Tabroom.com

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2020 — Tempe, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Glenn Armstrong McMinnville HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 16, 2019 at 2:07 PM MST

Speech Judging: As the parent of a speech participant I've been judging speech and debate events for a year now. I have found that you guys know what you are doing and do it exceptionally well. I am here to judge, not critique but more to judge how much I have been moved and persuaded, or impressed with the depth of thought that has gone into a piece and how well it has been expressed. I've seen very great performances from confident polished performers and have rated them lower than other performers who, quite frankly struggled but, did better in what appeared to be their ability in providing a more thoughtful piece. So I judge based on the criteria for each event and making sure you follow the rules you are given and after that its all about the beauty depth and thoughtfulness that is in the piece and the performance. In the end it I weigh it up like this.

Rules: Did you follow the rules (20%).

Speaking Skills: Enunciation, speed and pauses, volume (20% +).

Content: Subject and connectivity, can I follow you, does it tie together. Not the quality of the subject but how well it was pieced together, simple points if done right are remarkable (20% +)

Believable: Was there heart and conviction? Winston Churchill, Jesse Jackson reading Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham", actors (not in film) on Broadway, my college Chemisty prof. History prof. Writing prof, and of course my high school lit teacher. All transcended enthusiasm and were what they were speaking. That will get (40%) weight as long as the other 3 were in check or better.

Public Forum Judging: I am the "Public" in Public Forum. I am a parent of a speech(er) and have never done debate myself. I have judged PuFo. since last year and seen the best in the nationals tournament, so I know what is good. That being said I do not know the technical aspect of the "sport" but rather enjoy a good well fought game. I like clear points that are backed by evidence and some common sense. I expect every point or argument to be addressed, if not it flows to the side that brought it up. Of course I won't consider any new argument in the last round that will not be able to be addressed. I go in these with an attitude of "I know nothing". Cross can be a game changer if you are able to show flaw in the others argument and/or it can be just a ho hum time where nothing is gained or lost. Civility counts. I don't mind if you talk fast I can speed listen but make your points clear if you want them to stick.

Speaker points are based on the first round I see of the day. They are usually 27 if they are good, great gets 28. by the end of the 6th round the 27 may be the lowest score of the day or the 28 may have been the best. Again I come in with a clean slate and do my best to compare quality of speaking with the talent of the day. I also look at capability. I have seen debates when the debaters could hardly pick their eyes off their shoes but they spoke so clear and with thought they received high points.

Bailee Barber The Davidson Academy Of Nevada 2 rounds

Lauren Barney Hire

Arnav Bawa Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 16, 2021 at 1:58 PM MST

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

Zachariah Bouanani Hire

Ted Braun Desert Vista HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 16, 2021 at 11:25 AM MST

I am a former parent judge and now I suppose a citizen judge (our daughter who did Speech & Debate graduated high school in 2019), and this '21-'22 school year is my 7th year judging.

I have primarily judged Debate (all events), but have judged Speech as well.

I enjoy having the opportunity to watch students press themselves intellectually while expanding their speaking and debating skills. In addition I believe our Speech & Debate coaches and those who run and support tournaments are performing a meritorious service for students. For these reasons I can think of almost no better way to spend my volunteering time.

I take judging seriously and as such I try to ensure to always put forth my best effort.
Thus you can expect for debate events that I will have an at least abecedarian understanding of the subject(s) being debated and will have done reading on the resolutions and topics leading up to tournaments. I would like to think this enables me to do a more equitable job in judging.
What I won't have is a predetermined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs or preferences.

I am fine with spreading on any topic so long as it does not get too fast to capture key points and facts (which I will be using when weighing the results of the debate). I will be flowing down points as fast as I can make my fingers move.

I like to think that I am a pretty "vanilla" judge. Meaning that when judging I am going to be primarily focused that (depending on the event) contentions, values, frameworks, criteria and arguments are clear, and that they are backed up with impactful facts.
I may be slightly different than a completely "vanilla" judge in this last point - meaning that I am looking for points and facts which impact the argument the most. As this shows not only that the debater / speaker has done her or his homework, but that he or she is able to put the argument into perspective by bringing in impactful facts and figures into the debate/discussion which promote her or his argument.
Additionally I will be looking that debaters are able to think on their feet based on their opponents arguments as this is a mark of a good debater. Asking questions, poking holes in your competitors key points in a reasoned manner, as well as defending your arguments logically is what makes the debate a debate, and in congressional debate shows that you are attentive and engaged in the round.

Finally I will also be looking to ensure that all rounds are conducted in a professional and respectful manner. If conduct towards competitors crosses the line it will impact my ballot.

Most of all I look forward to doing as fair and good a job as I can.

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 6 rounds

Ashley Burt Hire 4 rounds

Jessica Carter Hire

Last changed on Wed December 1, 2021 at 12:55 PM MST

I competed in LD throughout High School and I am currently doing Policy in college.

I will be more familiar with an LD topic than any other form of debate so if I am judging you in PF or CX so if you have very technical things in the topic you will need to explain those more in your case.

Clash is my favorite thing in a round - Don't be two ships passing in the night say something and do a debate. That being said don't just say things to say things an incoherent argument is worse than no argument at all. Evaluate what your opponent is saying and respond to it in a way that makes sense. Respect your opponent and their arguments.

I will drop you without a second thought if you run a joke argument. During a college debate round I watched someone ran a coloring performance if you run anything like this getting me to vote for you will be very difficult. I love flair, critical, and performative arguments but it needs to be based in either theory or I need a reason why what your saying matters. I try to limit my intervention as a judge so don't expect me to do any work for you.

LD is a theory and morality-based debate so I expect a focus on the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The debtors need to tell me why I should care about their V-C and why their V-C is better than their opponents and should be preferred for the round. I will not do any work for any side you have the responsibility of stating the impacts of your arguments and why these impacts are better than your opponents. You also have to extend your own arguments throughout the debate for them to matter. I'm fine with CP's, Theory, and K's you just need to explain it well and make sure the impacts and analysis are clear.

I will say I think traditional LD tends to be more successful than critical forms of debate just because of the time constraints. If you're confident that you can get out what you need to with the time you're given then go for it. But the 4 and 3-minute aff speeches do make it difficult to get out what you need to.

I have zero patience for being rude to your opponent. Especially if your opponent is not as versed in critical arguments as you are. This is an educational activity, not an opportunity for you to pretend to be cooler than you are.

I'm fine with any type of argument as long as it makes sense and you explicitly state the impacts.

Topicality

You need to be explicit about what the violation that the other team has committed is. I tend not to care about fairness as an impact especially when you just make this claim in a vacuum. However, if you can tie it to a structural claim I'll be more likely to buy the argument. Make sure you're extending this throughout the entire round. I also need to know what ground you've lost as a result of the Aff being non-topical. Don't run topicality in front of me if the violation is small it will not be hard for the other team to convince me that they are topical.

I like K's I think critical arguments are important to increasing education in debate and I think that they bring a type of education that doesn't typically exist in the debate space. That being said do not run a K if the only link you have is a link of omission. Language is super important for K's so make sure you're being explicit with what you're saying. I think K's certainly can win against topical cases you just have to show why the impacts on par with nuclear extinction. I tend to find structure claims to be the most persuasive.

Performative Things

I think performances can be good but you need to have a way that your opponent can actually engage with your argument. I don't particular enjoy it when performance teams get overly angry or hostile to try to prevent their opponents from arguing.

Framework

My hot takes here are basically the same as topicality. I do think the framework is generally more true than topicality.

My paradigm is generally the same for CX as it is for LD you need to extend your stuff and make the impacts clear.

Listening is not an impact.

PF

I did PF I think twice? My same general rules for other debates apply - don't spread your event is not made for it and I'm more inclined to believe that it's unfair for your opponent. I will call cards so they better say what you tell me that you say. Also generally don't take racism and blow it into some insane impact because you want to win an argument. Impacts and links should make sense.

General

I'm fine with speed just let me know at the beginning of the round if you're going to be spreading.

Flashing/Email Chains should not take forever if it becomes excessive I will make you use Prep.

I'm fine with flex prep

Read analytics slower if you want me to flow them

Keep in mind this is digital for the time being I expect you to understand your own technological constraints and adjust accordingly especially in regard to speed.

If you need to use a graphic description of SA to win you don't deserve to win.

Shannon Chamberlain Northridge High School 6 rounds

Daniel Chavez-Yenter West High School SLC 6 rounds

Cindy Chuang Westmont 2 rounds

Mark Chuang Westmont 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 9, 2020 at 8:27 AM PDT

I have been judging Public Forum debate for the last two years. My judging has largely focused on local circuit judging of novice and varsity debaters. At the league level, I have judged most levels of Public Forum experience. I have also judged invitational debate events for PF. My belief is that preparation and research determines a successful debate team.

When judging Public Forum teams, I look for specific areas of expertise in a round. I look for preparation by both teams and clear demonstration that each team has prepared for each round through extensive research and knowledge of both aff and neg sides of the topic. Failure to adequately prepare for a round is evident with the opening argument presented by each team. It is obvious that a team has not done their research or they have an expectation that certain rounds will favor one side or the other. This lack of preparation never gets my decision in a round.

I also look for a clear balance of knowledge and input by each team. Too often, I have seen teams win rounds on the strength of a single debater. As Public Forum is a team event, I expect both sides to present their cases as a team throughout each round. I give less wins in a round to those teams that rely on presenting too much evidence in the hope that a preponderance of evidence will win over the judge by its sheer volume. I look for clear balanced arguments that highlight the position of a team without the need to flood a judge with so much information that it is difficult to understand that sides primary point. Teams that rely on spreading for the sake of confusing the judge in the round do not win rounds with me. I expect that each team will be able to successfully present their cases while holding off the opposing team using well- reasoned arguments.

The final victory for a round in Public Forum goes to the team that has prepared for the round and has demonstrated an exceptional ability to counter their opponents in the entirety of that round.

Melody Clark Riverside STEM Academy 6 rounds None

Jordan Cohen Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 10, 2023 at 4:00 AM EDT

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

Jack Crawford La Salle HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 9, 2020 at 3:27 PM EDT

email chain: jackcrawford1825@gmail.com

I debated in HS for 4 years under La Salle NC with 2 quals for the TOC/other nat circ experience.

Holistically I have 8 years of debate experience & there arent many debate args/styled that I haven't had personal experience debating for/against. Currently a mostly K/theory debater in college in VLD.

"Progressive debater"

Speed's cool, don't spread through your tags.

I'm tab.

Post-round me one on one after the round if you really would like to challenge my decision, I won't have an argument with you in front of a room full of people.

Everything here is for LD and below this ( I marked where) I'm slowly making a PF paradigm again because I'll start judging it later in the year.

To avoid an awkward conversation at the end of a round, the perm doesn't work as offence.

NEG:

I think you have the burden of providing specific links and framing your impacts at the end of the debate.

I won't do work on the Baudrillard shell for you for example, it's very important you explicitly say why you're winning what and its implications on the round. Some auths. can stretch farther and in different ways than others but you need to do it explicitly for me to give you credit for that.

TLDR: I won't vote what Baudrillard elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of Baudrillard for example.

AFF:

I'm fine with whatever, you don't need to defend USFG action but you should show how you are in some way tangentially related to the topic to avoid the FW wall. Or dont, there's still a world where I'd vote for it.

I should probably add at the bottom of this I primarily read more contemporary french theorists than anything else, with the exception of other auths. like hegelians, kantians, marxists, those crowds.

Theory/FW

Theory: So while I'm all for your TOTALLY RADICAL hijinx on the T page, it would behoove you to win more than just that the debate was difficult for you to win. In my mind debate ought to be very difficult, to reach the threshold for me to evaluate a T shell the way it ought to be evaluated (apriori) then you should hit a higher bar than "x made the AR difficult".

That said, I'm all for extremely technical theory debate, just keep in mind what I am comfortable voting on.

I don't vote on disclosure.

I don't vote on speed theory in the event there's a speech doc. (I'll still clear you in round)

FW: I default competing interpretations if for some nightmarish event happens where nobody discusses this.

Otherwise, its a debate like any other.

Case/DA/CP?

I'm tab, do whatever you like.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty.

It's not that I don't vote on your 3 word 100% certainty impact analysis, but that doing this leaves you open to a compelling argument (for me).

Speaks/CX

30's for everyone

If something in CX isn't made in a speech I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.

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

^^speaks/cx^^

I'm flowing. You win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Come to the round preflowed, you don't have to wait on me before you flip for sides.

Speed is fine, I debate fast in LD, you need to send out & be capable of making speech docs for the opponent if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around/accomodate to make this a more viable option for you. You spread, you should be able to take on the higher expectations that go along with it.

jackcrawford1825@gmail.com -- for the email chain

Cards

I like cards and you should read them.

If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll get angry and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access your cards quickly.

Front half (AC/NC & AR/NR)

Constructives can be anything, I'm tab and I don't ever take my own opinons of policy into a debate round.

I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Rebuttals can do whatever, I don't evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)

The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.

Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.

Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob. a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Offense that you don't get into ff I don't evaluate, and framed offense beats a larger quantity of offense 9/10 times.

Theory

I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, espec. in this event.

If you can't win a reason why the theory vio. made the debate impossible for you to win, it's not apriori, and I cannot imagine a scenario I'll vote on the shell. (I say why in the LD section)

It's an apriori issue that works as an RVI because the event's too short by a massive margin to prevent this from being over-strategic.

Therefore, you ought not spitball blippy poorly constructed theory args. (please) at non-tech teams because it's a coinflip if you can hit the high threshold & avoid the RVI. I can and will enforce the RVI.

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Connor Dandridge Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas 6 rounds

Cara Day Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 6, 2020 at 6:55 AM CDT

*Updated for January 2020*

St. Agnes Academy '17 | UT Austin '21

Email: cara.day@utexas.edu

Or FB message me with questions

I am the nat circuit coach of tha bois™ of Strake Jesuit, and this is my third year coaching there. RJ Shah also continuously asks me to coach him. In high school, I did both PF and LD. I’m a junior at UT Austin.

General/TLDR

-Debate's a game. I'm a tech> truth judge; if an argument is conceded, it becomes 100% true in the round.

*Note: The only time I will ever intervene is if you are blatantly homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, etc.

-Vroom Vroom: Go as fast as you want. Spreading is great if you so desire. If I don't know what you're saying, I'll say "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing, tank your speaks, and throw my computer at you. Slow down on author names, CP texts, and interps.

-I judge debates without intervening, and I keep a pretty clean flow. If you want me to vote on something, you have to extend it. ** Your extension should include author last name and content or I won't give it to you. Extend the UQ, link, internal link, and impact, or you don't get access to the argument.

-You can literally do anything you want -- don't care at all if it's sus (other than miscut evidence or planning a hostile takeover) -- and if the other team has a problem, they can read theory. Just know that I won't intervene if I think that you are being abusive unless you get called out on it. Ex: If they read a link turn, you can read an impact turn in the next speech and extend both lol

-If you really want me to listen, make it interesting (Roman Candles are highly encouraged). Sass is appreciated. I'm fine with flex prep and tag team cross in PF because it usually makes things a little more bearable to watch.

-Please do comparative weighing and meta-weighing if necessary (i.e. why scope is more important than timeframe). Rounds are so hard to adjudicate if no weighing is done because I am left to decide which impacts are more important. Absent weighing, I default to to the most terminalized impact in the round aka lives (hint: i fw extinction scenarios heavy).

- CX is binding

- Warrant your arguments -- I'll prefer an analytical claim with a warrant over some random stat with none.

- Contextualize in the back half of the round, or you're gonna beg some type of intervention from me which you probably won't like.

- If you know me, you know I think judge grilling is good for the activity. Judges should be able to justify their decisions, or they shouldn't be making them. Feel free to ask me questions after the round. It's educational!:)

-Please tell me what flow and where on the flow to start on. Signposting is astronomically important and should be done throughout the speech. If you call it an off-time roadmap, I won't be flowing you speech because I'll be too busy cleaning tears off of my keyboard due to my loss of hope for this activity.

-I'm a super easy judge to read. If I am nodding, I like your argument. If I look confused, I probably am.

- If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). The round stops as soon as you call it. What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20. (TKOs are 1/1 in front of me rn)

Speaks

I average around a 28. Ways to get good speaks in front of me: go for the right things in later speeches and don't be bad. Getting a 30 is not impossible in front of me but very difficult (I've only ever given out three). I give speaks more on strategy and whether I think you deserve to break than on actual speaking skills.

Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I want an email chain too, preferably with cut cards if I am judging you.

If I catch you stealing prep, I start stealing ur speaks:/

If you can work a BROCKHAMPTON quote into your speeches (except from iridescence), I will give you a .5 speaks boost.

For PF:

General

Please go line by line and not big picture in every speech.

Rebuttal

2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- dont try to respond in a later speech (trust me, i'll notice).

Summary

My thoughts on defense: Since you now have a three minute summary, any defense -- regardless of whether you're first or second -- needs to be in every speech. If you're collapsing properly, this shouldn't be an issue.

Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

Mirroring is super crucial to me: If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and FF. Man ... it better be ...

If you're gonna concede a delink so that turns go away, you have to say which delink because some delinks don't necessarily take out turns.

Final

I'm fine with new weighing in final, as long as it's comparative because I think this is what final is for -- contextualization and weighing to win the round, otherwise the round could just stop after summary.

First final can make new responses to backline defense, since the second speaking team's frontlines won't come out until second summary.

Ks/Theory/T/CPs/etc.

I'm fine with progressive PF- I think that policy action resolutions give fiat, and I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. Theory, Kritiks, Tricks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my LD paradigm below. PLEASE extend and weigh these just like you would with a normal substantive argument. Every part of them should be extended.

Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct a speak each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

For LD:

My Level of Comfort with these arguments is as follows (1, highest, 5, lowest)

Policy Arguments (DAs, CPs, Plans): 1

Oppression-based affs, util, and non-ideal FWs: 1

Ideal FWs: 1

Theory/T: 2

Tricks: 2

K: 3

Non-T Affs: 5

Policy Args: I ran these primarily when I debated. I love hearing these debates because I think they tend to produce the most clash. I default that conditionality is fine unless you abuse it by reading like 6 condo CPs.Extinction is one of my favorite impacts if linked well. I default to comparative worlds.

FW: I'm a philosophy major, so anything you wanna read is fine. I read authors like Young, Butler, Winter and Leighton, and Levinas in high school- I like hearing these and don't think FW debate is done enough. I will gladly listen to any other author. My specialty in my major is in ethics - Mill, Kant, Ross, Dancy, etc

Theory/T: I default competing interps (especially with T) because I think that it is a more objective way to evaluate theory. I default giving the RVI unless it's on 1AR theory. Obviously, If you make arguments otherwise for any of these, I'll still evaluate them.

If you want me to vote on your shell, extend every part of it.

Presumption: In PF, I presume neg because it is squo unless you give arguments otherwise. In LD, I presume aff because of the time skew- I will vote neg on presumption if you warrant it.

Ks: I'm probably not a great K judge. I never read Ks, and I'm generally unfamiliar with the lit that isn't super common. I will obviously still evaluate it, but if I mess up, don't blame me lol. I am REALLY not a fan of non-T affs. I hated debating against these and think they put both the judge and the opponent in an uncomfortable position because often, it seems as though voting against these or responding to them is undermining the identity of an individual. Please don't commodify an oppressed group to get a ballot in front of me.

DISCLOSE! If I am judging you at a circuit tournament, I sincerely hope you will have disclosed. I will listen to answers to disclosure theory, but know that my predisposition is that the shell is just true.

Pretty much, do anything you want, and I will listen. You are the ones debating, not me!

If at any point you feel uncomfortable because of something your opponent has said, you can stop the round to talk to me, and we can decide how to go forward from there.

The most important thing to me is that debaters read positions they like. I will do my best to judge everyone and every argument fairly.

Nate Day Coronado HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 13, 2023 at 3:41 AM PDT

Bio
Out of the night comes a man who saves lives at the risk of his own. Once a circus performer, an aerialist who refused the net. Once a cat burglar, a master among jewel thieves. Now a professional bodyguard. Primitive... savage... in love with danger. Judge Nate Day.

Experience
11 years judging at ~15 national circuit tournaments, tons of local tournaments
5 year public high school coach, specializing in PF, DX, and IX
3 years competing in speech and debate (2 years of PF, 1 year mix of LD and CX, every speech event but interps)
~1500 NSDA points when my time as a competitor wrapped up in 2012 (made it to premier distinction yeaaaah black sticker baybeeeee)

Style
I try to be stone cold and as unreadable as possible in round, to maximize neutrality for all competitors and give you, as a competitor, some practice speaking to a difficult-to-read audience member. I take extensive notes in speech events, and flow debate rounds digitally, so expect to see my typing like mad through round.

Paradigm
I strongly prefer for YOU as a competitor tell me in round how I ought to judge, because that's a better exercise to develop your persuasion skills than me unilaterally declaring how round MUST go (I ain't one of those self important judges who demands you debate a certain way every round and invents new rules). I'm here to help you improve your skillset, not to be entertained by you contorting yourselves to accommodate made up rules or ridiculous imagined standards. Without your guidance or direction, here's what I'll do:

In PF, LD, and Congress, I default to judging as a policymaker (RPing as a person who votes for the side that presents the best policy option).

In CX, I'll default to judging as a game theorist. Any coherent logical argument is "fair play" - as long as you can prove whatever lunacy you're advocating for is the best choice in round, you win!

Philosophy / Miscellanea
I treat my paradigm as a set of not-too-serious guidelines, not ironclad rules - the NSDA rules exist for a reason, and paradigms ought to be compliments to the rulebook, not substitutions for it.

In LD or PF, I categorically won't buy into Ks or "reject the team" theory args outside the NSDA rules.

Due to the way NSDA rules are written, I will not vote for counterplans or anything outside the context of the resolution in PF or LD. If you wanna run off-case or performative arguments, do Policy.

The framework of your debate should not be about how unfair the structure of the debate is to your side. You chose to enter into your debate category. You knew the rules when you signed up. If you'd like them to change, write an editorial for the Rostrum.

If you don't extend your arguments, they will drop off my flow (unless no one in round extends their arguments, in which case I have to pick and choose whatever arguments I found most persuasive throughout the round).

I flow in a spreadsheet, I don't flow cross, and I write a lot of feedback during cross to expedite ballot submission at the end of round.

If you plan to run off-case or performative arguments in Policy, it is your burden to explain how they link to the debate on the resolution.

I'm actively developing an alternative to Tabroom.com and frequently test the limits of this service to try to find break points. If my name, paradigm, contact info, pronouns, etc. appear weird, that's why. Check out this article on ???? HOW TO BE A HACKER ???? to learn how to exploit user editable fields.

Kelly deVos Gilbert Classical Academy 6 rounds

Zane Encinas Hire

Eric Endsley Gresham-Barlow HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 11:53 AM EST

tl;dr is in bold

Email: eric.endsley4@gmail.com

I have 4 years of HS policy debate experience debating semi-regularly on the national circuit, and sporadic college parli experience. I have been judging HS policy debate on and off since 2012 and have been judging national circuit LD frequently since 2019. I have generally found that my experience with CX translates to judging the national circuit style of LD without much in the way of skipping-a-beat.

As a debater I ran primarily kritiks during my most competitive seasons. As such I'm familiar with most K lit bases, theory args, etc, and I'm comfortable with speed. I do ask that you please vary speed and/or tone between your tags, theory shells and analytics versus the text of your cards, especially if you're reading a lot of blippy theory args. Being comfortable with speed doesn't mean I appreciate flowing all 8 of your 5-word standards in 10 seconds with no 'nexts' in between.

I generally consider myself fairly tab, with that being said I have some opinions:

Plan Texts/DAs/CPs: Don't be discouraged by the fact that I was a K hack as a debater. I don't find that I enjoy K heavy debates any more than policy oriented ones as a judge, I just enjoy good debates. I specifically enjoy well executed small/janky plans and CPs. I don't have much else specific to say about these args.

Kritiks: As above, I'm very down with whatever K you want to run, even the weird ones. I don't necessarily believe Ks require an alt, if you can make clear why the aff is entirely self defeating or detestable on face, I think you can win, but you're probably better off with an alt. I do try to counterbalance against a bit of commonplace anti-K bias in terms of the degree of explanation I require from Ks. If debaters are expected to understand the intricacies of what's happening in the South China Sea, I think it's reasonable to expect them to know the definition of Biopower. However, I do expect a robust explanation of how your K interacts with the Aff specifically and the unique wrinkles of your kritik. I think this specificity tends to become more important in the more postmodern lit bases, as well as with args like Cap which can be run in near infinite flavors.

'Nontopical' K affs/Project Affs/Performance Affs/Rejecting the resolution/Whatever: I am probably more down with these types of affirmatives than the average judge. You should articulate either in the 1AC or near the top of the framing/framework flow A. your interpretation of what debate is, what it's for and your Aff's relationship to the resolution (are you claiming to be topical somehow? shouldn't have to be?) and B. why doing whatever your Aff is doing is good in light of that interp.

Speaker Points: I believe these are arbitrary and I wish we had better ways to break ties. I tend to give high-ish speaks with the winner of the debate getting an extra half-point. Being that I think they are arbitrary, I may tank your speaks, no matter your speech quality, if you anger me by being needlessly rude or obnoxious.

Theory Generalities: I believe that competing interpretations is the only truly appropriate way to evaluate debates about debate. I am more likely to evaluate reasonability type arguments as a standard or defense against voters on theory than as a proper response to competing interps because top level reasonability arguments are themselves a competing interpretation -- lending the argument a weird performative incoherency on-top of, in my experience, never being clearly defined.

I generally take it for granted that fairness is an internal link to education unless told otherwise.

I will generally vote on any theory argument that I'm instructed to vote on if the offense is clearly won. That being said if you pick up on one of the arguments I am about to say I do not like, or something you and I both know is an awful argument, I may drop your speaks.

Theory Specifics:

RVIs: I see these being read a lot in LD. I do not recommend reading these in front of me. I don't generally believe that it is unfair to debate about any aspects of debate, and I don't think I've ever seen an RVI run convincingly. If you insist on going for an RVI, I'd be far more compelled by arguments about theory bloat harming the educational value of debate than the args I typically see along the lines of 'they read too many theory args/I disagree with their theory args and that's not fair.' But probably just don't.

I am much more willing to consider Ks of framework/theory (which I've always viewed as distinct from RVIs, though I've seen them used interchangeably in LD) as voters. If you go for this, you should have a clear story about what is so rhetorically/structurally harmful about their theory arguments that your opponent ought to lose outright.

Floating PIKs: Don't do them. If your kritik doesn't solve some aspect of the aff you're probably doing it wrong, but if your alt actually enacts nonprecluded parts of the affirmative plan, you need to be forthcoming about that in the 1NC. I'm probably more lenient than most on floating PIKs when judging policy, but the structure of LD definitely raises my expectations in terms of specificity from the 1N. I won't reject the argument out of hand but I'll allow new "floating piks bad" in the 2AR which will obviously sink your PIK.

Aff/Neg Choice: I hate these args. In line with the rest of my opinions here, I believe things in debate should be up for debate. Reading interps that state terms of the round should be chosen by either party, or that an opponent should not be allowed to respond to a particular argument, fundamentally does not sit well with me. I think winning these args requires winning with essential certainty that whatever "choice" it is you're making (e.g. aff chooses util good) be the best choice, in which case you should just win that interp in the first place.

Perf Con: I probably take perf con arguments more seriously than the average judge. If there is a significant rhetorical/performative/in-round component to enacting your alt or advocacy, I think performative contradiction can be articulated as a turn that is not resolved by conditionality. I think it makes more sense articulated as a solvency turn than a theory interp though.

Those are all the specific things I can think to comment on at the moment. If you have questions, certainly ask.

Cesar Estrada Jr BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds None

Hugh Featherstone Desert Ridge HS 2 rounds None

Ryan Ferdowsian Hire

Last changed on Sat January 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM MST

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

Shea Fitzgerald Albuquerque Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 8, 2020 at 8:36 AM MDT

Hello! I am a freshman at ASU studying political science. I debated PF at Albuquerque Academy for four years, holding the position of co-captain my senior year. I have also dabbled in Congress and LD.

I value organization and consistency in rounds. Strong evidence is important, although I will not call for a card unless it is heavily contested throughout the round or I feel it could affect the outcome of the debate. Please ensure to have your evidence organized and easily accessible. Do not miscut or fabricate evidence. Sources and dates are a must!

It is extremely important to me that I hear you explain your warrants throughout the round. I value hearing the logic behind your arguments, so you must be able to explain why your arguments make sense. Don't just tell me that x causes y - tell me the reasoning behind why x causes y. I also would like to see fleshed out impacts throughout the round and clear weighing of arguments. Impact calc is very important. Be sure to tell me why I should vote for you. Weighing is more important in FF than in summary.

Consistency is key, so if you bring up an argument in FF, be sure that you flow it through your summary as well. FF and summary should be nearly identical. New arguments brought up in FF will not be flowed.

Cross isn't very important to me and I will probably not flow it. If something important happens in cross, be sure to mention it in your next speech if you would like me to flow it through.

You do not have to run prep while looking for evidence, although as soon as you begin reading your opponent's evidence, I will run prep.

Roadmaps are unimportant to me unless you are doing something unusual with your speech. However, signposting is important in every speech and helps me flow easily. I am fine with any speed as long as you are clear and emphasize the most important parts of your speech. Please keep your K's and high-level theory away from PF. I will vote for the team with the most offense left at the end of the round.

Arguments that are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. will immediately be dropped and I will tank your speaks.

Tasteful jokes and puns are encouraged, but be respectful of your opponents and be sure to have fun!

Anson Fung Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 3 rounds

Kevin Gallagher DuPont Manual High School 3 rounds

Leann Galoustian Riverside STEM Academy 4 rounds

Anthony Gerrettie Salpointe Catholic HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 8:03 AM MST

Anthony Gerrettie
Northern Arizona University, '05 B.S. in Public Relations and Speech Communication
University of Arizona, '08 Post Bacc in Secondary Education, English

Former Head Coach, Salpointe Speech and Debate (2009 - 2018)

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Prep time has been a disaster in paperless policy. Flash evidence efficiently or if it gets abusive or if your partner is prepping while you're flashing, I'm running the clock.

While I used to judge policy exclusively, I've only judged policy when needed for the past three years. I'VE SEEN A TOTAL OF 6 POLICY ROUNDS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Speed: I've judged policy on and off for nine years so I'm decent with speed. I'll let you know if you need to slow it down, but if you're not clear, I'm not going to get it. If I can't hear it because you do not articulate, it didn't happen. Part of being a debater and winning is communication. GIVE ME THE TAG LINE SLOWLY AND THEN RAMP BACK UP.

Topicality: Very rarely do I vote that a plan is untopical. When I do, it's only because an alternative definition for something was provided and proved to be more effective that was not clashed by the affirmative and it was extended by the negative team calling the plan untopical. I SEE TOPICALITY AS A TIME SKEW THAT THE NEG WILL KICK OUT OF IN A LATER SPEECH. GO FOR T IF THEY DROP IT AND THEN MAKE IT YOUR MAIN VOTER ISSUE.

K: Kritik's are good but only with proper analysis. Here's where you need to use your voice, speed and volume to annunciate what in the K card makes that K good. I'll need more than a tag line if it's going to be evaluated seriously. You can't make critical claims without analyzing and I need to hear that analysis, but when you use K's, you really put yourself more in the hands of a judge than simply winning on other arguments would. They will have to philosophically side with your K.

CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments, or perm it. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's : Important for debate and clash. The best debates have clash and every debater has a ton of DA's, be sure you pull out the right ones.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Value/Criterion Debate
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent. With the evolution of L/D debate, the framework is becoming less of an important argument. If you go traditional, win ont he framework, if you go progressive, you can win on an Off Care argument or turns of your opponents case.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extrend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summariing the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

Progressive LD Debate

LD is becoming more and more like policy. I enjoy progressive debate but only if you are aware of the literature. Too many students are running progressive arguments and don't understand them. If you're going to be progressive understand the literature and spend a minute or two in your final speech explaining why you were progressive and why you've won. Overexplain.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

Any questions?
Tony.Gerrettie@gmail.com

Public Forum Judging Philosophy

I've spent the majority of recent rounds judging L/D and PF.

Contention Level

-The first speech should build your case. Observations and Framework should come first.

Rebuttal

-Rebut down the flow. Attack everything in order as it's given.

Summary

-Figure out where you're ahead and make that your speech. The summary should contain voter issues

Final Focus

-Tell me why you've won this ballot. You can only have access to arguments that the summary beings up. If the summary didn't mention it, you can't bring it back up.

Prep Time

-If you call for a card that's fine and great. Once you get that card in your possession, prep time starts. Your prep time will be used to read the card.

Johnathon Giesecke Belvidere North HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 9:11 AM CDT

For Palatine: I feel like these rounds are getting messy and confusing. Please take time in your speeches to explain the WHY behind your cards.

Email: jgiesecke10@gmail.com (put me on the email chain)

My fundamental principles:.

It’s not an argument without a warrant.
'Clarity of Impact' weighing isn't real.
‘Probability weighing also isn’t real
Calling for un-indicted cards is judge intervention.
Judge intervention is usually bad.

view of a PF round:

Front lining in the second rebuttal makes the round easier for everyone — including me.
Offense is conceded if it’s dropped in the proceeding speech — a blippy extension or the absence of weighing is a waste of the concession.
Overviews should engage/interact with the case it’s being applied to.
Warrant/evidence comparison is the crux of an effective rebuttal.
Offense must be in summary and Final Focus.
If they don’t frontline your defense, you can extend it from first rebuttal to first Final Focus.
You MUST answer turns in the second rebuttal or first summary.
Telling me you outweigh on scope isn’t really weighing, you need to tell my WHY you outweigh on scope or whatever.
Comparative weighing is the crux of a good summary and final focus and good comparative weighing is the easiest way win.

Judging style:

I don’t evaluate new weighing in second Final Focus.
weighing needs to be consistent in summary and final focus
It may look like I'm not paying attention to crossfire; it's because I'm not.
Turns that aren't extended in the first summary that ends up in the first final focus become defense
Miscellaneous Stuff

Flip the coin as soon as both teams are there
Have preflows ready
open cross is fine
Flex prep is fine
K’s fine but can only be read in the second case or first rebuttal.
I will NOT evaluate disclosure theory
I don't care where you speak from
I don't care what you wear

Sathvik Gowda Leland High School 6 rounds

Khamani Griffin Westridge School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:03 PM PDT

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com ,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

content — good presentation of information, structure,
strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

RVIs on T,
friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

Erin Guiney Phoenix Country Day School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 7:05 AM MST

FOR EVERYONE:

Do NOT bring up victims of police brutality just for your intros or as an additional piece of evidence you immediately move on from. people's lives should not be used as a piece of 'gotcha' evidence or a card to win a judge. if you are ignoring people's humanity to win a round you are not doing this activity correctly.

For Congress:

40% presentation, 60% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. your job as the author/sponsor is to explain how the mechanisms of your legislation work, not just give the first aff speech-explain what your legislation does and how it solves the problems in the status quo. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male presenting competitors as 'representative/senator' and female presenting competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. If you are aggressive in direct cross I will want to drop you. Please give me clear impacts and ask questions often. I also coach extemp, so I don't want to see you just reading a prewritten speech off your legal pad. I love good POs and I will rank you high for it!

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow cross. As long as you're not an LD or Policy debater turned PF debater, I'll be fine with your speed (as long as your constructive is under 900 words you're probably fine). I need impacts and clear taglines. Organization is a huge thing for me. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. SIGNPOST. If you are rude in cross I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. If you run a K I will drop you. Also I do not flow the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to be able to find it on my ballot-give me a source name, a key word or phrase, something.

For IEs:

Your Infos/Oratories should all have quality cited evidence. Your Infos should give me impacts, and your Oratories should have solutions. For Interp, you should not be performing a character with a disability piece if you do not have that disability. In Humor ESPECIALLY, if you do a racist caricature/accent, I will drop you. Please use good judgement.

Email: erinmguiney@gmail.com

Suryakanth Gurudu BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Logan Guthrie Hire

Last changed on Sat November 12, 2022 at 6:47 AM PDT

Logan Guthrie

Coach at Mountain View High School, debated policy for Arizona State

lmguthrie0624@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am a tabula rasa judge that tries to minimize intervention as much as possible. This means that I value thorough extensions and arguments that arrive at a terminal impact. Unless otherwise argued, my default role as the judge is to compare competing worlds within an offense/defense paradigm. I am comfortable with speed and any literature base. Below are some thoughts on specific match-ups:

Plan vs. Counterplan

- I really appreciate numbered net-benefits when the debate gets muddled. Highlight the few stand-out impacts and then give judge instruction on how my decision should come together

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Be sure to explain why ontology or epistemology comes before policy-making

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just prove why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. Fw

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a risk of unfairness against the risk of framework reproducing fascism? The debater that answers that question best is probably going to win

- Defense counter-interpretations are more persuasive with a clear model of debate under the k

- Topical Versions of the AFF (TVAs) with an explicit plan text are more persuasive than general assertions that the AFF could have been topical

K vs. K

- Comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the K -- Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact

- The perm is probably important. I appreciate multiple, diverse arguments to prove or disprove competition (DAs, Solvency Deficits, etc.)

Theory

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so weighing between standards or voters is key. I much prefer quality over quantity; collapse to a few standards or a single voter and sit on it

Random

- Please do your best to have the speech doc flashed when prep stops

- I usually only read cards after the round if they are flagged

- Clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot!

Isaac Gutierrez Flintridge Preparatory 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 13, 2022 at 5:20 AM PDT

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

I debated 4 years of policy in high school. After graduating I participated in 3.5 years of American Parliamentary debate with the University of Massachusetts Amherst. I am currently the Public Forum Coach at Westridge School and Flintridge Preparatory.

I try to evaluate all arguments fairly. I have no preference between kritical or traditional style arguments. My only reservations when it comes to non-traditional arguments are when they are poorly executed. If you are running a K your link and framework should be clearly outlined. The same goes for theory.

I think the best debate happens when both teams fully grasp each other's contentions. If your opponent can't understand your contention the judge probably can't either. So be clear and transparent.

I also don't do any work on the flow for you. If you want me to vote or extend something tell me to do so and why.

I understand that debate can be competitive and get heated from time to time. That is no reason to be rude to your opponents. Just be respectful and enjoy the debate.

Policy/LD:

I'm definitely a more old school policy debater. I spent my policy career running policy affs, T, politics, and responding to Ks with framework. That being said, please don't alter your strategy heavily because of that. I understand the debate space changes so if you're a K team I'll consider your args just as much as I would consider a standard disad/cp combo or traditional aff. I just might be a bit slower grasping the thesis of your arg so be as clear as you can be.

I am not the biggest fan of conditionality or similar args, but if you feel they are particularly applicable in a round feel free to run them.

I am fine with speed, but it takes me a second to adjust to any given speaker, especially with online and different mics. So start off your speech below your max speed then work up to it over the next few seconds so I can adapt.

You can add me on the email chain (email at the bottom), but I won't evaluate any of it throughout the round as I believe that invites too much opportunity for judge intervention. If a point in the debate really comes down to who's ev is better then I will evaluate it post round before submitting my ballot. Throughout the round give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev.

PF:

I really don't have much patience with evidence exchange. You should have all your evidence cut into cards and easily accessible to send. If it is a matter of slower internet or tech limitations, or your opponent requested a large amount of ev that is fine. However, "looking" for a piece of evidence to send shouldn't take longer than 10-20 sec.

I won't doc you for it, but I'm against paraphrasing in PF. If your ev is solid there shouldn't be much of a difference from using a card vs paraphrasing, so read the card.

I can keep up, but I hate speed in PF. If you really want to spread you should be in policy or LD. PF is supposed to be accessible to everyone, spreading is a barrier to that in PF. Although spreading through a bunch of arguments and then collapsing to whichever the other team misses is a viable strategy I don't think it is substantial or productive debate. I won't drop you because of this, but if your opponents clearly can't keep up or understand I might doc a few speaker points.

I don't want to be on email chains. I feel that invites too many opportunities for judge intervention throughout a debate. Additionally, I don't want debaters going through the round under the assumption that I am reading through all the ev that is exchanged. If there are contradicting pieces of evidence give me the warrant for why to prefer your ev. If a point in the debate REALLY comes down to who's ev is better, then I will ask for the relevant cards post round before making my decision.

I do appreciate collapsing when appropriate, and starting your weighing earlier rather than later in a round.

Feel free to ask me any questions about my paradigm or preferences.

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

Harsha Hakkal Hamilton High School 2 rounds None

Tracy Hancey Layton HS 6 rounds

Ronald Heyman Brophy College Prep 2 rounds

Christian Hilgemann Hire

Last changed on Thu October 27, 2022 at 12:35 PM CDT

Hi! I’m Christian. I did traditional LD in high school and debated for two years on the ASU policy team. I used to coach the LD team at Minnetonka High School. I really enjoy judging debate, and I hope you enjoy having me as a judge.

- Put me on the email chain: hilgemannc@gmail.com

- I'll evaluate any properly extended claim that has a warrant and impact/implication as long as it isn't bigoted or a personal attack.

- That being said, I place a lot of value on argument quality and explanation. This means that rather than assuming that every argument starts at 100% risk, the weight I give each of your arguments is dependent on how well you've justified them. If you want me to evaluate something, you should make sure that it has a clear warrant and implication in every speech that you bring it up.

- I've decided that I'm going to stop evaluating spreading. Now that tournaments are online, how well I can understand you is dependent on whether or not you can afford high-speed internet access and a nice microphone in addition to how skilled you are, which is bad. Considering this, I don't think I can justify trying to keep up with anything beyond a fast conversational pace - if you exceed what I see as reasonable I'll stop flowing and say "speed" until you slow down. If you don't slow down, I'll eventually just give up and stop listening to your arguments altogether.

- If you're a progressive/circuit debater and you're debating a traditional debater/someone who is significantly less experienced than you, you should adjust your style so that there can be an actual debate. You're going to have to use your best judgment here, but if you read arguments that your opponent clearly won't be prepared to engage with, I'm likely to drop your speaks or intervene against you. The same thing applies if you're super condescending or rude.

Theory:

- I default to reasonability, and it will be tough to convince me otherwise. I'm almost never going to vote for theory that I think is frivolous, but if you think there's legit abuse you should go for it.

- I'm pretty bad at judging a lot of the more technical aspects of theory debates in LD. I'd recommend focusing primarily on the standards level and not assuming that I'm already familiar with the content of your arguments / the jargon you're using.

Kritiks:

- I mostly debated Ks in college, but don't assume that I'll fill in gaps for you or that I'm familiar with your lit (I'm probably not). Basically, make sure that you can fully explain your arguments in terms that a normal person can understand.

- I think that K affs should defend some sort of departure from the status quo (unless you have a really dope explanation for why you don't need to). If I don't know what the aff does at the end of the round, I'm very open to voting on presumption.

Tricks:

- These are bad please stop.

- I'm unlikely to vote on skep because there's usually a risk of offense.

- New implications are new arguments and can be responded to as such.

Raymond Hon Hire 6 rounds

Daniel Hsu Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 7, 2021 at 7:17 AM MST

Hello competitors, my name is Daniel Hsu, a third-year college student attending ASU.

A little about me: I am currently majoring in Computer Science and Math. My hobbies include but are not limited to photography, art, music, and tricking (if you know what tricking is and can explain it to me, y'all can get an extra speaker point :) ).

Anyways, on to the important stuff:

I am an ex-PF debater of two years (novice in Junior year of High school and varsity in Senior year of High school), so I have a decent bit of experience in how PF works as a whole.

As for judging, I have judged for a tournament or two in the past when I wasn't entered in as a competitor.

I would describe myself as a lay judge; based on past experience, I have a hard time following strictly tech and go more along the lines of the main arguments at hand. If you're an overall very technical debater, I will obviously still understand terminology and what you're saying in the debate, but if you're not specifically arguing using reasoning and just throwing out cards, that's a no for me. In my opinion, it is up to the debaters to hand me the arguments on a silver platter: tell me why your arguments are valid, why your opponents' are not, and why you should be winning the debate. Pretty standard stuff!

IMPORTANT: Articulate well if you're speaking fast; I've known some people that speak fast and instead of getting their points across, they just end up confusing the judges instead. Also, don't go over the top with your hand gestures; if you guys look like you're waving your hands all over the place, it just distracts me from actually listening to your speech and I will take a speaker point off for it. I will also ask for y'all to repeat cards if I misheard or couldn't write it down fast enough.

I WILL ask for cards during/after the round, so please don't use evidence that is untrue or falsified. If you guys clash evidence, I don't have a source preference, but I will check on the validity of the sources and whether the context in the use of the card is correct or not (hopefully it won't come down to that).

Above all, please please PLEASE respect your opponents before, during, and after the round. I understand you may get heated during round (especially during cross) but do not bring your clashes in the round outside the debate space.

That's all from me; good luck in your rounds!

Benjamin Hughes Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 1:59 AM PDT

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

Nadia Jafar Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Reena John Independent Clements High School 4 rounds

Christine Jones Cherokee Trail HS 2 rounds

Chaelin Jung Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 9, 2020 at 11:07 PM MST

Hi! I did a couple years of PF in high school and served as president of my school's (Hamilton -- Chandler, AZ) Speech and Debate program my senior year. I'm currently a freshman at Brown University studying Economics and International & Public Affairs.

The usual stuff: Quality > quantity always, so please collapse if you can. Weigh impacts, or I'll choose my favorite! Extend links and warrants. Frontlining (responding to opponents' attacks on your case) in second rebuttal isn't necessary but highly encouraged.

On summary / FF: First summary doesn't need to extend defense unless it was frontlined in second rebuttal. Consistency between summary and FF is key, and any discrepancy between the two will probably not end in your favor.

On cross-ex: I'll be listening for sure but won't be flowing, so if you expose major flaws in your opponents' argument, please mention it in a subsequent speech. I don't particularly care if you stand or sit. Tastefully executed savagery is encouraged. Don't mansplain or yell or interrupt, and we'll have a happy room.

On evidence: I won't look at any cards unless you tell me to explicitly in a speech and extend to FF, so even if your opponents tell me the sky is green, I'll buy it if you don't call them out on it.

On timing: Please keep track of your own time; I'll probably forget to, tbh. Feel free to read cards off-time, but be reasonable about it. I reserve the right to start timing if either team exploits this privilege.

On speaker points: Things that will earn you higher speaks include: signposting, numbered responses, strategically implemented puns, and humor. Things that will drop your speaks (and possibly cost you the dub): any kind of sexism, racism, ableism, classism, etc. - like literally, just be a decent human being - and unnecessary debate jargon. If I can't understand you because you're talking too quickly, I'll yell "clear."

Finally, I've been told that I nod really aggressively, so if you find me doing this, or not doing this, during a speech or CX, don't read too much into it. Any other questions, let me know before the round.

anshu kanyal BASIS Peoria HS 2 rounds

Bilal Kapadya Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 13, 2021 at 7:59 PM MST

TL;DR

I know stuff.

Bio (Completely Irrelevant)

I competed in PF for four years at Hamilton High School (2014-2018). In my senior year I was the captain of the team. I competed a lot on the AZ local circuit, and won/placed at a bunch of tournaments. I also competed a bit on the national circuit (broke boi couldn't afford all the plane tickets in HS), and have dabbled in Policy and Big Questions debate. Finally, I've also competed in the International Public Policy forum and achieved global Top 16 alongside my team. Today, I'm a student studying Computer Science and Physics at ASU.

Speed/Speaking

1. I can comprehend up to 275 words per minute, but my most accurate flowing happens at about 225 words per minute and under. Be smart about your word economy. If you can say it slower and make the same goddamn point just as effectively, do that. Do not sacrifice clarity for "speed" (I say "speed" because when you're messing up so much because you're trying to go faster than you're meant to, your effective speed is actually super slow.) Do not use the Gish gallop, this will annoy me severely.

2. I reserve the right to yell "CLEAR" at any point in the round; if I do, that means something with your speaking isn't working for me and it needs to be fixed; it could be speed, volume, enunciation, slurring, etc. I don't do this to be a jerk, I do it because I actually want to hear what you have to say. However, don't rely on my yelling of "CLEAR" as an absolute metric though, because you might just not be egregious enough for me to say it. If I look confuzzled or like I'm not understanding what's going on, that is likely the case.

3. There are a myriad of references you can make that will bump up your speaker points if they are eloquently incorporated into your speech: PewDiePie, Speedcubing, Lil Uzi Vert, Playboi Carti, Future, Juice WRLD, Eminem, Deadpool, Mr. Robot, or Avatar (NOT the blue aliens one). Saying "Subscribe to PewDiePie" at the end of the speech is no longer novel to me, and I won't count it.

Cross-Ex

0. As a general rule, cross is for you, not me.

1. I will not judge on what is said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. (I do actually listen though - even if I'm walking around, eating, etc. - unless it's mind-numbing, which happens fairly frequently).

2. Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case, I don't frown on that. Don't be afraid to ask why; at best, their reasoning will be moronic and easy to dismantle, and at worst, we all learn something.

3. Don't go back and forth and waste time during cross. (But depth is awesome and absolutely necessary, don't misconstrue the two).

4. I don't see "my partner will answer this in speech" as a weakness if it's because the idea takes a bit to explain or if you already know your partner will expound on an idea you briefly mention, but I might still smile at it, because it's memey. But if it's a question that you should be able to answer, then that's probably a problem.

5. When someone asks for an explanation of a warrant, "we have a card for that" is not an appropriate answer. This is also true for the round in general, not just CX. ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THINGS; if the answer wouldn't have been satisfying for you then it's likely not satisfying for me either. A card is not a warrant in and of itself.

6. Standing or sitting, don't care. Do a handstand if you want.

7. First speaking team gets the first question, no need to ask, just get into it.

8. Towards the end of cross, y'all can reserve the right to end it if there's nothing to talk about, and just prep instead during that time (for a MAX of thirty seconds) (especially GCX).

Timing

1. Please time yourself. I basically always forget, so please keep track of yourselves and each other (that goes for speech AND prep).

2. If you need to verbally let me know your opponent is going over time, that's fine (just give them like 4 seconds of grace period). You can avoid all of the ambiguity by just using a timer that actually goes off at the end of the speech too.

Etiquette

1. Try to get to the round on time (I will too). If you need time in the room to get your stuff together, or pre-flow, I'm totally cool with that, I just don't want to accidentally tell Tabroom you don't exist (same reason I'll try to be there on time). But again, s*** happens, so I'm gonna try not to be annoying about time, as much as possible.

2. I like Aff on my left, Neg on my right. The world will not end if this is not true, however.

3. I’m not uptight; I like a chill vibe in rounds. I like judging rounds where everyone's actually having fun (especially me). Good jokes are great, bad jokes are colossal failures. (If you can make your opponents' argument seem so ridiculous that it's funny, you're probably being quite convincing). I encourage being savage, but in a tasteful-ish manner. Being savage is not the same as being petulant.

4. You can swear, I don’t care. Actually, I'll probably like it, especially if it helps with your rhetorical efficacy.

5. I’d rather not shake hands. Shaking hands with me won’t magically help or hurt your chances of winning, but it could get either of us sick.

Debate-y Stuff

1. Signpost everything, for the love of music, video games, Netflix, pets, and parents. I literally don’t know where to put stuff if you don’t signpost (and then I won't write anything, and it'll be your fault).

a. If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to, and what happens to offense as a result.

b. If you're frontlining a response, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to, and what I need to extend as a result of this frontline.

2. Structure responses in a systematic manner, at the least. I really prefer numbered responses in rebuttals and I like numbered frontlines in the summaries and second rebuttals (this makes it easier to reference which response we're talking about at any point).

3. Please extend arguments throughout both Summ/FF speeches consistently, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. However, you don't have to yell "extend" before everything you extend (because that’s annoying), just contextualize the argument and why I should extend it.

4. If you’re not frontlining, you will probably auto-lose the round, because I want to watch an actual debate.

5. I like to have a roadmap before speeches, but it should NOT be flowery. For example: “framework, aff case, neg case.” If you’re doing something weird though, let me know. In most cases, I just want to know which side of the flow we're starting on.

6. There’s no reason to "extend" your own case in rebuttal if "time permits" if you’re the first speaking team. I don’t get why debaters do this, but it’s a waste, and I WILL drop speaker points for this.

7. 2nd rebuttal should address the 1st rebuttal.

8. 1st summary should address the 2nd rebuttal.

9. I’m cool with overviews.

a. If an overview applies to an argument specifically, remind me of the overview and cross apply it.

b. Your overview shouldn’t just be another contention though, that’s not the point.

10. If you read a definition, actually make it useful for your case. "But bro, they didn't have a definition, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

11. Frameworks can be as important as you make them.

a. If your frameworks agree, just stop mentioning it, I’ll use it.

b. Weighing really helps to solidify a ballot, and a carded weighing analysis can really help with that. Also, you NEED to tell me how to weigh unlike things; it's easy to say $200 million is more than $170 million, but we all know this is rarely how debate functions. If you don't convince me of a way to adjudicate the round, I don't know what the hell to do.

c. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you have to use ours" is not an argument.

12. ALL offense must be in summary.

a. The first summary does not need to include defense unless this defense has been frontlined already.

b. However, turns must be in summary, otherwise they will end up only being terminal defense. (Otherwise it's abusive, the other team needs to know what you're going for).

13. I hate key voters, they obfuscate the round for me. Instead keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially line-by-line, but don't think saying card names aimlessly is going to mean anything, so don't card dump).

14. I GREATLY encourage collapsing. Kick an argument and instead show me why the one you go for is enough for the win. (You can’t kick an argument with a turn on it and expect things to be okay for you though, obviously.)

15. Please verbally label turns explicitly. It really helps me to see how you get offense on your opponent’s case. (Like actually say the word "turn" or something very similar).

16. Don’t give me a specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan).

17. Don’t give me a random alt on the Neg.

18. Please don’t strawman, make sure you respond to the actual arguments your opponents are making. That's the number one way to get me to tune out quickly.

19. K's might not be the best idea because I default to post-fiat impacts. The only way you'll win with a K is if you actually convince ME I should go pre-fiat or your K solves in a post-fiat analysis.

20. I don't flow card names for the most part, so make sure to tell me what the card says.

21. I love creative, innovative, eye-opening, deep arguments that come from another angle. I hate stupid, nonsensical arguments that disguise themselves as novel when they're not. Running one of those will get you yeeted. Logic actually matters, people. (This isn't to say I'm not tabula rasa, I really am very close. The point I'm making is that my threshold for refuting inherently ridiculous arguments is inherently lower than those that actually make sense, so you're handicapping yourself severely within the context of the round by running something we all know is dumb. For example, if the Aff tells me that "elephants are purple" and the Neg responds with "no," I will consider that an effective response. Remember, in the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and if you're giving me less-than-extraordinary evidence, you're screwed, because your opponents are probably smarter than your "argument").

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. If you want to know how you're doing in a round, look at me, chances are that'll give you some information because my face can be very telling. I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. I will almost always disclose, and I will provide a detailed verbal RFD, which often includes a significant degree of roasting. You can ask me questions after the round about anything, but don't argue with me, because I will submit my ballot before I disclose. Good luck.

Darya Kaviani College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2019 at 5:32 PM PDT

hello! i am a first-year at uc berkeley and i debated for mitty high school. throughout high school, i was most competitive in public forum debate, but i also did congressional debate as well as speech events like original advocacy and duo interp.

public forum debate:

- tech over truth (i try my best)!

- i vote for the team with the most offense at the end of the round by granting each team some (if any) offense for each offensive argument presented and taking into account the efficacy of the defense put on each. ez pz!

rebuttal:

- i expect frontlining all key pieces of offense in second rebuttal.

- if you want to add offensive overviews, please make them very thorough and well-warranted.

summary:

- even with three-minute summaries, please collapse.

- i expect full extensions of links, warrants, and impacts, when you are extending case.

- in terms of whether or not defense should be in first summary, i think it is strategic to do so if you want to blow up on it, but i will extend it anyway even if you don't.

final focus:

- this should be *and i cannot emphasize this enough* a carbon copy of the summary.

- i recommend more weighing in final focus than summary.

weighing:

- comparative weighing is super important! weigh as early as possible!

- link-weighing is even better than impact weighing! do both!

cross-fire:

- i will probably be on facebook so put it in a speech if you want it on the flow!

- be nice! that is all.

speaker points:

- this is an activity where we should all genuinely care about the words we are saying, so sound like it! for high speaks, sound passionate and genuine when you speak. also, be polite!

- make me cheese for more speaks!

speed:

- i can handle a good deal of speed, but not spreading. if you really want to go ham on the speed, start off slow then speed up.

- if your opponents do not feel comfortable with speed, you should be respectful and accessible and refrain from going too fast for them.

theory & kritiks:

- i do not have much experience with these arguments so explain them very well.

- for k's, read specific links since i want tangible proof that voting for you will contribute to the larger scale impacts you will probably talk about.

evidence:

- please do not miscut evidence! i will only call for evidence if one team tells me to do so or if i am really sussed out by it, so if you genuinely think it is miscut, tell me to call for it in one of your speeches. otherwise, i default to what the team tells me it says to minimalize intervention!

- i also want sources and dates.

- have evidence files on everything you read ready to go please!

stuff that is more important than the round you are about to debate:

- as a former debater on a girl-girl team comprised of two womxn of color, i have been on the receiving end of sexist comments during cross-fire. if you are explicitly degrading, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., i do not care about your arguments. i will drop you and/or tank your speaks. this is an activity where we are meant to be speaking up for the sake of progress, so we should all be courteous and respectful.

- please eat food at tournaments lmao.

please feel free to email me if you would like me to elaborate on my decision or if you need advice or anything (daryakavi@gmail.com).

Vivek Khanna BASIS Peoria HS 4 rounds

Shreyas Kiran Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Brandon Komatsu Coronado HS 6 rounds

Nicole Kroepel Belvidere North HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 25, 2024 at 2:09 PM CDT

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Mirsada kurspahic BASIS Peoria HS 4 rounds

Corey La Crosse BASIS Peoria HS

Jennifer Lafayette BASIS Scottsdale HS 4 rounds

Nelson Lafayette BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Michael Lamb Green Valley High School 6 rounds

Estelle Lee Torrey Pines High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 16, 2021 at 2:05 AM PDT

my name’s estelle and my pronouns are they/them.

this is the first time i’m even touching debate in 2-3 years. i have not done any topic research.

email: esjlee1128@gmail.com

i debated policy for northwood high school 2015-2018, mostly with policy arguments but prefer kritikal ones. generally i’m okay with most arguments, but my triggers are sexual assault and queer violence so please be mindful of that.

top lvl:

mostly tech over truth but there are certain truths that cannot be contested and cause judge intervention-don’t be racist/homophobic/ableist etc. i’m trying to be as objective as possible, but alt-right arguments aren’t going to go too well in front of me.

i’m okay with speed but clarity is important.

k aff:

give an explanation of what aff is solving for/mechanism of solvency. aff should be at least in the direction of the resolution-defend a methodology centered around the topic or it’ll probably be easy to lose me during fw fairness debates. i’m not too fixed on this issue though so don’t be discouraged if your aff isn’t about the topic-i do prefer methodology/affirmations over just critiques.

don’t throw around random jargon without explaining it, because i want to understand what it is i’m voting for in the round. this is especially true for high theory because i’m not very well versed in it (at all). also true for acronyms.

if you have a performance, make sure all aspects of the performance remain true to what your advocacy is (eg running a fem k aff and gendering someone is not a great combination)

fw:

fairness (structural and procedural) is an impact but i can be convinced that it’ll be an internal link to something greater. weighing impacts is very important in framework debates for me.

tva is an allocation of negative ground for a good stasis point of debate.

i feel like the aff should be using parts of the aff to leverage offense against the interpretation of the neg. you read the aff, so you should use it.

examples of why your model of debate is good makes it easier to win. if you talk about a debater becoming a supreme court justice, it could be a way to weigh why normative debate is good (or bad)

extend your interp+answers to we meet. Be cognizant of the line by line.

theory:

i don’t think disclosure is the best theory. i’ll vote on it (maybe) but it’ll be an uphill battle for the ballot.

i’ll vote on cp theory.

condo is good but the k shouldn’t link to the cp.

generally good with permutation theory.

it’s more convincing when there’s actual in round abuse but i’ll vote for potential abuse as well.

slow down on your blocks.

if the neg wins its interp and that the aff doesn’t fall into their interp, the neg wins.

don’t drop reasonability.

have voters in the shell.

definition comparisons, qualification comparisons are good.

caselists are important as well as why your caselist is preferable

“nah” is an acceptable answer to t-rvi

keep flows clean and don’t put all your line by line on the overview. examples of experiences/history makes your k more compelling for me. have impacts/explain your theory of power if you got one/contextualize your links to the aff and explain your alt.

cp:

have a net benefit, solve, i don’t buy object fiat cps

answer the perm

da:

have impacts and clear internal links- evidence comparison is good

weigh impacts

Peggy Lee BASIS Scottsdale HS 4 rounds

Jonathan Li Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 5:08 AM MST

Bio

Hi, I competed in PF for Hamilton High and am currently a college senior.

I am old and uninvolved with debate, so I probably can't flow speed well anymore. I would suggest you treat me like a flay judge.

**Note for Cal Invitational: I am only judging Sunday and skipped Saturday. Hence, I am NOT familiar with the topic and what is considered stock/trendy.

TLDR: quality>quantity, extend your link story, weigh. Everything here is pretty standard.

1. Collapsing is absolutely necessary; do not try to extend everything in case and win every argument. Going for 1 or 2 pieces of offense will result in a much cleaner round.

2. I expect you to *EXTEND YOUR LINK CHAIN* in both summary and final focus. Walk me through your warrants and impacts again. Don't just frontline and entirely skip over your link story (ghost extensions).

4. Defense does not need to be extended into the first summary, unless 2nd rebuttal chooses to respond to defense from first rebuttal (I won't strictly force frontlining in 2nd rebuttal). However, it might be good to extend important terminal defense into the first summary for the sake of emphasis (up to you).

5. **Weigh, weigh, weigh**. Don't forget to also weigh turns (too many teams don't do this). Keep your weighing comparative -- saying "poverty is the most important impact" is not real argument comparison. My decisions very often come down to whichever team did the better job weighing, especially when the link debate becomes messy. If you are speaking 2nd, don't wait until FF to weigh (I will default to this if no other weighing is done).

6. If you want to read an actual warranted framework, that needs to come no later than 1st rebuttal. This means if you are speaking 2nd, you will need to introduce any framework starting in case (not 2nd rebuttal).

7. I have minimal experience with progressive argumentation, so steer away from it. I heavily frown upon what I perceive to be tricks or gimmicks.

Miscellaneous

Feel free to post-round/ask questions until you are satisfied. Once upon a time, I was once a tryhard, sweaty, angry PF debater myself, so I understand the pain of dropping rounds. Please time yourselves.

Yang Li BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Michael Liu Torrey Pines High School 6 rounds

Heather Lopatin Arbor View HS 2 rounds

Cassie Lyon Mountain Crest HS 6 rounds

Mark Mabie BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Isabela Marie Macariola BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Charlie Mack Gilbert Classical Academy 6 rounds

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School - North Hollywood 3 rounds

Lizzie McCord Saint Mary's Hall HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed July 7, 2021 at 10:41 AM EDT

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

Cale McCrary Corona Del Sol HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 18, 2024 at 10:43 PM CDT

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Elizabeth Meerson La Salle HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 13, 2020 at 11:28 PM PDT

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

Sajan Mehrotra Gunn Sr HS 6 rounds

Sherry Meng Corona Del Sol HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM MST

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Randy Moreno American Preparatory 2 rounds

James Morgan Acton-Boxborough Regional HS 6 rounds

Miles Morton Valley International Prep 6 rounds

Elliot Muhlenfeld Hire 6 rounds

Nita J. Muhlenfeld Hire 6 rounds

Cas Mulford Rowland Hall 4 rounds

Hardy Niu Hire 6 rounds

Patrick Nobby Gilbert Classical Academy 4 rounds

Nate Odenkirk Oakwood School - North Hollywood 3 rounds

Conrad Palor Coronado HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:02 AM MDT

Background

***Please add me to the email chain. My email is conradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tab as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments so I've summarized some thoughts below.

DAs

- Fine with most DAs. If reading any politics DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic Link evidence.

- I’m fine with Kritikal affirmatives, however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer Affs that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise. I also am generally persuaded by the argument that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a methods debate, but am open to arguments otherwise.

CPs

- I’m fine with most counter plans although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

- I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

- I default to perms are test of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and default to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

- I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

- I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the ro und. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying

- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedurals

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

Lacrima Parau BASIS Peoria HS 2 rounds

Ben Park College Prep 6 rounds

Mikay Parsons Lake Oswego Senior High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 8:43 AM MDT

EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): mikayiparsons@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."

NPDA:

I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.

I've been out of the college parli world for a few years, so I do not know the current popular blocks/arguments being read. That doesn't mean you shouldn't read them; just take the extra 10 seconds to explain why you are reading what you are reading, add some warrants that others might fill in for you in their heads, etc. I am also not as fast of a flower as I was a few years ago, so I may ask you to slow down (I want to get as clean and accurate of a flow as possible!). I've outlined some more specific preferences in the high school section below, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have!

ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:

Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.

The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.

Speed: I was a somewhat fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).

Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.

Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.

Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.

Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.

Vaishali Patil DuPont Manual High School 3 rounds

Suresh Pattipati Corona Del Sol HS 6 rounds

Aimee Perlstein Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds

Lee Place College Prep 4 rounds

Jaswant Puliady Del Norte Independent 2 rounds

Christopher Rawlins West Career And Technical Academy 6 rounds

Alan Redhead Fullerton Union High School 6 rounds

Saskia Reford Saint Mary's Hall HS 6 rounds

Jannette Rivera Arizona College Prep 4 rounds None

Alexandra Ros BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:11 AM PDT

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).
What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Nicholas Russell Brophy College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 12, 2020 at 4:45 AM PDT

Judging Philosophy (Rev. 1/12/2020)
Nick Russell
Brophy College Prep

Thanks for inviting me to your round. Or not. No hard feelings.

My “philosophy” of debate:

Debate is an act of love. We sacrifice our time, our energy, and our lives to talk about things that matter with people who matter. And that’s love. It’s a beautiful thing. This kind of love isn’t a warm and fuzzy feeling. It’s an act of the will. It’s a love that expresses itself more in deeds than words, more in what we do than how we feel. The feminist philosopher bell hooks argues that we express this love in six ways: care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect and trust. And I truly believe that, at its best, those are things we should be about in debate. So thanks for being here. For debating. And showing your love for the people who are here with you.

If you’re reading this, though, you’re probably not very interested in my musings on debate and love. So let me share with you my background and my disposition about debate.

Background:

I am a Jesuit novice on a five-month assignment (called our “long experiment”) at Brophy College Preparatory in Phoenix. Before I joined the Jesuits, I served for about eight years as the Director of Forensics at CSU Long Beach. As a high-school and college debater, I competed in policy debate. Since then I’ve coached a variety of forms of debate (high school policy and LD, college parliamentary and policy), most recently public forum.

Predispositions:

1. My instinct when judging is to flow the round and then use the notes on my flow to evaluate who did the better debating. To that end, I invite you to be clear, to use signposts, and to organize your arguments effectively.

2. You should make arguments that you enjoy. I want to see you at your best, doing what you enjoy.

3. Debate should tend towards inclusion. You should not use language, make arguments, or act in ways that marginalize or exclude others because of their identity

4. All arguments are good stories. By the end of the debate, you should be telling a clear story of what the world looks like when I vote aff/neg. Frame the debate for me.

5. Laugher greatly improves the quality of our lives, especially when we are competing in or judging debates all day.

6. I will keep track of time—both speech time and prep time. You should do the same.

Finally, if you have questions, please ask or email nrussell[at]brophyprep[dot]org

Kate Selig Saratoga HS 4 rounds None

Gavin Serr Park City 3 rounds

Alexander Sherer Mission San Jose HS 6 rounds

Braxton Smith BASIS Ahwatukee 4 rounds

Huiling Song Foothill High School 6 rounds

Raj Soni BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Jeremy Standerfer Riverside STEM Academy 4 rounds None

Reed Steiner Phoenix Country Day School 2 rounds

Brandon Stewart Mission San Jose HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 8, 2023 at 3:17 AM PDT

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

Patrick Stoltz Leland High School 6 rounds

Michael Stone Herriman HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 28, 2021 at 5:45 AM MDT

General notes: My job is to pick out a winner and a loser, a first place and a not-so-first place. Not everyone gets to win. You are all beautiful, worthwhile humans. If I, who am also a human, do not pick you as the winner, don't take it personally. Take my opinions with a grain of salt, see if my feedback has anything in common with what other judges have brought up, and move on. Fussing about your results with me will only justify my decision more; you have come to debate your opponents, not the judge. I wonder if the reason why so many coaches have a hard time finding volunteer judges could be because some students don't get these basic realities? HMMM... :)

Event-specific paradigms

Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Congress: Chairs, please be sure to be fair in whom you allow to speak and when, and follow priority. Speakers, I will judge you based on the logical strength of your argumentation, your ability to successfully address attacks against your argumentation, and your speaking performance (construction of the speech, audience engagement, etc).

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your speeches; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the discussion of the house itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a speech/debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Impromptu, OO :I will judge you according to these three criteria:

1) Relevance. Did you address a subject in a way that I can easily see why I or the audience should care about what you are talking about?

2) Uniqueness. Was what you said in your performance something I have probably heard 20 times about already? Or was it a sob story that (while admittedly it may be sad and tragic, and you have my condolences) was calculated to exclude other students who haven't had their "sob story" happen yet?

3) Call to change. How successfully do you persuade the audience that we should live or think or feel differently about something in supporting the main thesis of your speech?

Extemp: I will judge according to these three criteria:

1) Topicality. Did you answer the prompt you chose completely and fully?

2) Evidence. Was your speech evidence-based as opposed to "Here's some generic facts I can tease out abut this issue?" Was your evidence cited?

3) Analysis. Did you make an effort to add your own unique insight and commentary on the topic, and was this commentary/analysis logical?

Interp Events: I will judge you according to these criteria:

1) Characterization. To what degree can I believe that you are your characters, and not a teenage student from a team other than my own whom I hardly know?

2) Emotive Technique. Strong acting choices, incorporation of the narrative arc, believable and text-based emotive variety.

3) Vocal Technique. Are the voices for the different characters separate and distinct, quality of diction/enunciation, and appropriate vocal variety.

Andy Stubbs St John's School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Emily Su Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 8, 2020 at 12:46 PM MST

I did PF for 3 years, and dabbled briefly in Policy (it was rough lol). I graduated from ASU this past December with degrees in Economics and Justice Studies, and I'll be going to law school this fall.

I value evidence and warrants a LOT. I usually won't call for cards unless it was pretty heavily contested during the round, but pls don't use evidence that's sus-- if I notice that your card is clipped or contradicts your contentions, that'll still count against you. Pls download the entire card because it's important for context! That being said, what matters is not always the quantity of cards, but rather the quality and how you explain them and impact them out. Don't just tell me that x causes y-- tell me why there's a causal relationship. Warrants are how you show that you actually understand your argument. And even if an arg doesn't have a ton of evidence backing it up, you should still answer the logic of the contention. Also, I care a lot about impact calc; if you don't weigh things for me, I'll have to weigh them myself and that might not be in your favor. Tell me how to vote!

I care a lot about consistency, so if you wanna go for something in your FF, flow it through in your summary.

As for crossfire, I probably won't pay much attention... I don't flow cross, so reiterate any important points in later speeches. I don't really care whether y'all stand or sit, whichever's more comfortable for everyone!

Roadmaps are pretty useless for rebuttals unless you're doing something weird, like answering the third contention at the top of the flow. Signposting is really important in all your speeches, though, so I know where to place things on my flow. For summary and final focus, roadmaps can be helpful if you specify your key voters, or if you're gonna read an overview. But if you're just saying something like "I'm addressing my opponents' case, then extending my own," or "I'm gonna go through some key voters and why we won," it's fairly pointless.

Speed is fine, as long as you're clear and enunciate your tags and key pieces of evidence/impacts that you really want me to pay attention to. I'll let you know if you're going too fast, and pls don't spread! Also, pls keep your K's and high-level theory away from PF. I won't run prep while you're looking for evidence that your opponents wanna look at, but I'll start prep once you begin looking over that evidence.

If I hear an arg that's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., I'll automatically drop that argument and tank your speaks. I'll do my best to judge tabula rasa, but I value truth over tech.

Bonus speaks if you say "crystallize," have funny tags, or make a pun during the round!

SARAVANAN SUBRAMANIAN BASIS Peoria HS

Brandon Sumner Brophy College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 29, 2019 at 6:31 AM MST

Brandon Sumner

Brophy College Prep

Arizona State University

Debating Experience:

4 years in high school

Debated briefly at Wake Forest University

Coach at Brophy College Prep

Tldr;

My philosophy shouldn’t change the strategy of the 1ac or the 1nc, all it should do is help the way you frame your arguments in the round. You should run what arguments you want to run/are strategically viable, and at the end of the day if you debate better than your opponent I’ll vote for you.

Logistics:

Tech > truth – I won’t vote on what your evidence says or if your argument is more true real world, I’ll only vote on what is said within the round. Even if I ideologically disagree with everything you’re saying, I’ll vote for you if the other side doesn’t respond to your arugments properly.

Prep time – keep track of your own/your opponents prep time, if you steal prep I’ll drop your speaks heavily so don’t do it. Prep time should stop when the email is sent/flash drive leaves the computer.

Evidence – please include me on the email chain (bsumner16@brophybroncos.org).

Speaks – I give 27-30, if you go below 27 its because you were offensive. Best way to get high speaks is to be efficient, clear and have arguments with intention. Beyond that, I like puns and witty one liners about people I know/myself, but those come far after making sure you debate well. Demonstrating mastery of your arguments/the topic climate in cross ex will also boost your speaks.

Speaking style – Any speed/style/form is fine as long as I can understand what you’re saying. I will only say “clear” twice during a speech. After that if I can’t understand what you’re saying I won’t be flowing it. I will not flow off the speech doc.

Argumentative Positions:

Aff -- I read a K aff for 4 years in high school so I’m fine with any form of subversion from the resolution, be it tangential relationships through some critical/identity issue, or performance/high theory rejection of the topic. On the flip side, I have grown to love more traditional policy affirmatives lately, and I think there is a certain ethos to running a big-stick impact and defending your reps. I feel like I might be more qualified to judge “K on K” style debates, but I probably prefer judging a 6+off debate vs a traditional policy aff. Run whatever you want.

Disads – I like good link analysis, and unless the aff is running a lot of “big impacts bad”, “your internal links are bad” or good impact defense, focus more on the link and uniqueness. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t explain your internal link chain, I just think that UQ/Link are easier for the aff to contest than the idea that there is a 0% risk of the disad impact.

Counterplans – I have grown to love counterplans over the last year. Advantage cp’s, pics, multi-plank addons in the 2nc to respond to 2ac addons, generic cps (states), all of them. Uptopian fiat, pics good/bad, solvency advocate requires/not required are all theory debates to be had however, so make sure you answer any theory the aff brings up.

Theory – I’ll vote on theory, and you don’t necessarily need to prove in round abuse. Don’t just read your blocks, I like specific in round examples of how strategies have changed, how the round could have been different, what the aff justifies the neg doing, etc.

*Berkeley update* condo: I will vote on condo, but I think it's good to know that I probably lean slightly neg in my personal ideology (if the debate is 50-50 I'm more likely to default to condo good). If you want condo to be a viable option in the 1ar and the 2ar you should have examples of what types of offense/arguments the negative's interpretation prevents you from using - and why those arguments are important for the topic. On the neg, you should point out what arguments the 2ar can make that solve their offensive claims and what specific ground/education/type of debate you lose when I vote on the aff interpretation. Also, I haven't decided yet if I think condo should be a question of what model of debate is justified or if in round abuse is a magnifier for your interpretive claims, so tell me instead so I don't have to think about it.

Framework – I’m 50-50 on this issue. Probably the best answer to K affs in my opinion, but I was also a 2a against framework for 80% of my high school rounds so I understand how the arguments interact with each other. Please make the distinction between substantive framework and theoretical framework – I am persuaded by the argument that the neg went for only theoretical fairness and the affs 2ac was an impact turn to substantive framework.

Topicality – Love in depth topicality debate, both sides should describe what their model of debate does for the case list, the neg ground on the topic, and the theoretical implications of their interpretation. This debate, even more so than others, is a tech>truth flow. For this topic specifically, don't assume I understand how all of the mechanisms of the aff work in conjunction with the topic literature so if that's going to be a key argument do a little extra work on it.

K – I have predominately been a K debater, and I’ve read a lot of the literature base for most kritiks on the circuit. For me, you need to win a) the link to the aff and analysis on why the perm doesn’t work and aff doesn’t outweigh b) either win framework or that your alt solves the K/the aff. I won’t judge kick the alt for you unless you tell me to (and aff can answer that pretty easily) but if you win that you don’t need an alt, I will vote on reps/method/unethicality. Explain the thesis of your critique, even if I know the argument well I won’t vote on it unless you explain it well. I prefer the 2NC to be more flow/line by line heavy than your 2.5 minute rhetorical block. The only time I think you should wax poetic is if you have specific historical analysis for root cause/proximate cause or you need to explain the more nuanced parts of your critique that frame the rest of the line by line or specifying your argument to historical events/philosophical movements.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me

Jerry Sun Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Sumita Tandon BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Gunendran Thuraisingham Mira Loma High School 6 rounds None

Stephanie Tremayne Mountain Crest HS 4 rounds None

Sanjim Uppal BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 4 rounds

Benjamin Voller-Brown Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 1, 2021 at 6:36 PM EDT

Background:

- My name is Ben Voller-Brown. I am currently a mechanical Engineering major at Arizona State University. I did PF for 3 years(Sophomore-Senior year of high school.). I was a first speaker for all three years. Some of my hobbies include cooking, scuba diving Rubik's Cubes. If you can solve a Rubik's cube you automatically get 30 speaks.

Now onto the important stuff(should be pretty standard):

- I am mostly a tech judge, but I do not have the same amount of in depth understanding of the topic as you do. I have heard only the topic and know nothing about it.

- I should be able to flow most speeds, nothing too fast though(about 200 wpm). If you are speaking too fast, I will say "Clear" and if you do not slow down, I will mark down speaks.

- I will judge the round based on what I have on my flow.

- I may or may not disclose depending on timing and if I feel like it.

- Anything that is homophobic, transphobic, or any other -phobic will lead to you being dropped and getting no speaker points. I understand the fact that you want to be aggressive and get your points across. I was that type of debater sometimes when I was getting heated, but you need to keep a level head.

- Debate should be fun, puns are an easy way for quick high speaks. Make me laugh, you make me happy.

On Rebuttal:

- Quality over quantity. If you put 30 turns on their case, more likely than not, they're utter _ _ _ _.

- Please for the sake of god signpost. Signposting is the easiest way to high speaks for me. It can be something as simple as "Now onto their second contention. Their first point is ___, however, delink their argument because (card name/year) says ____. Then go on to weighing. If you weigh in rebuttal, even if it is short, it is better than nothing. If you don't signpost, you will most likely lose me on the flow.

-Second rebuttal needs to address first rebuttal or it flows clean through(First sum needs to bring this up however)

On summary:

- Please collapse, I do not want you to tell me everything that has happened in the round, just the most important stuff and why it is the most important.

- First summary DOES need to flow through defense on their opps side of the flow and respond to turns on their side, so choose your points wisely and collapse.

- Be clear on your link chain. Tell me how everything connects. Tell me that A->B->Impact. No link chain = no impact = no ballot.

- I do not like key voters, go down the flow if you can.

On FF:

- If you do not weigh, you will not win. You need to tell me why I should value your argument more than your opponents, but you should also focus on probability, that is one of my top 3 favorite weighing mechs. If your opponent's argument has a 1% chance of happening, and it impacts the entire globe, but yours has a 100% chance of happening and impacts 50 million people, tell me that!

- You need to clearly articulate when you begin weighing(I put it as a subsection for that contention/turn) on my flow. Keep it short and sweet, just something to indicate when I should flow it as a weighing mech. This is probably the most different from other judges you have had in the past. If you are unsure about this, just ask me before the round starts.

- On that last point, I will vote based on turns, but it has to be weighed properly. Please don't drop case if you do not have to.

- Please continue to flow through the link chain.

- I will vote based on weighing mechs in summary and final focus. They have to be brought up in both summ and FF

- One more time: WEIGH.

Miscellaneous:

- I may or may not call for evidence. I will 100% call for evidence if it is highly contested throughout the round though.

- Progressive arguments(aka one-offs)- Don't do it. I will not flow it. I hate it.

- Please give me an off time road map. Some love this some hate this; I am the former.

- Time yourselves.

- Pull up cards fast, I don't have all day.

- I don't require prep time for card reading, just do not take too long.

- I don't flow CX(who does).

- Wait to flip the coin until I'm in the room.

- If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Sunil Wahal BASIS Scottsdale HS 2 rounds

Daniel Waks BASIS Phoenix HS 6 rounds

Jordyn Walhof Hire

Last changed on Tue June 23, 2020 at 7:16 AM MST

I have almost exclusively done policy debate for 4 years (3 in high school and 1 at Arizona State). My time reading traditional and kritical arguments has been split nearly 50/50, so I’ll be able to keep up with any of the types of arguments you read. I think that debate is your space, and you should be able to do what you want with it (within reason). Tell me why you win the round, then convince me that you’re right. Longer/argument specific version below, if you want it.

----

DAs: I think good disads are getting harder to come by. If this is what you like to read and are good at it, go for it. That said, I can’t vote for a DA if part of it (uniqueness, impact, etc) is not extended.

CPs: Neg, please read a net benefit. Aff, should you always perm a CP? Yes. Can you effectively perm a CP in 4 seconds by saying “perm”? No.

Theory: I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, meaning that you should be able to prove that there was substantial abuse. I am more willing to buy theory that has an in-round impact than a potential impact in other rounds. Do not go for theory and another off case argument in the 2NR; you have to pick, or your theory argument doesn’t make any sense. Fairness, I don’t think, is an impact. Everything is unfair, so unless you can tell me why their interp is the most unfair thing of all time, I don’t really care. I will default to reasonability unless neg gives me a reason not to. All of that said, if aff drops theory and neg doesn’t, I will evaluate it over all other arguments (this includes topicality). Theory on the aff (condo args, etc) is also fine. I have not been convinced that condo is entirely good or bad, so I’m open to both sides of that debate.

FW: For theory-esque parts of FW, see above. As for round evaluation, both teams should have and read framework. If I don’t know how you want me to judge, then I will either figure it out myself or use the other team’s. This is not good for you. Both of the 2Rs should be telling me your framework, why it’s better and why you win it with your arguments. I will default to an ethical obligation/structural violence outweighs FW unless told otherwise.

Ks: I am familiar with some K literature, but do not assume that I have read your obscure interpretation of Marx, please. You should be able to tell me exactly what your alt does, but that DOES NOT mean it has to be a policy alt. K teams most often lose me on the alt and perm debate, so do extra explanation there. Most of the flow should be that and the links. If I can tell that you read this K every round with the same link and don’t explain it, I am less inclined to vote for it. Dropping the alt is fine, but you have to explicitly say that you are doing so and then explain whatever else you’re using the K evidence for.

K affs: Most of the time, I will buy a well-run FW argument on the neg. However, as K affs become more common, I am increasingly convinced that there are a lot of arguments that effectively counter them. If you have me as a judge, and you’re running a K aff, explain your version of debate in every speech in a way that gives me something comparable to the squo.

Debate that isn't policy: If you have the misfortune of getting me as an LD, PF, or Congress judge, then just debate as you normally would. I do know the rules and structure of these types of debate, but slow down if there is something that I really need to understand. I don't have anything applicable to say about what I like/dislike about these types of debate other than that they often do not rely as much on evidence, authors, etc. If you read an entire case without a single citation, I will not vote for it. If I'm your Congress judge, I will judge it like a speech event.

Misc:

- jordyn.walhof.27@gmail.com yes, add me to the email chain.

- flashing/email is not prep unless you’re being unreasonable with it.

- tag teaming is fine.

- impact calc is key. Please do it.

- I don’t know why I have to put this is here, but don’t say anything racist/sexist/otherwise rude or offensive. It’s not a good look, you will get low speaker points, and you may be dropped. If your opponents do this, do NOT feel afraid of calling them out.

- signpost, signpost, SIGNPOST; if I don’t know where to put something, I will not be flowing it

- do not extend evidence with just the author’s name; chances are, I didn’t actually hear it and don’t know what you’re talking about. Use a warrant from the card AND the author.

- if you make me laugh, you will get higher speaks; debate should be fun.

- feel free to email me if ever you have a question.

Mac Walker Copper Hills HS 4 rounds

Ben Wallek Elko HS 4 rounds

Devon Weis Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 7, 2023 at 12:52 PM EDT

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Apryl West Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds

Anna Williams Park City 3 rounds

Nina Williams Park City 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 28, 2022 at 7:03 AM MDT

i debated pf for 4 years in high school and am now a senior at villanova university.

how to win my ballot:

- weigh.

- i'm fine with speed. if you're losing clarity because of it, i'll call "clear".

- collapse!

here is how i think i’m like every other pf judge:

- don't just say that things are true, i want to hear some warrants. i won't vote on an argument i don't understand.

- if your offense is in ff, it should be in summary.

- hit the line-by-line hard.

- i know as close to nothing as possible about kritiks and theory. nonetheless, i'm not ideologically opposed to their use in public forum, so go for it if you can explain it in a way that a person who knows nothing can understand.

- a dropped argument is a true argument, but that doesn't mean it matters. you've still gotta weigh it to win the round on it.

- impact calculus is a waste of time if it isn't comparative and contextualized to your opponents' offense.

here is how i differ from community norms:

- in my rfds, great analytics beat a poorly-cut card 9/10 times. evidence quality matters, but quality argumentation matters a lot more.

- impact turn anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story and it can pay off to advance an uncommon perspective.

- if the off-time roadmap is more than five seconds, i will be very sad

- please don't steal prep!

- there's an over-reliance on stats in pf. tell me a story and explain why it matters.

- i will not drop a team for misconstruing evidence. the most i'll do is choose not to evaluate the evidence as part of the argument *if* it's indicted. if you realize that your opponent is misconstruing evidence, ask me to call for the card and i gladly will before making my decision.

speaker points: this is about what you say, not only how you say it. if you deserve to win rounds, you'll get high speaks.

the best piece of advice i ever heard during my 4 years debating came from my coach, gavin serr (our paradigm preferences are practically identical, so take a look if you'd like to learn more about my judging style):

debate in a way that you can be proud of, and always remember that your integrity is the most valuable thing that can be won or lost in a round.

questions? you can contact me at ngwilliams19@gmail.com.

Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale HS 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:35 AM MST

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

Sarah Wornow College Prep 6 rounds

Jinnie Xie Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 6, 2020 at 3:32 AM MST

I am a Hamilton High School (AZ) and Emory University alum. I debated in public forum in high school in the local and national circuit.

TLDR: Speed is fine but be clear, Warrants and Impacts are important so please extend them, Know your evidence and have your full cards ready, Don't be rude.

*For the medicare for all topic* ---- I am currently pursing a career in medicine and also currently work with patients everyday. I would say I have a pretty good understanding of how health insurance coverage and lack there of directly impacts patients and medical practices. I do not judge tabula rasa. With that in mind, please do not argue or state something that blatantly goes against humanism or makes no sense in a clinical setting. Even though the topic is on a bill and can be political, remember that patients are human and doctors actually care, regardless of what some random person in your evidence states.

Speed

I’m fine with speed as long as you are clear and audible and enunciate. Please do not spread. If you do choose to speak quickly, please go down the flow line by line or signpost. Even if you give an overview, signpost. If you're going to read your case quickly, slow down or pause before and after giving me taglines.

Speeches

My decision is mostly based on what is said in the final focus. If you’re going for something in the final focus, you absolutely need to flow it through in your summary EXCEPT for defense from rebuttal. You should frontline if you have time.

When extending impacts/responses/cards, you need to extend at least one warrant with it or else it's not going on my flow. Do not extend through ink. Please weigh and tell me what I'm voting for.

I don't pay attention to crossfire. On the off chance that something important happens during cross, bring it up in later speeches for me to consider it.

I tend to focus a lot on evidence. If I end up calling for a card at the end of the round and I see that you've clipped it to help your side and your opponents didn't call you out on it, I'm still going to use the evidence against you. So, it's in your best interest to not to use sketchy cards; make sure you know what your evidence actually says. PLEASE DOWNLOAD FULL CARDS.

Some other things:

I am by no means really good at or extremely informed in the history, polisci, or economics department, and possibly current events. This means that any background information that I need to know in order to understand your arguments needs to be addressed either in your case or at some point in the first half of the round. This is something that I think debaters should do anyway, but I find that it is not the case for most. Feel free to ask me about my familiarity with the topic/subject before the round. You can also assume that I know more of the topic the later the round is in a tournament.
I do not judge tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean I will develop your arguments for you. If there is something very wrong/flawed about your argument, I probably won't give it to you even if the other team doesn't call you out on it.
I would probably describe myself as a 85% flow judge 15% lay judge. If the round is between 2 very strong teams (i.e. multiple bids) and/or it is a late outround at a national tournament, treat me like a 50% flow 50% lay judge in the 2nd half of the round because my RFD at that point will probably be "you were more convincing" or "your side makes more sense to me."
Please don't assume I know what your acronyms stand for because I probably don't.
Please keep things like counterplans and Ks away from PF. I will look at disads, tho I prefer more traditional arguments.
Most importantly, please be respectful; there is a fine line between being aggressive and being condescending/rude. Be aware of what you're saying and how you're saying it, and be aware of your actions regardless if you're speaking or not.

Bonus points if you incorporate puns, song lyrics, or the words “duty” and "lugubrious" in your speeches or get creative with fun/nontraditional taglines :)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round!

Farzana Yasmin Corona Del Sol HS 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2020 — Tempe, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges