rebuttals.

Ultimately, do what you do best because you shouldn’t have to sacrifice your style for any minor predisposition that I may have.

Topicality

Please unpack, apply, and compare, commonly used buzzwords as the rebuttals get closer, i.e. “vote neg because our interpretation sets a functional limit on the topic,” isn’t a complete argument until there is an explanation of why the parameters the neg sets up are better than the aff interpretation for xyz reason.

Impact + caselist comparisons are essential.

Reasonability needs to be connected to how it interacts with neg offense and not just a laundry list of reasons why it is better than competing interpretations.

I think cards and evidence comparison are often underutilized in these debates.

Counterplans + Counterplan Theory

Relatively straightforward. If you’re aff, tie your solvency deficits to a specific impact and explain why it outweighs the net benefit to the counterplan. Conversely, if you’re neg, explain why the deficits don’t apply or why the deficits are unimportant because the CP sufficiently solves.

Will presume judge kick

In terms of most theory issues: literature oftentimes determines how I evaluate the extent of abusiveness of a counterplan; the more specific the solvency advocate, the better. I default to reject the arg, not the team and am relatively unpersuaded by process cps, agent cps, etc. being a reason to reject the neg.

DAs

Strong analytical pushes are good and persuasive, but also not an excuse to not read cards

Turns case arguments on multiple levels of the aff (link level, impact level) are fantastic

Zero percent risk is possible, but not the most preferable strategy

Ks

This is where most of my debate experience is in

Contextualization > Explanation in every instance, which should reflect in the way you give an overview

My biggest thought about these arguments is that both neg teams running the K and aff teams answering the K should recognize where 1AC/NC strengths are. A heg aff is not built to perm the colonialism K and pivoting to that as your strategy in the 2AC is more detrimental than beneficial. In essence, when aff, know whether you will be going for an impact turn or a perm and work backward. When neg, know whether your links/framework/alt are strongest in relation to the aff and work backward.

I've found often that many neg framework interpretations don't generate a lot of offense in terms of grander strategy because they give the aff too much leeway. I've found that I'm most persuaded by framework strategies that do one of three things:

1. attempt to just exclude the aff and win substantial impact turns to their model of plan focus/consequentialism,
2. limit the scope of aff solvency while enhancing the scope of alt solvency, or
3. are ditched in favor of more particular engagements on the link/impact/alt level of the kritik

K Affs/Framework

Having a relationship to the topic is preferable, but that certainly doesn't require "topical action" which I think is up for debate both on what topical constitutes as well as whether being topical is desirable

K Affs probably get a perm, but

1. I'm extremely open to adjusting the parameters of how perms should function in these debates and
2. I think I have a higher threshold of aff explanation for how any permutation functions with a competing kritik/counterplan/advocacy.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact in front of me based on debating. The most persuasive fairness arguments I’ve heard are ones paired with a discussion of how it implicates debate as an educational activity/more education-related impacts as well as how fair norms are necessary and mutually beneficial for both teams. In these debates I typically view fairness as a tiebreaker for the negative but can be convinced that it is more important than that if heavy investment is done.

TVAs should have a substantive explanation as to how they provide a similar discussion of the aff's issues and internal links and framework DAs. Simply reading an alternative plan text is not sufficient. Further, TVAs and Read On Neg/Switch Side have varying degrees of value based on aff offense against T which should affect how you deploy them by the 2NR (if not earlier).

Performances are great, but they're greater when they have explanations and develop organically as the debate continues

Misc (but still important) things

If you have an issue with access in terms of debate, please feel free to send me an email before the round so that I can make the necessary accommodations.

Tech > Truth except arguments along the lines of “racism/sexism/antiqueerness/antiblackness/ableism good”

A dropped argument still needs an extension of a claim and a warrant for me to evaluate it.

I usually look grumpy/apathetic/tired during rounds; I promise it's not usually because of anyone's actions (if it is, I'll be explicit about it after the round), and is more just my face. I deeply appreciate people's commitment to this activity and want to emphasize that I'll do my absolute best to adjudicate. Further, I feel like most of the learning I've had in the activity can be attributed to the comments provided by judges after round. Following that, please know that no amount of questions is too much, and I'm happy to answer any and all of them to make your time in this activity more valuable.

I am a Senior at Harvard. My debate experience consists of World Schools and British/American Parliamentary; I am an international student and have no experience debating Public Forum. Please don’t speak at an unreasonable pace, and please do be civil. I like evidence and warrants to be used and extended in the final summary.

I do not like teams who run kays. I do not know what kays are. But I have been told I do not like them.

I have judged extensively in both BP and WSDC, and have on occasion judged APDA. I believe strongly in conforming to the standards of the formats I judge, and therefore will approach WSDC slightly differently than I will BP. That said, there are a couple of commonalities.

I tend to view debating as an effort as persuasion. Imagine that there is a panel either of governmental officials, or senior officials at a company who are empowered to act on whatever policy or position you are advocating. The goal of a proposition team is to convince that they should do this. Central to such an effort is explaining why there is a problem which needs to be solved, but equally important is explaining what you expect them to do. It is all well and good to say that there is a principled obligation to do something, but if you cannot explain what they should do in order to fulfill such an obligation it can become unclear why it is important in the first place.

If this sounds like a burden on proposition, opposition teams should also actually explain why a policy should not be done, or why a principled statement is untrue. It is very easy for opposition teams to slip into the habit of poking holes in the proposition cases that were presented to them.

How I Judge

I am receptive to most kinds of arguments, but this post captures my judging philosophy well: http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.in/2012/11/what-does-good-judge-believe.html. tl;dr: I like hearing novel and interesting arguments, but I have "a defeasible presumption in favour of a moderate liberal position on most ethical issues... By "defeasible", I mean that the presumption could in principle be overcome by a persuasive argument, [and if so, I will listen to such] arguments with an open mind." I love weighing, and I don't think your argument being dropped (however coldly so) constitutes a winning weight.

My speaks reflect the quality of warranting and impacting-weighing. But, just saying "scope, clarity, and probability" isn't enough. Spend time on weighing and do interesting weighing on actor or scope or principle or whatever else. I don't care for rhetoric or style.

I also hold the belief that human extinction is unlikely.

Warranting vs Evidence

I always prefer better-explained mechanisms and logical warrants over evidence. I care about evidence only when a claim isn't intuitive to believe just based on warrants. Do use evidence to make counter-intuitive warrants/claims stronger but don't use it when it doesn't contribute to the believability or power of your logic.

Choose your evidence well: suss sources are just that—suss.

Engagement

Line-by-line is good but so is contention by contention; I'm quite friendly to broader responses as long as they're good responses. I don't mind if you're not too exact on the flow, will assemble clashes myself if I have to, and am happy to cross-apply warrants/weights.

Theory

I do not look favourably on most Ks. I will listen to theory but I'll only care if it was relevant to the round itself and the framing/conceptualization of it.

Speed

Don't spread but speed is alright.

+1 Speaks

If you pronounce my full name (Hemanth Bharatha Chakravarthy) right in the first try, I'll bump you up by 1 point. Alternatively, if you cite evidence about something that happened in the Tamil community in India, I'll give you +1.

I debated Lincoln Douglas at Walt Whitman High School from 2014 to 2018 on the national and local circuits. I qualified to the Tournament of Champions in 2017 and 2018. I am currently a senior at Harvard College.

I debated a bit of everything, but I have the most experience with theory, topicality, and framework debate.

The debates I enjoyed the most involved semi-topical affs about identity and/or oppression. Tricks were also fun. I love good (read: creative, well-researched) disads or counterplans, but I also love hearing k debates.

I need to hear clear, explicit extensions and weighing on every layer of the debate. Tell me where to vote and why I should vote there. Simple is better.

Basically, read anything in front of me, try not to be boring, definitely don’t be a jerk (be extra nice, because I am sensitive), and don’t spread too fast — I only judge at Harvard, and skipped 2021, so I haven't heard spreading in 2 years.

Email me at camillegcaldera@gmail.com or message me on Facebook with questions, cases, etc. (Yes, I want to be on email chains!)

Panicked Afterthought: I don't understand high theory/post-modern philosophy so maybe don't read that in front of me? I will do the absolute best I can to sift though it but no promises.

Updated Feb 2019

I debated LD for Walt Whitman High School for four years on the local and national circuits and qualified to TOC my junior and senior years. I’m now a senior on the Harvard team.

My goal is to write RFDs based entirely on comparison made by the debaters in the round, so the easiest way to get my ballot is to give me direct comparisons and weighing. I'll say clear/slow as many times as necessary. Plan to slow down for any short analytics, interpretations, or arguments that must be flowed verbatim so they're clear to everyone the first time around.

Feel free to ask me before the round if you have specific questions.

Misc:

- Because the Harvard tournament has a difficult 4-2 break, I will push in-round speaks in a direction that indicates whether I think you should make the break based on the quality of that round.

- If the content of your position is something graphic or reasonably foreseeable as potentially distressing, please be a good person and check whether all the other people in the room are okay hearing it.

- Be polite to people with different debate backgrounds than your own. Dominance and snark are great; you should be able to tell the difference between these and bullying. If you're uncomfortable with how your opponent is treating you, please say something about it. If you're asked by an opponent to be more respectful and don't make any effort, I'll be very unhappy.

- I have a very low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments -- for instance, if substance is conceded, pointing that out is sufficient for me to vote on it.

- Evaluating theory is most straightforward to me under competing interps. I'm happy to use anything else you justify, but you should be clear about what you want me to do with it.

- I will be sad if you use CX for a series of clarification questions, and annoyed if you use it for prep. I'm entertained by clever tricks I haven't seen before.

- Debate is a game—you should make arguments you enjoy and feel good about. If that's not working out, think about reaching out to someone to check in.

I did not do high school debate. I am a freshmen at Columbia University and I currently do Parliamentary debate.

I am not good with speed, so definitely go slower in your speeches so I don't miss anything.

About me: I did APDA and BP, Brandeis Dino (I went to Lexington High School, but didn't debate). Paradigms aren't standard, and I won't assume that you've read this, so defer to first to the tab packet, then to APDA/BP norms, then to this.

Cases: For strict-link, please debate the motion, and model in the plain-text reading of the motion (definitely do model). For loose-link, I like unique/interesting cases, but really run whatever you like. I was a History and Sociology major and I ran a lot of opp-choice, but you don't have to by any means. I won't penalize you for case choice, unless the tournament requires a specific type of case.

Flowing and Timing: I write slowly, so please don't spread if you want me to understand your argument or put it on the flow. I appreciate clear tag lines, but make them relevant to what they're tagging. Time the other team and pound them down after grace. I'll time too, but I focus on writing rather than timing. If the other team starts pounding and it's after grace, I'll ignore any additional arguments. PLEASE don't abuse POCs, it shouldn't ever last more than 5 minutes, and hopefully much less than that. (For BP, ignore this section.)

Voting and Weighing: If you do weighing, I'll vote off that. Please do this. If you don't, and the other team does, I'll probably vote for them. If neither team weighs, , I'll vote off of who I think won what I think the most important issues in the round were, but this is subjective and messy and results in low scores. Make theory arguments in tight call rounds and warrant them, that's the sole voting issue. If neither team does, I'll go with the default APDA standard of voting on a "viable, weighable path to victory." This is a fairly high bar. A drop is only as big as the other team makes it: if they show me why it kills you, I'll look heavily to it. But if it's inconsequential, and they don't jump on it, I won't penalize you much. Unwarranted and unimpacted arguments will hurt you . Impacted and warranted arguments will help you . Examples aren't warrants, though they can help explain them.

Rebuttals: For PMRs, standard "sniff test" to see if it's directly responsive to MO's new arguments. Definitely call new stuff in all rebuttals, I won't make points of order for you, and no penalty for calling them. Keep responses to them very brief and don't get into a debate about them.

Feedback: I like to do it in the room if possible, unless we're far away and I'm hungry and it's just before dinner. If we do need to find each other, do try to find me, as I like giving feedback.

Harvard '18; Harrison '14

I debated for Harrison on the national circuit. I used to coach and judge pretty frequently, but have become pretty inactive since 2016.

I have a high threshold for clarity, and I will drop you if I have to keep calling clear--I will not let you just re-explain things in later speeches. Be careful with new literature and debate strategies--I am happy and interested to hear them, but I am likely unfamiliar with them and will be hearing them for the first time when you read them. That means you need to be slower, not just what you think is clear.

I care much less about the types of arguments you run and much more about the way you run them--be clear, crystallize well, and clash with your opponent. I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact, so long as it is not morally repugnant. That being said, I will be much happier with and give higher speaks to debaters who debate the topic and/or show creative, independent thinking. Perceptual dominance, making an attempt at being persuasive, and being kind and respectful will also be good for your speaks.

Ask me about any other specifics before the round.

If both teams agree, i am willing to turn prep into 4 extra minutes of GCX.

Jay Garg has a really good paradigm (esp the part about Jackie's paradigm). Can we just pretend I copy and pasted it here? Jeremy Lee also has a good paradigm. If you are confused / unsure about how I evaluate anything or just want to shoot the breeze, please ask before the round to clarify.

Noah DiAntonio

Update as of February 2023

I would take everything below as useful but not perfect information, because as I get further from my time as a debater I can tell that my preferences are changing and my ability to judge super technically is decreasing (I am not a "lay" judge but I am also not actively thinking about debate as often as I used to.) I have also been judging at the rookie/novice/JV level lately, so these comments are especially tailored to debaters at those levels.

The feedback that I always give debaters is that no matter what argument you are running, what matters is that you tell a compelling story about your advocacy and what voting for you means. That entails characterizing what the world looks like now, and how it will change with the passage of the plan (or CP or alt). The key to doing this is 1) having overviews in all speeches starting with the 2AC which tell me your story, 2) extending your arguments in every speech, even the ones your opponents don't address (that isn't to say you can't kick arguments, you can, but arguments you are not kicking need to be explicitly extended), and 3) contextualizing your evidence in relation to this story you are telling me. Evidence is the content that fills out the story, but it isn't the story itself. It is how you bring all the evidence together and explain it in your own words that makes the story. It is also important that as you do this, you tell me, preferably very directly, to which arguments should lead me to vote for you and why.

I also strongly advise debaters to focus on direct clash with opposing arguments. The best debaters are able to respond to opposing arguments while also telling their own story (see above), but if you need to spend two minutes telling me your story and then three minutes just refuting your opponents arguments on a line-by-line basis, that's great too. But don't drop your opponents' arguments!

So, in short: Tell me why you should win and directly tell me that what your opponent said is wrong, and you are already most of the way there!

One other thing I have noticed and want to comment on. When doing impact calculus, it isn't just a time to say that your impact matters. It is really an opportunity for direct comparison between two impacts. Let's take the classic example of nuclear war vs. climate change. Both teams say they will lead to extinction. Here is what I, on the nuclear war side, might say:

• Probability and Magnitude: Climate change is slow and humanity has time to adapt. Nuclear war is immediate, and there's no adapting to a rapid-onset nuclear winter. Furthermore, nuclear winter makes the entire earth uninhabitable, while climate change will make some areas worse but others more habitable, and in those areas people will certainly survive. That means that the probability of nuclear war leading to a full human extinction is higher, and thus it is the higher magnitude impact as well.
• Timeframe and Reversibility: The impacts of climate change are potentially reversible due to scientific advances in the coming decades. Once a nuke is launched, there is no going back. Our impact happens first and makes solving climate change impossible. Vote to prevent a nuclear war now to allow humanity the chance to fix climate change.

Now, that is far from perfect, but I write that to demonstrate that real comparison between impacts is what impact calculus is all about. Do this well, and it will be very advantageous for you.

Update for NSDA Nats 2021

Haven't judged on this topic yet.

Open to all types of arguments. Strong warrants are key.

I prefer realistic link chains. The more ridiculous, the higher your threshold of explanation will be.

Also, on Kritiks, I didn't read them and am not as experienced with them, but I like them and I have a strong background in social theory (I studied it in college) especially Marxism, Feminism, and Foucualt. However, that means that I am going to want you to explain even MORE clearly because I will probably be better able to tell if you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And for answering a Kritik (on either side) I appreciate engagement with the substance of the K.

Paradigm as of Harvard 2020

tl;dr:

1) Don't go too fast.

2) Run anything, but explain it well.

3) I don't debate anymore or keep up with what is going on in debate. Do with that what you will.

Experience:

I did policy and extemp for four years on a local Missouri circuit. I competed at NSDA and NCFL nationals in policy. Now I debate Parli for Harvard. I have judged all types of debate as well as multiple events, but only on the local level.

Here are my preferences:

LD:

I debated LD for the first two years of high school, (once again, local level), but I am not up on the current trends in circuit LD. However, I do know the basics (speech times and order, the resolution, etc.).

However, I am essentially a policy debater.

Speed:

I (generally) did not spread when I debated in high school. I'm fine with you spreading in front of me, just realize that I am not as trained as some of your judges may be when it comes to flowing spreading. For my comprehension, I would recommend that you slow down and emphasize your most important warrants. Basically, if you want me to REALLY understand something, slow down a bit.

I also would prefer if you slow down for blippy arguments if you want me to be able to flow them.

I really don’t want to have to tell you to slow down, but I will yell “clear” or “slow” if I must.

Value/Value Criterion:

I believe that V/VC debates aren't really a thing anymore in circuit LD, but when I did LD I debated that way. I won't care if you have a value construct or not, but I do like those debates.

Philosophy:

I'm not knowledgeable about much philosophy, so make sure to just explain your warrants well if you are trying to get me to adopt a certain ethical framework. I won't need deep explanation for more basic things like util or rejecting oppression, but if you think the philosophy in your case wouldn't make sense to a lay-person, explain it well to me.

Update as of 2019: I’ve read a bit more philosophy now. I have a light understanding of the social contract theorists and a decent understanding of Marx.

Plans:

Plans are fine in LD. I even think PF should have plans to be honest.

Advantages/Disads:

I like them. I was mostly a ADV/DA debater when I did policy, so I will probably intuitively understand your ADV/DA. I will be happier voting for a DA if you do a lot of weighing against the aff impacts (and vice versa). I'm also partial to uniqueness take-outs and I love turns.

Also, I love movements disads. If you run one, you aren't guaranteed to win but you will make me smile.

Counterplans:

I didn't run too many, but I really like them. I will default to a counterplan being theoretically legit unless the aff says otherwise. I like when the 1NC counterplan shell includes a sentence or two about why they are competitive, but that isn't required, I will assume competition until the aff perms.

Speaking of perms, I am fairly liberal when it comes to what I allow. Simply telling me a perm is intrinsic/severance won't matter unless you develop that into a well-impacted theory argument. I also want the aff, when making a perm, to actually say what they mean by the perm. I can guess what "perm do both" means in the context of this aff and CP, but just spelling it out leaves no room for confusion.

Kritiks:

I was not a K debater. I am happy to see and vote for Ks, but just recognize that if you are running something more complex than cap, I'm going to need you to explain things in more detail. What I most want to see out of the neg if they are running a K is 1) strong anti-perm arguments and 2) really well-developed alt solvency. Those are the areas where I am usually most skeptical of Ks, and thus you're going to want to be strong on those fronts.

Also, the old “kick the alt and go for a non-uq DA” line is fine by me, but make sure the impact is worse than the status quo in this case.

Condo:

I think it is fine, though if you win the condo bad debate I will think condo is not fine for the purposes of the round. If you are really spreading out the aff, I will give them some leeway in the 2AR. I'm not going to vote for completely new 2AR arguments, but I'll probably accept some new explanation.

Aff condo is not okay (Kicking advantages is obviously fine, but kicking out of your advocacy is not, unless you have some REALLY compelling reason otherwise).

Topicality:

I like T a lot. I will be happiest if you don't just throw blippy arguments at me and instead invest some time into the standards debate. I also want you to impact your voters for me. Fairness and education (and your other voters) matter for a reason, I want to hear those reasons.

I'm not really into T being an RVI, but if you win that it is I'll vote on it.

Slow down for T.

Theory:

Apart from T, I liked Inherency and Solvency Advocate theory when I was a debater. I will pretty much listen to any theory if you warrant it well. See what I said on Topicality.

I'm not familiar with what theory is being run on the circuit, but I think theory debates are fun so if you just explain it well you should be fine.

Slow down for theory.

Other:

Being told how you want me to vote in your rebuttal will make it more likely that I will vote that way.

If you are rude, I will dock your speaker points.

If you are racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic or anything else of that nature in round, I will dock your speaker points and you will lose the round. If it is incredibly egregious I may end the round, but please, how about no one makes this relevant.

Contact:

If you have questions, you can email me at noahdiantonio@college.harvard.edu.

I used to write in-depth feedback on ballots, but I feel like nobody was reading them, so now I will try to give an in-depth oral critique with minimal or no written RFD on this website.

I did four years of high school Lincoln-Douglas, during which time I qualified for both CFL and SDA national tournaments and made it to the tenth round in the latter. I am currently debating in both NPDA and CEDA for NYU. I'm from a traditional circuit and thus am most experienced with framework debate, but I attended and succeeded in many national circuit tournaments and am perfectly able to follow progressive strategies.

I would hesitantly describe myself as a tab ras judge with idiosyncrasies, which I have attempted to explain in detail on this page. I wrote this paradigm mostly with LD in mind, but it's basically applicable to all debate events to the extent that I would be compelled to judge them.
I presume truth-testing unless you should decide to argue otherwise.

Flex prep: is encouraged.

Kritiks: I have evolved somewhat in my fondness for K debate. Increasingly I see a lot of very continental philosophy-type critics which use obfuscation and poor definitions to do linguistic sorcery. This is probably not the most helpful thing; I am open to critical methods which reject the paradigms of analytic reasoning, but they shouldn't be propped up by unclear definitions and intellectual dishonesty.

With that said, Time Cube is in a category of its own. I am a human being who enjoys fun, so I will be happy to judge meme cases in general. Run at your own risk, because I think they tend to collapse under real scrutiny for the aforementioned reasons.

Literature: My knowledge of the topic lit is very limited. Speak about it as though you were speaking to a layman, because you are.

Philosophy: I love philosophy and metaethics, and I am strongly preferential to a framework with a priori justifications.
With that said, I do not want to hear your pedantry about the difference between justice and morality! Furthermore, I tend to find arguments distinguishing governmental obligations from moral obligations very, very unconvincing (if the two are in conflict, it's very difficult for me to weigh government duty over moral duty, Thomas Hobbes can eat my shorts).
I love the meta-debate of epistemic modesty vs. confidence, and often use such considerations to decide close rounds. I tend to lean toward confidence when it's not mentioned, but I can easily be swung in favor of modesty if a debater says so.
Skep is a hard sell. You will have to blow my mind to persuade me to vote for you on skep, since I would assume that skep makes the vote arbitrary...

Speaker points: I judge speaks predominantly based on style and rhetoric. Do not confuse this for the traditional LD paradigm which demands that every debater talk like William Jennings Bryan or something like that. You can be fast and smart without sacrificing the beautiful rhetorical flourishes that make debate fun. Humor and entertainment goes a long way toward achieving this end.
I would rather be a point fairy than a miser.

Spreading: Creates a high barrier to entry for national circuit debate, but I am generally in favor because it allows for more educational and enjoyable rounds. It is in bad form to spread against debaters you know cannot handle spreading.

Timing: I can time if you want me to. If you do not ask me to, I will not.

Topicality: Not my favorite, but I presume that it is a voter as a procedural rule unless this assumption is challenged on the flow.

Theory: I don't object to theory on principle, but I think the proliferation of frivolous theory in Lincoln-Douglas is a negative impact on education and fun. There are certainly times when it's justified or necessary, but only insofar as the opponent has skewed the debate so drastically that running theory is the only viable way to win.
I tend to be pretty hostile to research burden arguments. Vro, you don't have to know every minute detail of whatever obscure advocacy or framework they're running, as long as they make it clear in constructive and cross-ex--even if it's new to you, there's always a kritikal response or counterplan. I am afraid that the ubiquity of research burden arguments will deter debaters from gaining esoteric knowledge in the peripheries of the topic, thereby sacrificing educational value for fairness. Basically, I'd rather see you run Mao K against an unfamiliar advocacy than research burden theory.

TLDR: I'm ok with speed and pretty much everything else.

EDIT TO THE EDIT: I haven’t seen a debate in 5 years. The following still applies but know that I probably don’t know much about what you’re talking about if it’s evolved in the last 5 years.

EDIT: The following is a paradigm for LD only. PF folks, please disregard. I'm fine with anything in PF--just make it very clear in the final focus.

I debated for five years at Valley High School in West Des Moines, IA, graduating in 2017. I qualified to TOC my junior and senior years, accumulating eight career bids and getting to octos my senior year. I went to Harvard and studied social studies.

INTRODUCING THE 30 SPEAKS CHALLENGE! If you make an argument that I should give you a 30, here is what will happen:

1. Immediately after the round, I'm going to go to a random number generator and select a number 1-7.

2. That number will correlate to a numbered question, taken from UChicago Supplemental Essays among other sources. See the bottom for essay questions.

3. You will close your laptop and immediately respond with an answer. Your answer cannot exceed 30 seconds long.

4. If the answer is creative, humorous, and interesting, I'll give you a 30. If it's not, then I'll give you what you would have gotten anyway and then subtracting 0.3 speaks. High risk, high reward.

5. I'll repeat this process with your opponent if they wish. If both of you succeed, then whoever wins the round will get a 30 and whoever loses will get a 29.9.*

Note: I reserve the right to not follow the terms of this challenge should something egregious or unsafe occur in the round, or if you are just overwhelmingly rude to everyone.

IMPORTANT NOTE ON SPEAKS:

I'll vote on any argument, but if you read/do the following, your speaks will be lowered.

1. Disclosure theory (especially must disclose full text/open source)

2. AFC

3. If you refer to yourself as "we"

4. If you just read for 7 minutes (your speaks are inversely related to the amount of time spent reading)

5. If you spread against a novice/lay debater/someone of an obviously different skill level instead of including them in the round and making it a learning experience.

Short Version
At its core, debate is your game. I really don't care what you do as long as you aren't offensive. I enjoy good framework debates the most but in the end, do what you want. I'm not great at flowing, so slow down on tags and author names. I'm not a big fan of AFC and really don't like disclosure theory or brackets theory. This means I have a low threshold for responses, but if you win it I'll vote for it begrudgingly. Speaks are based on strategy and usually start at a 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Long Version

Ks: I don't understand a lot of the lit, but a well executed K is impressive. I think K vs. framework debates are interesting. My advice if you want to run a K is to overexplain the implications of the arguments you're running and don't assume I understand all of it.

Theory: I default to theory is an issue of competing interpretations. RVIs are fine to go for, but please weigh between warrants for an RVI instead of 15 blippy arguments for an RVI and 15 blippy arguments against an RVI. Voters other than fairness and education are neat. Oh, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PLEASE SLOW DOWN ON INTERPS AND COUNTERINTERPS.

Util: Weigh everything and it could be interesting. I'm majoring in international relations and did a lot of policy work outside of debate so I'll probably understand what the plan or CP does, but if you're going for something complex/debatey (recontextualizing fiat or something like that) explain what that means.

Framework: Love it. A good framework debate with weighing and preclusion is really fun to watch. However, weigh between preclusion arguments and explain why yours operates on a higher level instead of just going "I preclude." Also, number arguments so they're easier to flow. Framework vs. ROTB debates are cool to watch.

Random things: Don't refer to yourself in the plural that "we meet" or "our argument." There is one of you and it gets kinda annoying. I won't drop you for it obviously but I might dock you speaks. Also, signpost clearly and number blippy arguments so they're at least somewhat flowable.

Ask me questions before the round if I missed anything. Good luck!

30 Speaks Challenge Questions:

1. In 2015, the city of Melbourne, Australia created a "tree-mail" service, in which all of the trees in the city received an email address so that residents could report any tree-related issues. As an unexpected result, people began to email their favorite trees sweet and occasionally humorous letters. Imagine this has been expanded to any object (tree or otherwise) in the world, and share with us the letter you’d send to your favorite.

2. Lost your keys? Alohomora. Noisy roommate? Quietus. Feel the need to shatter windows for some reason? Finestra. Create your own spell, charm, jinx, or other means for magical mayhem. How is it enacted? Is there an incantation? Does it involve a potion or other magical object? If so, what's in it or what is it? What does it do?

3. So where is Waldo, really?

4. Dog and Cat. Coffee and Tea. Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye. Everyone knows there are two types of people in the world. What are they?

5. Joan of Arkansas. Queen Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Babe Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Mash up a historical figure with a new time period, environment, location, or occupation, and tell us their story.

6. You’re on a voyage in the thirteenth century, sailing across the tempestuous seas. What if, suddenly, you fell off the edge of the Earth?

7. You are about to be reincarnated into a specific office supply tool in a specific office. Whose office is it, what office supply are you, and why?

Hi! I debated for four years at Scarsdale High School. I won't vote on arguments that are unwarranted or clearly offensive. But aside from that, do whatever you want. Theory, K's, LARP, Framework, etc. are all fine. Just make sure to start off slow and to thoroughly explain dense arguments. Have fun!

Go read Justin Qi's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Updated Jan 2020

tl;dr:
I'm tab and will vote on anything.

General Things:

I debated for four years in high school and continued onto 4 years of college debate. I don't frequently judge on the circuit, so I'd appreciate if you'd slow down. That being said, if I say “louder”, that means speak louder, not slow down. I won’t feel comfortable voting on something that I’m not sure if I heard.

I'm open to a wide variety of argumentative styles and approaches.

I’m tab. I’ll listen to almost anything you tell me, but if I genuinely feel uncomfortable (because you’re saying something racist/sexist/etc.) I’ll stop flowing.

Extensions:

I have an exceedingly low threshhold for extensions.

If something is dropped, I’ll grant you it if you just explicitly point it out.

I’m amenable to voting off of tricks, but if I don’t think the argument was flowable the first time, I’ll listen to responses in the NR/2AR. That being said, I think most arguments are flowable most of the time.

Framework and Ks:

I’m familiar with framework and I studied Philosophy at Harvard. Since leaving high school, I’ve become convinced by Sophia Caldera’s stance on comparing frameworks:

• The round runs into an obvious problem when both debaters tell me some framework warrant "precludes everything." Please give me specific comparison or weighing between framework arguments instead of relying on concessions of overhyped analytics.

I’m interested in well-fleshed out framework debates between framework and the K, as well as well-warranted theory interactions.

I don't know what "link harder into the K" means. Do you mean that your opponent has done or said something that indicates that there is a second, independently sufficient way in which they link into the K? Or do you mean that they're repeating the action that caused them to link into it in the first place? Am I supposed to judge differently if someone links "hard" into the K as opposed to "a moderate amount" or "just a little bit"? Be clear and specific.

Theory:

Slow down on interps. Please make clear arguments for whatever paradigm issues you want me to use on theory.

I have no preconceptions about whether fairness or education is more important.

For some reason, someone runs disclosure theory in front of me in probably half the rounds I judge. I don't really like disclosure theory, but I find that I often pick it up and speak it well. If it's well-executed and wins the round, I'll pick it up and speak it well. But I still don't like it. That probably tells you something about the kind of judge that I am.

Other:

I don’t like passive aggression in the CX. If you’re gonna critical of your opponent’s arguments, be open about it. If you are passive aggressive, it won’t affect your speaks or whether or not you win or lose, but I might be sarcastic during my RFD.

I do not care about your attire, accent, or school. Be respectful. But also feel free to indict or challenge what exactly "being respectful" means.

I pay attention during CX.

Speech times are probably the only "rule" I'll always enforce. I can be flexible on other things that other judges might take to be unchangeable. For example, you could convince me that you should be allowed to bring up something from the AC in the 2AR even if it wasn't extended in the 1AR, if it's well explained (in the AC, or maybe even the 1AR).

Have questions? Ask me.

There’s a rumor going around (started by me, here) that I’ll give you slightly higher speaks for referencing RuPaul’s Drag Race.

I competed in Parli and Extemp for Davis Senior High School (graduated 2017) and currently do American Parli and British Parli at Harvard. I've debated at least once or twice in every major format, though I've historically leaned towards traditional limited-prep events. I deeply appreciate when debaters bring me snacks.

If you have any questions/concerns/memes hit me up at benjaminhoffnerbrodsky@college.harvard.edu I'm also open to asking any paradigm-clarifying questions before round starts.

As an overview, I'm open to evaluating the debate you want to have and am open to voting on pretty much any type of argument. My speaks policy, however, does have some more complex preferences based on the type of debate I want to reward on the circuit -- all of that is explained below. My goal is to minimize judge intervention and bias as much as possible. That being said, I will intervene when necessary/I'm not told what to think/there is inadequate weighing. Similarly, because I'm a human/have done and watched PF I have some pretty well justified pre-conceived notions. With rare exceptions, I'm generally open to those being challenged but will default to them if unaddressed. An incomplete list of those prior assumptions is also below.

Speed: It is my preference that debaters not exceed a reasonable speed -- think 1.5x normal conversion speed -- though I will do my best to follow if debaters choose to exceed this. If you're talking so fast that I can't hear you I will say "clear" a maximum of two times as a request to slow down.

Theory: My background is in more traditional debate but I'm receptive to theory/K/performative arguments. That being said, I prefer debate that is topical and speaker points will reflect that difference unless I'm given persuasive reasons why theory is necessary in this case or it's really well executed.

Weighing: Please do it. More than you think you need to. If weighing goes uncontested I will use it even if it is unwarranted. If no weighing is given by either team I will use my intuition to somewhat arbitrarily decide what is most important. This is probably the easiest way to lose a round.

Final Focus: I take a strict view of the final focus: if the argument isn't in FF, I won't evaluate it.

Evidence: Evidence is pretty cool, you should use it. I have a strong preference for direct quotes over paraphrasing. I also take evidence misuse very seriously; if I find out that you have made up a card, added meaningful words/information to the card, "creatively" cut a card in a way that changes the meaning, or mis-cite a statistic, I will not hesitate to give a round loss and, for serious violations, report it to tab. 90% of the time the card you make up wasn't going to win you the round anyways, it's not worth it. I will call for cards at the end of the round if it is requested by a debater or if there is an obvious violation/the topic of evidence is disputed.

A few facts about the round that I take to be true unless told otherwise (but am open to contesting in some cases):

-Util is trutil

-Aff defends likely interpretation/implementation

-Neg defends squo

-Counter-advocacies aren't a real thing - you need to prove solvency/can't borrow aff fiat power

-Murder is bad/life is good

-Acquiring money is good

-Minimizing risk is good

-There is no God/Gods

-A good thing happening tomorrow is better than the same good thing happening a year from now (there is some discount factor/chance of death/randomness)

-A big good thing is better than a small good thing

-A small good thing is better than no good thing

-A good thing happening to n+1 people is better than a good thing happening to n people

-Solipsism is false

-The winner of a round is the team that best accesses the impacts that matter the most

-Fairness in debate is good

-Things that happen in the theoretical debate matter

-Education stemming from debate matters

Factors that impact speaker points but not necessarily the outcome of the round:

-Bringing me food

-Effective use of cross-fire

-Being excessively rude to your opponents

-Bold strategic decisions that payoff

-Sticking to topical arguments over theory

-Good word economy

-Creative turns and refutations

-Spicy but effective evidence indicts

-Clear and repeated weighing

Hey guys! Really excited to be judging you this round. I have a background in debating American/British Parliamentary and Extemp Policy, and I've coached World Schools and Public Forum extensively. A few brief things to know about my judging style:

1. I'm okay with people speaking moderately quickly, meaning 1.5-2x conversational speed. If you are spreading too quickly for me to flow, I will use the policy norm of saying "clear" and expect you to slow down after that.

2. Weigh. Impact. Otherwise, I will evaluate the importance of your arguments for you, and 50% of the time it won't be in the way you want me to.

3. Even if you're in a research-based format, give some logic to back up your evidence. You will not win based on a single, unsupported statistic or quote from some old guy.

4. All POIs/crossfire must be incorporated into later speeches in order for me to count it as substantive. Explain to me why the answer you got from your opponents matters in the context of the round.

5. I do not vote off of theory. The one exception to this is trigger warning theory. Include a content warning if you are going to discuss distressing topics (e.g. sexual violence).

Harvard 2022 Update: I used to tell debaters that I liked KitKats so they could gain my favor. Due to the inability to deliver snacks online, I'll mention instead that I'll like you infinitely more if you mention Bulgaria in your speech :)

Competed in PF primarily on the Texas circuit with a little bit of national circuit exposure at NSDA Nationals and the TOC.

I'm tab; I'm open to any (inoffensive) argument as long as it's well-warranted.

I can handle speed as long as you aren't spreading. Clarity is key and if I can't flow it I can't evaluate it.

I strongly prefer that the second speaking team address, at the very least, all offense on both sides of the flow (opponent's case and turns on their own case). Ideally, the second speaking team should also address some critical pieces of defense on their side, but it is definitely acceptable to frontline defense in second summary. If the first speaking team doesn't extend turns in first summary, the second speaking lucks out and I can't penalize them for not defending their case in second rebuttal. I do not require terminal defense to be extended in the first summary, so the first speaking team can extend that from rebuttal to final focus.

All offense that you want to collapse on needs to be in the summary speeches. That said, however, you don't need to go for everything. Just focus on what you need in order to win the ballot.

When making extensions, please try to extend both the link and the impact.

Make sure to have good weighing, organization, and collapsing. Please signpost! Tell me exactly where you on the flow you are addressing so I don't have to waste time looking for it. Otherwise, I'll wind up flowing less of your speech.

Weighing your arguments is incredibly important. I will do my best to avoid any intervention whatsoever, but if you aren't going to weigh properly, I may be forced to do the weighing myself. This is very risky for you.

Given the ubiquity of sketchy evidence in PF, I take evidence ethics very seriously. Feel free to paraphrase evidence, but do so with integrity. Egregious misrepresentations of evidence will disappoint me greatly, and will damage your speaker points and likely my decision to vote for your side.

I will call for contested evidence if debaters make it clear they want me to call for that evidence. I may also call pieces of evidence that I suspect may be misrepresented.

Witty, inoffensive humor will likely benefit your speaker points!

Feel free to ask any further questions prior to round.

I am an Australian judge (currently an active member of the Harvard College Debate Team) most familiar with the Australs/World Schools format and spent 8 years over the course of my adolescence debating in this format. I will pick you up if you are reasonable and warrant well, and will drop you if you run a case that is very inaccessible or technical.

Note here that I WILL intervene if I think that something has been said in the context of the debate that is so unreasonably far-fetched that it is clearly empirically incorrect, and drop it (regardless of whether or not this has been refuted --> applies mostly to formats lenient toward intervention such as World Schools and less to APDA unless that is your collapse).

I will always buy practical arguments over principle.

Do not assume that I am an expert on the topic you are discussing, and spell it all out for me, including specific weighing.

Finally, don't be rude. It's against the spirit of debate generally and doesn't do much in the way of creating an environment conducive to making everybody feel comfortable.

do good rank good

Priya Kukreja (she/they)

priyapkukreja@gmail.com

Hello! My paradigm was wiped (sigh) so here is a TLDR for NYC PF:

Background - I debated in Lincoln Douglas in Nebraska and on the National Circuit from 2014 to 2017. I have experiencing judging PF but I am not an expert with the format - please carry arguments through and articulate why I should vote for you clearly at the end of the round. I cannot do any work for you on the flow, so clash and impacting your arguments is key!

Westside LD:

I feel most comfortable judging critical and phil/framework debate. I'm happy to evaluate T/theory or policy arguments too, but you'll have to slow down, be clear about every part of the argument, and be explicit about the function it serves in the round. Please give me a way to weigh the impacts, e.g. value/criterion, standard, ROTB, etc.

Clash! Engage with your opponents argument. Impact your arguments to your fw/rotb. Take the last few seconds of your final speech to tell me why I should vote for you.

Speed - Stay around 6/10 and you should be just fine. Slow down on tags and author names. Please don't be rude.

Debate is a wonderful opportunity to learn and build community, please treat it as such!

Hi! I did PF for 4 years in high school. I graduated from high school in 2017 and I do parli now at Harvard.

Notes

- I haven't prepped the topic. Please explain things

- I try to only vote off of offense that's in final focus and summary. This is to encourage you to collapse on arguments and weigh

- I don't care if you have a card for something if you can explain why it's logically true

- I love warrants. Please don't justify something by just saying its "empirically true"

- I'm rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round

- I don't flow cross

TL;DR — Tech > truth. Please don't make me do work. Be nice :)

Background: I debated in public forum for Harker for 4 years. If you have any questions about my preferences listed below, please don't hesitate to ask before the round.

How I vote:

1. I look at the framework debate and consider the offense under the winning framework. Please settle this early in the round if possible.

2. I evaluate the easiest paths to the ballot first. This is where it helps to (1) have a smart strategy throughout the round that makes the narrative easier, and (2) explain warrants well.

3. Weigh. Do as much of this as you can. Clear up the clash on important issues and weigh your impacts, because I will do neither of these for you. Your goal is to make it as easy as possible for me to locate your best path to the ballot, and to essentially write my RFD for me through your weighing analysis. I'll be upset if you make me clear up clash or do my own weighing analysis, and your speaks will decrease even if I vote for you.

4. If the debate is a complete wash, I default to the first-speaking team (not con/squo) because I believe in the structural advantage of the second team.

Specifics:

- Speed. Go for it — I'll be able to follow, but I'll let you know if you aren't clear. If I feel that you're abusing this (think borderline spreading), then I'll lower your speaks but I won't vote against you for it. Clarity and quality of argumentation are always the most important.

- Arguments. Any type of argument is fine as long as it's topical and not blatantly offensive. I try to be tabula rasa, and I might bump up your speaks if you run creative arguments that fit a well-warranted narrative.

- Extensions. All offense you want me to evaluate must be in the summary and the final focus. You can extend terminal defense from rebuttal straight into the final focus and I'll evaluate it, but I still prefer it being in the summary as well. Every extension should include (1) evidence, (2) explanation of warrant, (3) impact, and (4) how I should weigh the argument (especially in the final focus). Clear signposting is critical.

- Evidence. Minimum citation is author and date (institution is also nice). I dislike calling for evidence, but I'll do it if (1) something seems suspicious, or (2) you explicitly tell me to call for the other team's evidence. I'll drop any team with a blatant evidence violation, but if it's something like sketchy debate-math then it's better to just point it out in speech. Have your cards ready: I'll drop a card and lower your speaks if you can't produce it within 2 minutes. Don't call for cards that you won't use. When exchanging evidence, do it right away and don't say "I need my computer to prep."

- Crossfire. I don't evaluate it, so you need to extend concessions in later speeches. Ask real questions and keep answers brief if possible; don't try to fit a new speech or I'll lower speaks.

- Theory. I don't have a nuanced familiarity with theory debates, but I will evaluate it if you overexplain how I should weigh the argument in the round. Generally, all arguments are fair game unless blatantly offensive. If you think an argument is abusive, it's better to explain this to me as a response and I'll weigh the argument less, but I lean away from voting directly off of theory arguments. In short, only run it if you really know what you're doing, and even then, use it with caution.

How to get good speaks (in order):

1. WEIGH. The easier my vote is, the higher your speaks are.

2. Signpost. Make flowing as easy as possible.

3. Have a strong narrative / strategy throughout the round.

4. Bonus: creative arguments, making me laugh.

How to get bad speaks (in order):

1. Be mean to the other team.

2. Do something sketchy with evidence.

3. Abuse crossfire with long speeches instead of questions.

4. Speak quickly to the point of spreading.

Style:

(1) I don’t care about how polished or eloquent you sound. I will consider your arguments, framework, weighing, etc. to the degree that I can understand and follow them; presentation beyond this baseline will not influence the way I value the argument.

(2) Gratuitously aggressive rhetoric does not sit well with me. In other words, it is not in your interest to disparage the arguments of the other team—you don’t need to tell me that it’s a stupid argument, explain the reasoning for that position and I’ll decide whether it's stupid. I consider it poor sportsmanship. Ad hominem attacks will down your speaks significantly. Debate should be about an open and respectful exchange of ideas.

Spreading:

Don’t do it. There exists almost no situation for which a debater would be significantly disadvantaged if they could not spread. On the other hand, they make it harder for their opponents to engage constructively. Insofar as I value debate not as a competitive activity but as an intellectual one, I do not take kindly to trying to win on a technicality because the opponent couldn’t hear you or flow fast enough. I will not consider you to have won based purely on the merits of your arguments, and this will be reflected in your speaks.

(And, on a more practical note, I will flow as quickly as I can, but I will not credit an argument that I simply could not follow or record despite a good-faith effort to do so. I do not consider it a shortcoming on my part that I cannot follow your speed-reading and, insofar as it has nothing to do with the value of arguments, it is in no way the responsibility of a judge to be able to follow your spreading. (In contrast, for example, to a responsibility to be able to effectively adjudicate a round on any topic.)

Buried arguments:

Similarly, blippy, hidden, poorly explained arguments that are then pulled through once the other team doesn’t have a chance to reply are not kindly regarded. I will pick you up based off of them, but winning in this way will not get you good speaks, as you won on an argument but its strength was never fully tested.

A blippy argument buried in a spready speech will be extremely frowned upon and while I while still consider, I will almost certainly give a low-speaking win.

(On a practical note, most inexperienced judges might not flow every single argument or recognize a blippy argument, so be wary of basing your entire case on it, i.e. spending all your time on it in your rebuttal. It would be a real shame (half sarcasm) if there was a PoO and the judge took it well because they didn't write down your argument.)

(1) That being said, I also have a fairly high standard for what would be considered blippy—as long as a good debater should reasonably have been expected not to drop the argument, you’re fine

(2) A blippy argument is also obviously different than a spike or a dump, even though both might be considered “traps.” As long as an argument is explained clearly while the other team still has an opportunity to present new counterarguments, that's fine.

Crediting Arguments and judge intervention:

(1) I judge strictly off the flow. I won’t do any work for you (flipped around, this also means I won’t do any work against you) to further develop your arguments. If a warrant is missing for what would otherwise have been the winning argument, I can’t pick you up on that argument. If only one side presents a weighing framework, no matter how weak, I will use that weighing framework.

(2) However, there is one situation in which I will be generous in cross-applying arguments where there is an obvious cross-application, though it may not have been explicitly mentioned. This is when an argument is mentioned off-case on the same point of clash as on-case, but I’m not explicitly told to cross-apply.

(3) In a situation in which no weighing framework is provided, and in which there is an RFD for both sides, I will pick the RFD based off the issue that was most/more discussed in the round. (In other words, extrapolating a weighing framework based on what the teams seemed to indicate was a prioritized argument.)

Flowing and sign-posting:

(1) Speaking of judging off the flow, it's in your interest to go line by line in rebutting arguments and following the standard procedure--start on off case, then switch to on case--and let me know when you do. It is extremely rare for a debater to be able to sign-post and organize an off-flow speech so that it is as effective as a line-by-line response. It also tends not to have significant advantages. An MOR can be devastating in theory, but I have never seen one executed properly.

(2) Signpost, for the love of God! I would rather you signpost to excess than leave me with ambiguity. The best way to get my flow to perfectly match yours is to direct me on exactly how to flow.

(3) Reasonable overviews are fine--but make it clear that it's an overview, and don't start introducing new arguments in an overview. I consider the role of an overview to be to reframe the debate or to draw links between or group arguments. Don't make new ones.

Inaccuracy:

(1) Generally, even if basic fact claims are inaccurate, I will credit them as true as long as the other side doesn’t point out they are inaccurate. If I perceive you to be knowingly stating inaccurate facts (this determination is obviously at my discretion, though one clear red flag would be if you are consistently using inaccurate but tremendously convenient information), I will not credit them. And I will tank you in speaks. Debate is only valuable as an intellectual exercise, but, further, can only be valuable if both parties are intellectually honest. If you are satisfied winning by making up facts, you shouldn't bother debating.

(2) In terms of broader structural claims about the way the world/society/economics/etc. works, which generally lie somewhere between argument and fact claim, my opinion about the accuracy of your claim won't factor into my decision as long as you warrant your claim and the warrants are not defeated by the other side. I won't do that work for them. Tabula rasa and so forth--if I expect my debaters to be intellectually honest, you can be damn sure I'm reciprocating the same courtesy.

Miscellaneous:

It's entirely possible I've left something out. Broadly speaking, and this should be obvious from the above, I believe in voting off the flow, and will do so categorically, even if I could 'see where you were going,' and where you were going would have won. With that said, I approach debate as an intellectual exchange rather than a competition. Though I have to pick a winner, and will do so even if it's on a technicality I consider to be in bad faith (and my definition of that is rather expansive)--in other words, I'll follow the rules of the game in making my decision. However, you will not like your speaker points if I make my decision based on something other than a core point of clash or weighing.

Hi! I did PF at Hunter College High School (NY) until 2017, and was an assistant coach for Saint Mary's Hall (TX) from 2017-2020. Honestly just make the round fun and entertaining please I beg of you.

A quick note: I’ve experienced a lot of debate rounds, and have probably had more bad than good experiences. Let’s make this a good one! Come into the round ready to learn and be supportive to everyone in the round, including your opponents. Have fun and be kind to everyone in the room. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make the round a more safe and fun experience for you (feel free to Slack me in advance of the round!). Please give a meaningful (i.e. people can actually opt-out if they are worried about being triggered) trigger warning if you’re reading arguments on sensitive topics (for me personally esp with regards to addiction, abuse, or sexual violence). Contact your opponents and me before the round or give people a chance at the beginning of the round to text you to ask that you not read certain arguments you warn us about, and actually read a different case if someone asks! Happy to walk people through best practices for trigger warning if there's confusion. Given the fact that I'm specifying this, I will 100% vote off trigger warning theory if the abuse is clear, and will auto-drop you if you don't trigger warn an argument I can't judge bc it is a trigger for me. I’m excited for the next hour we’ll spend together! :)

Otherwise:

· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

· Frontline offense in second rebuttal, extend defense the speech after it's frontlined, offense needs to be in summary + ff for me to vote off it

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure (not gonna lie though, my understanding of theory specifics is minimal so I won't evaluate it very technically, if that's gonna annoy you, don't read theory in front of me--otherwise, just explain stuff clearly and don't rely on things like them reading a counterinterp or not having drop the debater to win the argument)

· Believe in role of the ballot arguments if you read them

I debated all throughout middle school and high school. I attended Polytechnic High school in Pasadena, California. My main event was Parliamentary although I've also competed in World Schools. I taught Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary over the summer after my senior year of high school and first-year of college. I currently attend Harvard college and am an active member of the Harvard College Debating Union (HCDU).

As a debater, I appreciate rigorous argumentation and expect a lot of engagement with the other team's ideas.

I like off time road maps. I like overviews with voting mechanisms that are carried down the bench. I need weighing that directly engages with the other side's impacts. Don't try to win everything. Just show why the things you're winning matter more. Signpost so I know where to flow. I get annoyed by messy debates. If something was dropped by the other team, just tell me to extend it because it was dropped; I don't need you to retell me the argument/idea/piece of evidence/etc. Don't be mean to the other team because it will almost certainly hurt your speaker scores. Being assertive is not being mean; being condescending is mean.

Also, time yourself and your competitors because I will not.

TL;DR: I will listen to anything short of oppression good, and have experience reading pretty much everything. I haven't judged since Harvard last year, so I may take a bit of time to get used to spreading.

I debated at Collegiate for four years and qualified to ToC my senior year reading almost exclusively "creatively topical" affirmatives, and negating with a lot of Wilderson, but also some T and LARP. I am extremely receptive to creative reasons I should give you more speaks, but tend to give speaks on the lower side otherwise. I have no real preferences in terms of how I will evaluate the winner of a round and would much prefer you debate how you're comfortable debating than seeing you read an author you're unfamiliar with. Despite my own experience debating, I have taken the side of T in the vast majority of rounds I have judged. The most important thing to me is that you and your opponent have fun and show some creativity - I don't want to see the 17th iteration of Truth Testing and a bunch of NIBs from a negative (although I will vote for it if you win it), and I really prefer not to vote on the same topicality dump everyone reads against "questionably topical" AFFs. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round!

One more important thing - spreading is hard, so I'll say clear as many times as I need to, but be aware the more I have to do it, the more frustrated I will get and likely the lower your speaks will get. Additionally, I will not backflow - if I didn't hear it, I'm not considering it, so it is really in your best interest to slow down or clear up if I ask.

Last thing, if it matters to any of you, here is a list of coaches who were influential to me as a debater/as a person in general: Tillman Huett, Elijah Smith, Benjamin Koh, Tom Evnen, Phoebe Kuo, Abdul Beretay, Devane Murphy.

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

• My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
• I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
• I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
• The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
• I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
• If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

I went to McCallie (TN) and did primarily Public Forum for 5 years and I worked for Capitol for a summer. While I debated mostly regionally (GA-AL) I competed occasionally on the national circuit when school constraints allowed and did fairly well. I've done limited amounts of WSD and currently do APDA and BP at Northeastern, where I'm studying Economics and Finance. Important stuff is listed below:

Preferences

These are probably the only things you care about. Here's the rundown:

1) Arguments need to be extended fully for me to evaluate them.

2) It's a lot easier for you to illustrate a path to victory based on your offense rather than your defense. (There are exceptions, but this generally holds)

3) I want to sign a ballot of minimum intervention. This means that you should weigh early and often. One of the biggest things that messes up rounds is lack of weighing between mutually exclusive warrants that are trying to link into the same piece of offense. Be clear about why I ought prefer your conception.

4) Use crossfire strategically, but don't be an asshole. If you're a dick, your speaks will be lowered.

5) DO NOT EXTEND THROUGH INK. This is probably my biggest pet peeve.

6) Arguments premised on logic are more sound than arguments premised on author's names. Tell me what your evidence is saying (if you need the card) and why it's more credible than the version of reality I'm getting from your opponents.

7) Theory is fine to check abuse. It should be run as a last resort, only in conditions where it is not possible/extremely difficult to engage normally with the resolution, or in cases where a team has created a structural disadvantage.

8) Do you feel like giving me a roadmap? If you're not doing something atypical, please don't. This being said, do signpost during speeches.

9) Coin flip, side selection, and speaking order can all be decided if I'm not there, and I prefer teams to take care of this before entering the room at flighted tournaments.

If you have any questions about anything here (or things not mentioned here), shoot me a message on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/tpatri10).

I'm 4 years out from circuit LD, and currently debate for Harvard.

Important: please please please have email chains sorted out before the round. Waiting for email chains is not fun and it slows down the tournament. My email is tejal_patwardhan [at] college.harvard.edu

Speed is fine, prefiat arguments are fine, and performances are fine. I'll basically vote on anything unless it's blatantly offensive. Pref me highly if you run Ks/plans, pref me fine if you run phil (if people still do that), and pref me the lowest if you run theory/spikes (unless the pool is bad--I almost exclusively read tricks my sophomore year so I will vote on this if it's really your thing). I've been out for a while, so I might not know what new abbreviations, jargon, or norms are--please explain these in your speech so I know what I'm voting for. An argument that is just an assertion without a warrant isn't an argument, even if it's dropped.

I like disclosure! Compiling your speech doc counts against your speech time! Please be kind and make me laugh!

I give nice speaks, especially if you weigh well and sit early.

If you have questions about my paradigm, just ask. Good luck!

Background: I debated traditional PF/LD in Ohio, graduated high school in 2017, and did a little bit of college parli.

I decide who wins the round based on who is winning the key arguments (I like clear, quantifiable impacts). I prefer evidence over logic, in the case where only one is provided - but ideally this is not the case. I am fairly open to out-of-the-box arguments or claims, but if you are doing something weird and your opponent clearly has no idea what is going on, do not be rude or condescending (this will result in me lowering speaks). I keep detailed notes, am fine with a quick conversational pace (not spreading). I don't care about style at all as long as I can tell what words you are saying. Feel free to ask before the round if you have any specific questions!

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Pu%2C+Amy

Go read Ye Joo Han's paradigm. I'll judge based on it.

Paraphrasing is ok

Weigh your impacts please

Harrison HS (2012-2016)

Harvard University (2016-present)

Updated for Harvard 2020.

Email: smryan100@gmail.com

Hi!

I debated LD for four years at Harrison High School, and now do APDA in college.
If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round, message me on Facebook or email me (you're also welcome to contact me after a round if you have questions).

General Things:

* For Harvard 2020: I have not judged since this tournament last year (and have been away from the circuit for awhile) so please do not go top speed / be aware that I may not be super up to date with any new league norms!!!!! *
I will listen to any arguments you want to make provided that they are well warranted and clearly explained to me.
I won’t vote on things that I don’t understand so if you’re running something confusing please make sure you slow down and give me a clear explanation of your case.
Also I am much more likely to vote on one well explained, weighed and warranted argument than a few one-liners.

Flashing and compiling documents won’t count as prep time but please don’t be ridiculous and abuse this.

In round behavior:
I don’t care how fast or slow you talk or whether you sit or stand.
I’ll say clear if I can’t understand you but if I have to continuously say clear and nothing changes then I won’t be able to flow your arguments and can’t vote on things that I haven’t flowed.
Also please slow down on author names and for tags.

Please be respectful to each other. Debate should be a space where everyone is comfortable to engage and participate and if I feel that someone is acting exclusionary / overtly rude I will drop speaks or the debater depending on the severity of the behavior.

Arguments:

I don't really care what kinds of arguments (Ks, plans, theory, phil) you run. Just explain them to me and keep in mind that I don't judge very often so I'm not especially familiar with the kinds of things people have been running recently.

Feel free to ask me questions before / after the round.

Participated in LD my final year of high school in Utah. Currently, I am a sophomore at Boston University and have been doing American parliamentary as a part of BU Debate Society for the past year and a half. I've been judged several tournaments before.

Disclaimer Regarding Debate Etiquette:

How you dress, style your hair, etc. is completely irrelevant to me. What I value highly is respect. Please do not be distracting in any way, especially when a speech is being made. Any bigotry, such as sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, classism, etc. will not be tolerated in any form whatsoever. All gender identities are welcome. Please use any other persons preferred pronouns if given. I expect all debaters to be mature and respectful of their opponents at all times. I also expect each debater to be mindful of their arguments as to not in any way be or appear to be insensitive to another debater or myself.

Round Preferences:

- With regards to speaking, I don't care if you speak fast or speak slow. It will not affect my judgment. I've judged rounds where debaters have had issues with stuttering, and it in now way affected the round. Just please be clear when speaking.

- Please be aware of your time. Don't continuing giving your speech when your time is done. I'm pretty illiberal when it comes to time. If desired, I may give warning signaling how much time is left in your speech.

- Be thorough with your arguments. 2 great offensive arguments are better than 3 weak ones. That's not to say that you shouldn't include as many arguments as you want or need. Do whatever you think helps you.

- I need clear warrants and meaningful impacts. Any warrant I'm given I'm immediately neutral towards, so you need to explain in detail why it is true and therefore why your argument works. Impact I find to be unlikely or unimportant I'll probably ignore. Even if I know the impact is important, I won't vote on it well if its not explained to me. Your arguments should be weighed in the round so I know exactly what you think is most important in the context of the round and can adjudicate accordingly. I shouldn't have to assume what the most important arguments are in the round.

- I'd prefer evidence and examples be given frequently. It adds more weight and importance to your argument. But providing evidence or given an example is not an argument in itself, so use them appropriately.

- Humor is fine. Just please keep it appropriate and not terribly offensive. I'm really bad at understanding sarcasm, so it's likely any sarcastic comment will go over my head.

- You probably already know this, but don't lie, make stuff up, etc. Any false information probably won't help all that much, and if I can tell you're knowingly lying one way or another, it will affect my decision. If you're oblivious to any false info given, you should probably do better research.

I did PF for three years at Jesuit High School in New Orleans, and I am now in my second year of parliamentary debate at Fordham University. I graduated in 2017, but I am fairly new to judging high school debate.

Public Forum:

I can handle some speed, but at the end of the day I did PF in high school and not LD/CX, so I am probably not prepared to judge spreading.

I will pay attention in cross-fire, but I will not be flowing. If you want to make sure that I consider an idea from cross-fire, bring it up in one of your speeches. As always, make sure to extend your arguments and to weigh them clearly.

IMPORTANT THING: EVIDENCE ETHICS

By the end of my PF career, I noticed a worrying trend of teams misconstruing evidence. In fact, I think that the structure of Public Forum may incentivize misconstruing evidence because opponents have very little prep-time to analyze your cards and realize they are misconstrued at all. If one team calls into question the legitimacy of the other's evidence, I will ask to take a look at the card (and preferably the whole PDF) after the round. Please have an honest debate.

As a judge, I will adapt to you too. Do what you do best!

That said, I am a pretty standard PF tech judge, with a couple of specific preferences, outlined below:

(1) I only vote off offense that is in both summary and final focus – if it’s in one but not the other, I probably won’t consider it in my decision. If you’re the first speaking team, defensive responses to your opponent’s case do not need to be in summary – I’ll still evaluate them if they’re in final focus. Turns that you want to win off of must be in 1st summary. If you’re the second speaking team, defensive responses need to be in both summary/final focus for me to evaluate them. If you have questions on this, please ask!

(2) If I have the choice between voting for an impact that’s weighed as the biggest in the round but is muddled versus a less important but clean impact, I will resolve the muddled impact every time. I hope this encourages y’all to collapse, develop, and weigh arguments instead of going for like 4 different voters (unless you weigh all four of them :) ).

(3) I care very little about what your cards say. I care a lot more about the warranting behind them. I will never vote on the idea that something is just "empirically true," although empirics do help when you're doing warrant comparisons/maybe a probability weighing analysis.

(4) I rarely receptive to progressive arguments (Ks/theory) unless there's a real instance of abuse in the round. I strongly dislike disclosure theory. If you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.

(5) In case it's helpful, I did nat circuit PF 2013-2017.

- and don't forget to have fun!

I love debate! I have a background in traditional LD and currently participate in American Parliamentary.

I'm mostly tab besides a few preferences

For LD:

- I love value criterion debate, but don't think it's necessary for a round

- If you run anything non topical please explain why it matters in the round. I.e. don't just read a k and move on, read a k and then immediately tell me how it functions in the round.

- flex prep is fine if both debaters agree

For WSD

- please be clear with your warranting

- Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'

- Make sure you properly engage with clash. don't just summarize what you disagree on, analyze the purpose it plays in the round, like whether or not this links into any viable offense, for example.

- please keep your reply speeches organized so I'm also on board with the biggest issues in the round :)

For APDA

- team w/ most meme page rep picks up

- of the winning team the most frequent participant in doomthreads gets highest speaks

Hi! I did PF for 5 years and graduated in 2018.

***Harvard 2020 - bring me food and drink please ***

Things that make me weird

1) Preflow before round

2) I'll call for whatever evidence I'm told to in addition to what I want. If you misconstrue evidence I will intervene and drop the evidence AND maybe the entire argument if the entire link chain is misconstrued

3) ima give you a common sense amount of time to pull up cards before I start running your prep. have your cards available!

4) I'm an absolute FIEND for some warrant/link comparison instead of impact comparison. Also comparison of weighing mechanisms is the path to my heart

5) postround me idrc - just be considerate of both of our time and recognize that at a certain point we may just disagree about the debate

Other than that, please refer to Ryan Zhu's paradigm and imagine it was 3 years older. Tech > truth just do your thing

Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round, through Facebook Messenger, or email me at richardzhu64@gmail.com.