Background:

I debated PF for four years at Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University and I've coached for a variety of camps and schools over the past couple of years. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge, but definitely feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. This also means full extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

- Weighing. Make sure it's comparative, not just general reasons your argument matters. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I think the best teams go deeper with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

- Frontlining in the second rebuttal. I don't think you need to do a full 2-2 split in the second rebuttal but you are obligated to respond to any new offense brought up in the first rebuttal. I definitely think it is strategic to frontline the argument you are going for.

- Extensions of defense. Every back-half speech is obligated to respond to your opponents' case and with a three-minute summary, this is certainly doable.

- Jokes. Making me laugh gives you a nice bump in speaks, just don't try to be funny if you're not.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred slower debate. Along the same lines, I have never been a fan of really blippy rebuttals where you read a lot of random cards.

- New offense in the second rebuttal. I am not a fan of new offense being read in rebuttal as an overview (weighing overviews are nice though). I think turns are great, but if you're speaking second in the round, I require that you weigh any turns that you read. This is specifically to encourage you to not read a bunch of blippy turns in second rebuttal. I think it is strategic for the first rebuttal to weigh their turns as well, but I don't require it.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). If you think something abusive happens, call it out. In general though, I don't have a lot of experience with critical argumentation and those types of debates will probably naturally end up with you getting a) a worse decision and b) less educational value from me as a judge.

- Tabletotes. They honestly just look silly and are a pretty weird flex.

Hello,

My name is Sarah Bassil. I have been involved in debate for many years in various capacities as a debater, judge and coach. I have no preferences on the pace of your speaking so long as it is comprehensible. In efforts to be efficient, I have put together a simple list of my judging preferences:

-Roadmaps are greatly encouraged

-Sources should not be from newspapers or journalist. They are inherently bias and therefore weaken your argument.

-Including impacts in the structure of the contentions is most important in a proper case.

-Unless your definitions differ greatly from your opponents, please do not waste both of our time by defining them.

-Please use all of your allocated time, even if it just to read through the subpoints/impacts.

-Respect in the round, especially during cross x/grand cross x, cannot be stressed enough.

-Good public speaking skills starts with being prepared and confident with your case. I highly encourage students to have memorized a least 20% of their case in efforts to ensure they have good/decent eye contact.

Debate is an activity where we learn and grow as students together, so come with a positive attitude. Feel free to ask any questions before/after the round!

Paradigm update for TOC 2024:

Very short version: Traditional-leaning debate coach

Short version: I am a debate coach, with 10+ years experience judging PF – mostly in my local area (DC), less on the national circuit. I try to keep a good flow, though some of the speed on the national circuit gets excessive. My background is in economics. Not a fan of K’s.

Doing prefs? I would be a bad person to pref if you are running K’s, know yourself to be faster than average NatCirc speed, or generally tend to the more “progressive” debate end of the spectrum. I am a good person to pref if you have a more “traditional” style, stick to resolution, and have clear impacts.

Speed: I’ll be honest, I don’t like speed. PF was designed to be accessible to a lay audience. While I am fine with debate occurring at a faster than conversational pace, and can handle a moderate amount of speed, debaters on the National Circuit often far exceed this. Keep in mind that the fastest speed at which you can talk and I can reliably understand you is still probably higher than the optimal speed for me to get everything onto to the flow - if you want judges to vote off the flow, you need to speak at a speed optimized for someone writing, not just listening.

Email chain, Speech docs, and Evidence: I believe that PF Debate is a spoken activity, and that debaters should not rely on speech docs to compensate for speed or lack of clarity in their presentation. So don’t add me to the email chain or send me your speech doc. If you want me to flow something, make sure it comes across clearly in your verbal presentation. If a piece of evidence is in dispute, I will ask for it after the round – you can also tell me to call for a card.

K’s/Theory: I am not a good judge to run k’s in front of. I will do my best to follow along and keep an open mind, but I fundamentally expect to see a debate about the resolution, and am very sympathetic to topicality and preparedness arguments against straying too far from that.

Other matters: I really, really appreciate clear signposting, especially with numbers and letters, not just tags. This applies not only to the constructive, but (especially) in your rebuttals as well - make it as clear as possible where to flow your arguments, so I can spend less time searching for where something fits in, and more time writing/listening. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian at heart, and appreciate clearly quantified impacts, though I’m happy to vote on whatever framework was carried through the round. I’m not a fan of all the extremely-implausible link-chains that makes every debate end in human extinction, but I recognize the incentive gradients that get us there, and acknowledge structural aspects of PF (especially time) can make it difficult to fight. Crossfire is important, and I listen to cross (and I can't believe I have to say that), but don't flow it - so get key concessions from cross into a subsequent speech if you need it on the flow. I love off-time road maps. I am happy to provide feedback and disclose as long as the tournament permits it.

Background: I am a debate coach at BASIS Independent McLean with a background in PF, LD, and Extemp. I competed in LD and Extemp in high school (Downers Grove South, IL), a tiny bit of Parliamentary (APDA) in college (Georgetown University, DC), and have coached middle and high school PF, speech, and parli at BASIS DC (Washington, DC, 2012-2016) and BASIS Independent McLean (McLean, VA, 2016-present). I have a degree in economics and am an economics teacher by day. For the past several years, I have spent most tournaments in the tabroom rather than judging per se, but as a PF coach, you can usually expect that I will have a reasonable degree of background knowledge on the topic.

put me on the email chain: elizabuckner17@gmail.com & (if college) wfudbt@gmail.com

cabot '18

george mason '22

wake forest '24

In high school I was a 2A reading K affs and in college I was a 2N reading one-off critiques. I coach critical and flex teams and appreciate all types of argumentation.

Judge instruction prevents judge intervention. Attend to the moment and have fun!

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

I am a parent judge, and I have judged for more than 3 years on the national circuit.

Preferences:

- Speak clearly at a conversational pace

- Have logical and well-explained arguments

- Avoid debate jargon

- Signpost clearly

- No Ks, Theory, etc.

- Be professional and civil

- Cross: I may not take notes but I pay attention

I am a "flay" judge. I will take notes, but you must speak clearly. Crossfires are important to me. Please collapse in summary and final focus.

I will give you +1 speaker points if you bring me coffee :)

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Keep it at conversational speed and be articulate.

However, if you "extend through ink" (extend your response/argument without responding to a response to it) then I will not consider your extension.

Be respectful to each other during crossfire, I will take off speaker points and may view your arguments as an assertion and not true.

Good luck and have fun!

I’m a lay judge.

Explain acronyms, don’t use jargon

clarity > speed

Be professional

Don’t interrupt too much in cross

When you respond to arguments, don’t just say they’re wrong. You need data to back it. Also explain why your data is valid over theirs.

3.5 years policy debate | George Mason University
3 years mock trial | First Colonial High School

(1) THE OVERVIEW:

I think debate is a game with tangential benefits that vary from debater to debater. Do what you do best and what you enjoy, and I will do my best to offer a thoughtful, cogent, and minimally biased decision that is based on the arguments and evidence presented.

(2) PARADIGMS BY DEBATE TYPE:

(2.a) Policy/CX

(2.a.1) How I Evaluate Rounds:
- I will begin with framework. Usually this will merely be me determining if the aff gets to weigh reasonable theoretical implementation of a plan vs. a competitive alternative. At this stage, I will look to role of the ballot, aff/neg interps, theory, procedurals, and other voting issues (including presumption).
- I will then try to list each team's offense based on harms caused or solved. This could be constituted by advantages the aff solves, case turns, internal link turns, straight turns, and all of that good stuff.
- Lastly I weigh each team's offense against the round's framework and do the maths.
- This usually produces a winning team. After I have a preliminary vote, I will go through all of the arguments made by the 'losing' team to see if any of them complicate the initial decision that I have written.

(2.a.2) Some technical disclaimers:
- If the affirmative reads a few advantages, and the neg never substantively contests them (possibly because it is a K that attempts to exclude fiat), I will tolerate minimal extension of the affirmative including even if the internal link scenario is not explained up through the 1ar. This is true about the core advantages of the aff, not random cards the 1ac reads. If you read Zanotti in your framing contention, you do not get to wait until the 2ar to explain the aff as a heuristic.
- I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless specified to do otherwise.
- I will kick the CP/alt if condo is never mentioned or is won by the neg AND I think the DA/K outweighs.
- I will not vote on IVIs tied to the identity of individual debaters/the school where you are from/etc. unless there is a substantial link tied to something that happened in that specific round. I believe each round is a fresh start, and debate should be a place for testing of ideas and competitive engagement with respectful and respected opponents. Feel free to call your opponents out if you think they did something crappy, and my expressions will probably tell you where I stand on their behavior.

(2.a.3) Personal prefs/reasons to strike me:
- I generally like K’s. In summary, if you read a K aff or a K on the neg that you understand and are passionate about, I will be happy, and if it is one that is well-executed with contextual and specific links and a crystallized alternative or advocacy, I will be very happy.
- However, this does not mean that I am going to conspire against your policy aff or planked advantage CP. I often went for framework, I'll boogie with a good clash of civs debate or a scrappy plan-plan solvency deficit debate, and I will vote on your heg/cap good turns.
- Don’t read a K you do not know in front of me if you want to win the round. I will appreciate the effort, but I will give you average speaks and drop you.
- I am very partial to a good cross-x and will reward such with more speaker points. If you obviate, lie, or do other sneaky stuff during cross-x, your speaker points will suffer.
- I will give you +.5 speaker points if you draw a graph or write a function, and correctly utilize it to make an argument.

(2.a.4) You can have my flow:
- Just ask, but do not expect me to retain documents for long after the decision is given. No givesies backsies.

(2.a.5) Long Version with all the juicy details:

(2.a.5.i) Kritiks
-They should have a consistent thesis, contextual links, and an alternative that resolves said links.
-I am probably familiar with your lit base. But the burden is on you to explain it.
-“ontology turns the aff” is not an argument. I am willing to vote on ontology or theories of power but I need historical or empirical contextualization (read: examples) connected to a metaphysical claim about the world.
-Aff vs. K: you have an affirmative, with (hopefully) tight link chains and solvency advocates, try not to forget that. While they are spewing out scraps of whatever shite the French took after May 1968, it turns out that they often forget to say why the aff is uniquely bad. I am very convinced by contextualization out of the generic K goo and world comparisons vs. the alternative.
-Also, and this is true for both sides, do not underestimate the framework debate.

(2.a.5.ii) Kritikal Affs
-Your aff need not be a government policy nor have a plan text but should be some combination of a) an instrumental action by an actor, b) why its education/focus/reorientation is important, and c) why it is inaccessible through resolution debate (in sum: do a meaningful thing and topic links).
-Being in the direction of the topic is qualifiably better than just "productivity bad" and will grant you appreciably more wiggle room on T. If you color/watch naruto/play video games I will probably have fun and give you decent speaks but you probably won’t get the ballot.
-"A Ha!" 2ARs/Tricks are less and less impressive to me than a thoughtful 1AC thesis tested in the fires.
-If you care about it, I will too. If you're reading a K aff just for strategy, you're reading it for the wrong reasons.

(2.a.5.iii) Topicality/FW
-I default to competing interps.
-Topicality needs an impact.
-Fairness seems like an impact. Explain why.
-Vs. the K: I find myself increasingly persuaded by arguments like the TVA. Policy focus is boring but skills are cool. Creative topic education DAs are also cool.
-Novices should read a plan text in the first half of their respective competitive year.

(2.a.5.iv) Disads
-Read them, win on them. I am very pleased with case specific disads that interact with the aff’s internal links and turn the aff on a deeper level than "econ collapse turns warming".

(2.a.5.v) Counterplans
-Delay CPs, PICs, and “The president should sign the bill with a blue pen instead of black pen” CPs are generally abusive but I will vote in the absence of aff theory.

(2.a.5.vi) Theory
-I tend to lean aff at more than 3 conditional worlds + squo (see my policy on judge kick in the technical disclaimer).
-Bidirectionality is usually bad because clash is usually good.
-I am probably more likely than most to vote on perf con or double turn arguments so long as they are impacted.

(2.a.5.vii) Evidence vs Arguments
-I believe that evidence exists for the purpose of making an argument. I skim the doc during speeches and rarely read evidence after the round. This is subject to the exceptions of if one or two pieces of ev. were flagged as important to the nexus question(s) of the debate or if I want to steal your cites.
-It logically proceeds that since I am leaning less on directly reading the ev. I am relying more on your characterization of it, so evidence comparison is still welcome and often influences close decisions at the LBL level.

(2.a.5.iv) Speaker Points
-"Well, okay. 15 is the minimum, okay? Now it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 30 points. And a terrific smile . . . Look: people can get clash anywhere, okay? They come to debate for the atmosphere and the attitude. That's what the speaker points are about. It's about fun . . . Look, we want you to express yourself, okay? If you think the bare minimum is enough, then okay. But some people choose to wear more and we encourage that, okay? You do want to express yourself, don't you?"

(2.b) Lincoln-Douglas

(2.b.1) How to win the round:

-Make arguments. At the most fundamental level, a reasonable argument is:
(i) a claim (a conclusory assertion),
(ii) a warrant (an interpretation of facts), and
(iii) evidence (data or mere facts).

-Clash with the opposing side. An unanswered reasonable argument is assumed true.

-Identify voting issues and collapse the debate down to those. Explain the purpose(s) of the round and why I should vote for a given argument over others. Value/criterion debates often feel like an exercise circulus in probando, so clash, reasons to prefer, and world comparisons are welcome.

(2.b.2) How to auto-lose the round:

-Wanton disrespect of persons. This includes racism, sexism, homophobia. In the interest of mercy, I have a fairly high threshold for reaching such determinations. Thus, this does not include actions such as misidentifying your opponents' gender or saying their arguments are dumb. I have never auto-dropped someone for these reasons and hopefully will never have to.

-With all this said, be comfortable and confident. I presume good faith and you have the benefit of the doubt. I hate intervening in rounds, so please don't make me :).

-As an alternative measure, I reserve the right to decimate your speaker points/give a no-point win, chastise you after the round, and/or inform your coaches or tournament staff of your behavior. I can count on one hand how many times I have done this, and I have judged many (read: hundreds of) rounds.

(2.b.3) Other relevant information:

-I'm fine with spreading, I did college policy debate for 4 years. However, LD is not CX. If objected to by the opposing team and it bars their comprehension, I will ask for no more than 200 WPM (quick conversational).

-Kritiks and Topicality: Kritiks of the resolution are fine. I am likely familiar with your lit base, but the burden is on you to explain it. However, in LD I am typically more sympathetic toward negative claims that Pro should be bound by the resolution.

(2.c) Public Forum

[UNDER CONSTRUCTION]

I am relatively new to debate judging and had limited experience in the past for only a couple of times. I would prefer the contenders to speak slowly and clearly, and be polite to each other.

I will take notes as best I can

Don't spread or read theory

Be polite

Average speaks are 26-27

Summary and FF must have continuity

I will only vote off of offense extended in FF

Using humor get +.5 in speaks

World Star rule is in effect: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the offense you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it. Blippy extensions are fine in principle, but often insufficient for a ballot in practice. The more you think I should prioritize an argument, the more speech time you should allocate to it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me how I should evaluate it.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.

a. Be very explicit when telling me how to evaluate the argument. This is especially true for anything pre-fiat - if you don't tell me what I should do (and warrant why), I'll probably do something you didn't want me to.

b. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

c. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

d. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. Tabula rasa is fake. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes another argument to be evaluated in the round. For transparency, my "default settings" are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, rationality real, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging these assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.

5. My gut is not your gut. If you ask me to gut check something or rely on my intuitions, I'll do that but you may not like the outcome. The safe thing to do is just make warranted arguments.

6. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks.

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

2020 Update - I've been out of debate for a few years now, and my judging is still pretty much reflected on the huge block of text below. Keep in mind that I don't really have topic knowledge on most topics that are currently on circuit, but you do you and I'll be able to follow along. Debate is a fantastic activity and if I can help people enjoy it and learn then that's what my goal is. Feel free to email me after any round I judge with questions if my RFD is unclear.

About Me:

Email (for chains or questions after rounds): lolud272@gmail.com

Ex-Varsity policy debater for George Mason University, debated for 3 years at GMU (started as a Novice, woo most important debate level)

I'm flow-centric and I vote only off of what I have flowed. I'll flow cross-ex for the most part, but unless concessions/arguments made in cross-ex make it into a speech I won't evaluate them at the end of the round. Clarity is more important to me than speed, and a word of warning to machine gun spreaders - I'm receptive to the old-school arg that if I can't understand the arguments being spread, I shouldn't evaluate them. This isn't my default, and I'll do my best to adjudicate based off of what I have, but I can sympathize with that argument. If I can't understand you, then I'll likely be uncomfortable voting on an arg that I never heard articulated in the first place.

Tech > Truth or vice versa is kind of silly - I think like most things a moderation between both is where I fall. What this looks like in my mind is that I'm pro techy args on things like Ptix DAs like link turn debates or a cross applying of the opponent's theory standards to take out other theory offense, as well as other stuff not listed here, but I also think that uncarded analytics that can press on the real world happenings around the world on certain issues can be very convincing to mitigate offense, and I think that the best answer to shit politics disads can be a 2AC block of 4-5 lines telling me why their ev is terrible and makes no sense. Basically - do you and I'll follow. I personally think an internal link press on a sketchy advantage or DA is the most convincing place to push back against other teams,

I read a lot of evidence post round, at least compared to other judges I've seen in high school debate. I do this maintain to verify that the arguments a team has been making are substantiated by the warrants of their ev, but in a scenario when an argument is dropped, this is mainly just to verify the ev is close to what was argued. I try to lean less towards judge intervention when it comes to considering evidence in my decision, as in I will vote off of the flow first, and use the reading of evidence to assess how strong an argument is backed up. In extremely close debates, I will often find myself voting on one ev versus another, but this is contingent on winning a risk from a flow level. I try to do evaluation this way to avoid decisions that are based somewhere in "you've argued your position this way, and your opponents haven't contested your quality of ev, but I think their ev is better so you lose."

Cross ex is binding friends, but if you try to fish a link in the last few seconds and your opponent is trying to clarify their answer while you cut them off (something I see/experience a lot), there's some wiggle room there.

Debate can be a game or it can be an educational space, I'll frame the debate space and myself as a judge however I'm told. This doesn't mean "conceding RoB means you vote thru our lens" - to quote Joe Patrice, the RoB is more just like a sort of impact framing, not an immediate "vote for team that concedes our artibrary RoB". If neither team gives me a RoB or other framing, my default to evaluating the debate is a judge in a game; the winner is the team that does the better debating.

I'm down for recutting of evidence, but if it's not a gamechanger then you're probably wasting your time. Recutting politics DA cards for UQ that goes the other way is fuego though, and teams should do that more. Reading your opponents ev and pointing out how bad it is in C-X is great, but that arg needs to be in a speech for me to eval it as part of the overall debate.

Impacts/Impact Framing:

I tend to default towards magnitude to evaluate different impacts, but that can mean different things in different debates - if higher magnitude means prioritizing structural violence first instead of faake newwwss policy nuclear war impacts, ok sounds good. In a policy debate the default is what causes most harm, which can be interpreted or debated in different ways. The point is that I will adapt to the debate and how each debate plays out, but including elements of magnitude/timeframe/probability in your overviews for framing will make things a lot easier for you to pick up my ballot. Impact turns are the SHIT and a great way into my ballot, I think they're very underutilized in high school policy.

Condo:

I hold the line for my fellow slow debaters - I'm of the opinion that more than 3 conditional worlds are not necessary, and 1-2 line CPs without evidence are straight shit. I'm a hard pass on mega-7 plank CPs that solve the aff in like 8 different ways ALSO being able to kick planks. If you want to try to read more than 3 condo, go ahead, it's a debate and you might be able to convince me, but I'm skeptical of the need to read that many to begin with. I don't have any opinion on multiple Ks or CPs, just that they don't ideologically conflict, ie. running two identity politics Ks that say for example "native focus first" and "black violence focus first" then just kicking what you're losing - that's conditional ethics which I think is a separate but also bad method of debate and I'm extremely sympathetic to aff args to reject Ks based on that.

Counterplans:

Totally fine with counterplans. I'm a *big* fan of multiplank CPs that do a lot of things to resolve the aff in creative ways, especially against soft left type of affs. If a counterplan solves an Aff better than the aff and has a risk of some sort of net benefit, then it's hard to vote Aff in that situation. I'm kinda iffy on teams tossing out "sufficiency framing" as a "ehhh cmon judge it's good enough," and I'm more receptive to aff teams telling me to hold down the fort, especially when it's a question of large CPs versus the aff. IMO the most underutilized args against the CP are analytics why the CP can't solve the internal links of the aff - as well as other solvency deficits. Aff teams should use these types of args for sure.

PICs are good if using the Aff evidence as ways to solve, I think that Aff teams should be responsible for the ev they cut, and if it says there's a better way to do it, yeah I'll vote on that. However, PICs can be abusive sometimes and I'll vote on theory against PICs if the debate shakes down that way, but that's a question of doing the debating. Any CP that absorbs some sort of mindset shift/change of epistemology that the Aff uniquely does is closer to actual cheating and you'd have a hard time convincing me of that legitimacy without carded ev. I'm down to vote on CP theory if it becomes a big debate, but it's still kind of an uphill battle, especially if it's a random blippy theory arg without being fleshed out.

Da's:

For the aff: I'm very accepting of non-uq and no link args and think they should be made often. Link turns can be the best pieces of offense against DAs, just be clear on the story of the turn in the rebuttals, starting in the 1AR. Reading only impact D is not the best way to handle DAs but they aren't death sentences. Leverage your aff versus the DAs often and thoroughly, and winning Aff impact mitigates DA risk is something I think can be credible in the right context.

For the neg: The more coherent the Link and Internal Link story the better, contextualizing your evidence to what the aff is and why it triggers your links is the best way to weigh your offcase. Even if the aff drops an impact, you need to point it out and frame why they lose because of it, impact calc on DAs is just as important as on aff advantages.

Ks:

As mentioned above, not typically what I run. Alts are important, and I'm not a fan of teams that kick the alternative, but it's strategic sometimes and I get that. If you want me to kick the alt, I'd like some framing about what the neg world looks like without an alt and why the Aff doesn't matter. Got no problem with voting on the K as long as it's explained well. To quote numerous others, I'm not comfortable with voting on something I can't articulate at the end of the debate, so keep that in mind if I'm in the back. This for the most part includes high theory word vomit and literal nonsense like Baudrillard, so be wary. Specific links to the Aff's direct ACTIONS, as opposed to injustices in the squo that the aff doesn't get rid of will make voting on the K a much easier time.

T:

To be honest, T was never my forte as a debater and I am not the best for these debates - but:

Fairness is an impact, and proving to me what ground you lost and it's easier to get a ballot. Winning your interp is a prereq to any ballot, and having reasons why I should prefer your interp will greatly improve your chances. The limits debate is the most persuasive part of T/FW for me, I feel there's (for the most part) always ground that the neg can shift into. If you can prove that the aff interp makes the topic unmanageable and unpredictable, brownie points.

Framework is a option that I am willing to vote on, although it's not my strongest suit despite being a policy 2N (lol, rip.)

Spec arguments generally are not convincing and I'm likely not going to vote on them. It's an uphill battle for you.

TL;DR:

You do what you want to debate and I'll evaluate as the round is framed - I'm more partial to techy policy debate since that's what I did but I'll work out the round as it unfolds without incorporating my own opinions into the external truth level of some arguments. I read ev post round so don't read bad ev - especially things that you are likely to go for in the final rebuttals. K things are good but I'm not as deep in the lit base for high theory, so extra laymans-level explanation in the block and final rebuttal are the most important thing to consider.

Non-policy debate types:

PF:

The default framing I use is basically util, whatever I feel will do the most good overall, unless I am given any other way to evaluate the round. I'm not going to vote for any theory argument about how Pro should have to go against a double-negative res because they're Pro, so it'd be best not to waste speech time on it. If you've read this far, you can see that I'm a policy debater, so overall I prefer magnitude framing and impact comparison as ways to sway my ballot more. This doesn't mean it has to be a big stick war impact or anything, but being mindful of what your opponents arguments are and why your impacts are more important is a good way to pick up my ballot.

I don't have any preference to standing/sitting during Crossfire, whatever both teams are comfortable with is fine by me. More of a suggestion rather than paradigm thing is to use all of your prep time. I've seen teams go into the Final Focus with more than a minute left, and taking extra time to focus on what you need to say will help immensely, there's always a better articulation or some way of framing arguments better.

LD:

I don't judge much LD nowadays, but you do you and I'll follow. Framing against your opponent's VC will help provide clarity for me on how I should be evaluating the round.

Congress:

Same with LD, I don't often judge Congress but do your best and I'll give my full attention.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

I am your typical "lay" judge. I take the "Public Forum" concept literally, meaning your target audience is a member of the general public with a certain amount of knowledge and bias on the topic. I will try my best to consider only the evidence/arguments presented in the round. I believe truth matters, I vote mainly on the amount of knowledge you show on the topic and how convincing your arguments are.

Speaking:

- Speak clearly and slowly

- Be courteous to everyone in the round

- Humor and jokes will be rewarded

- Avoid too much debate lingo

Content:

- Signpost

- Weigh and weigh clearly, tell me why your argument is better

- A card can say whatever it says, but I don’t care unless you can logically warrant it

- If you have a problem with a piece of evidence, say it in one of your speeches.

- If you want to refer to something you said earlier, don’t just use the card name, explain the evidence again

- You are welcome to run non-conventional arguments, I will try my best to keep an open mind. However I am biased against them, see the first paragraph.

- Misc

Keep track of your own time, and your opponent's if you can.

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

I am a parent lay judge and have been judging for the past few years.
This means try to keep the debate at a conversational speed.

I have a business and marketing background.

Whilst I will do my best to take notes, I do appreciate sound logic and constructive evidence.
It would be beneficial for you to hash out your link chain and narrative throughout the round.

Please engage with what your opponents say in their speeches and not just ignore it.

Above all, please make the debate an inclusive space and be respectful to your fellow debaters.
Remember to have fun!

Add me to the email chain: htang8717@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge -I will write down what i think is important, but if you go too fast, I might not catch what you say and miss things -I will try to be fair, but explain what you say - if I don't understand something I wont vote off it -Emphasize what you think is important to the round and why it is important -Rudeness is not tolerated and be nice to your opponents

Background:

Currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I have experience with APDA and I used to compete in the PF national circuit under Thomas S. Wootton High School.

TLDR: I flow. I like it when teams interact with their opponents' args. Warrant and impact things out. DO the work and you are more likely to get my ballot.

Preferences:

1. Speed:

I can handle 800-word cases but if you plan on going faster, don't expect my flow to be perfect unless you provided a speech doc. If you plan on spreading, please provide speech docs to everyone.

2. Extensions:

Everything in final focus should be in summary if you want me to evaluate it. The only exception to this is the 1st speaking team does not have to extend defense in summary. I'm not a big fan of new responses in 2nd summary. If you make new responses and your opponents call you out for it, there's a big chance I won't give it full weight.

Also, don't just extend card names. Extend the warrants.

3. Evidence:

Make it clear in speech if you want me to call a card. I will drop cards that I feel are misconstrued from the flow.

4. Cross:

I generally don't flow cross. If you get any concessions out of your opponents during this time please point it out in speech.

5. K's:

Not very familiar with them. I'm also very skeptical about whether they should be used in PF or not. I would advise not running them unless you can explain it really well.

6. Theory:

I'm more familiar with theory but I will only vote off it if something was actually abusive. I'm more receptive to things like condo bad but not such much to things like disclosure theory. Like K's, you need to explain this well if you want me to vote on this.

What I want to see:

1. Extend Impacts:

It is hard to evaluate an argument if the impacts are not extended. Don't make me do work for you.

2. Weighing:

The less weighing that is done the more I have to evaluate the importance of impacts based on my own beliefs. Tell me why your impacts matter more. Things like magnitude, scope, time frame, urgency, uniqueness, clarity of link, etc are all very helpful (although don't just use them as buzzwords actually explain to me how they apply).

3. Signpost:

Please be clear on where you are on the flow. A roadmap also helps especially if you're going to be reading overviews or starting with frontlines in rebuttal.

4. Clash:

Please interact with your opponents' arguments. Otherwise, I will have to intervene to resolve debates which will result in a decision you are probably unhappy with.

5. Warrants:

Provide clear reasoning for your arguments. I am more inclined to buy an argument the better warranted it is.

How I tend to vote:

I tend to find myself voting more on probability/link level when I find no distinguishable difference in the impacts.

I'm more inclined to vote for a team that has a stronger link story that is well warranted and/or has done more work to frontline responses on the link.

I also tend to lean towards teams that engage with their opponents' arguments. I hate it when teams extend through ink. Even if your opponents are being nonresponsive, still explain to me why those arguments are nonresponsive.

I only vote off of risk of offense as a last resort in scenarios in which both team's links get super muddled.

I generally evaluate the round by going in order of highest impact args to lowest and asking myself if I feel comfortable voting there or not. I usually don't feel comfortable voting on certain args if there are very glaring responses that you dropped/did not frontline.

Misc:

I tend to be more tech > truth.

I also default to util unless you provide a different way of weighing that is well warranted.

Speaker points will be based on how well you debated rather than how pretty you spoke.

Please don't be rude or offensive.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round.

No excessive speed unless u want me to miss something. No prog idk how to evaluate.

Don't talk too fast and don't be rude. Please respect each other and me. Plz don't be too technical.

If you say a line from Polo G's "rapstar" I will give you a bump in speaks depending how well it was integrated to your speech/cross/etc.

Worldstar rule applies though: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=hebron&search_last=daniel