The use of evidence, logic and other methods to support contentions are important.

Effective communication is important. Excessive speed will result in lower points.

Specifically for CFL Squals 2021:

Treat me as a flay judge I will not be flowing intensely as if it was a full flow debate since this is a majority lay tournament but I will still be looking for argumentation and you to weigh the round for me and stuff like that so useless rhetoric and unwarranted claims are not going to win my ballot so still make strong arguments and warranting. Do not go flow mode and lose the other potential parent judge I would rather you have a clean lay debate with strong argumentation. Feel free to read through my flow paradigm just to get an idea of what my thought process is like. Good luck to all competing teams! I know you all have worked very hard through this weird year of competing and don't let the results of this affect your love and passion for debating!

Public Forum Paradigm (general things applicable to other formats):

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=123180

some more stuff:

• Please please please weigh links or at least tell me why your link is better in addition to the standard impact calc/comparative weighing mechanisms/meta weighing. I was a big user of the standard prewritten impact weighing (magnitude, timeframe, scope) but I realized that means 0 if you don't gain access to your link so do some strength of link weighing and tell me why to believe your link story over theirs. This really doesn't need to be that long but if it's a close round a better strength of link weighing (even if its like one sentence in both summary and ff) will definitely swing the ballot.
• I like all previous competitors have experienced a handful of terrible judge interventions. So if you don't make it clear for me I will, unfortunately, have to make a decision myself which might result in something you don't like. Please do not make me do that I want to just rely solely on the flow and not make you frustrated with an intervention.
• COLLAPSE DO NOT TELL ME YOU HAVE 5 VOTERS ON EACH SIDE DURING THE FF
• Tech over truth
• I have a high threshold for theory and probably will never vote on it unless I truly felt it was abusive. Substance debate ftw.
• Don't have a TON of experience with Ks but can handle them. If you run kritiks please explain them well and run good specific links with tangible real-world impacts. Prefer and would rather judge a case debate tho.
• W
• A
• R
• R
• A
• N
• T
• or I will not weigh or consider it. Remember to extend your warrants throughout.
• Speed is fine just be clear and do not exclude your opponents. If you can go fast, then you are skilled enough to go slower to be accessible and respectful to your opponents if they are uncomfortable with speed. Please refrain from spreading.
• Preflow before and please don't take forever to locate cards. If it takes an unprecedented amount of time to find it I won’t consider it
• I could care less about cross and probably will not be paying close attention. If you do make some round winning analysis or get some key concession, make sure that is mentioned in your speeches!
• I will be deeply saddened if you are overly aggressive or rude and your speaks will be dropped!

Finally, please do have fun. Speech and debate can be stressful and often disappointing but through my years it has given me so much that I just know I won't experience again so make the most of it. I do deeply care that you have that same experience so if you have any comments, concerns, questions about the round or in general talk to me or shoot me an email!

About me

In high school I did PF heavily for 2 years, Policy for 1, IX for 3. Currently a second year student at UCSD.

Email: tagashe@ucsd.edu

School Affiliation: Torrey Pines High School

Experience: I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging PF

In Round

I try to have average speaks be around 27.5-28. I will drop you if you are rude, racist, sexist, etc.

Please speak clearly at a moderate speed, and please don’t use too much jargon. You can also look at my face to see if I am confused or lost so that you can slow down or explain a little more.

I won’t have as much knowledge about the topic like debaters will, so please explain everything well.

Competed in Varsity PF in high school.

Tabula rasa style.

Decision based off of the flow, I am looking for clear, concise extensions that are warranted.

Do not extend through ink or try to extend dropped responses.

Make weighing on the voters clear for your own best interest.

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.

Public Forum Debate 

My criteria for a successful public forum debate are:

Debate rounds:

Agruments should clearly show depth of analysis and firm logic. Facts and numbers are encouraged to support your position.
Arguments should be presented in a persuasive manner. Arguments should not be presented too fast, avoiding excessively technical verbiage.
Overall, the presentation should be such that a wide ranging and well versed audience can understand it in the first instance.

Crossfire rounds:

This is the opportunity to show team work, command of the topic, passion and importantly, your critical listening skills. I am big fan of these rounds. 

Speaker Points:

Speaker performance is not solely dependent on verbal delivery of content. Body language, speed, clarity, voice modulation, eye contact, civility, professionalism....all these are equally important.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Hello!

I am a lay judge, however, I will take notes as you are speaking. Please do not spread, I prefer debtors who speak clearly. Please be kind to your opponent.

Being rude to opponents is not a good strategy.

Rolling your eyes will tank your speaks. Being rude and toxic will tank your speaks.

Lay out your arguments in a clear and slow manner so I can understand your points.

I vote off crossfire. Can't help it, but I do.

******EXTEND FULL ARGUMENTS******DO COMPARATIVE WEIGHING******HAVE FUN******

^the holy trinity

Hey! My name is Seb and I love debate.

.

My pf debate judging preferences

• I flow, but above all else I want to be persuaded
• I like when speeches are filled with jokes, analogies, and metaphors
• I dislike roadmaps, you can just tell me where you are starting and signpost the rest
• I like when rounds move quickly and debaters speak slowly
• I think the simplest strategy is usually the best strategy
• I dislike card dumping strategies, and more broadly prefer depth to breadth

.

My pf debate philosophies

I think that:

• Paraphrasing is good
• Disclosure is a bad norm
• Theory should only be used when necessary
• Non topical k’s are unfair
• I should only flow what I hear

.

My pf debate advice

1. Collapse on your most important argument. If you are winning your entire case, you have no reason to go for all of your offense in Final Focus- extend the best offense you have, because it'll outweigh the rest of your case anyways. If you're getting up in FF and telling me that there are four voters in the round, you are doing it wrong.

2. Have a consistent narrative throughout the round. Everything that you go for in your Final Focus needs to have been in your Summary, and you cannot introduce new arguments after Rebuttal. I should be able to flow your arguments from Constructive all the way to FF.

3. Treat your opponents with respect. Debate has a tendency to get heated, which is perfectly fine. However, being in the zone is not an excuse to be rude in CX or any other part of the round. Please be courteous and chill when speaking to one another, even if it means that you wont have time to get to that one GaMe ChAnGiNg crossfire question you have.

4. Debate in the style that you are the most comfortable with. I am familiar with everything from very traditional to very technical pf. While my judging philosophy is on the technical side, every round can be won with smart debating, no matter what style that is. Don't feel the need to go fast or use more debate jargon just to win my ballot.

5. Signpost Signpost Signpost. I should be told exactly where the arguments you are making need to be flowed. If there was an argument that you thought won you the round but I don't have it on my flow, you probably didn't signpost it well and I had no idea where to put it. Bad signposting is the #1 cause of debate judge migraines.

6. Do comparative and meta-weighing. Claiming that you "win on magnitude because your impact is 3 million lives" or that you "win on probability because it's gonna happen" is bad weighing. Comparative weighing is making a weighing analysis directly between your impact and your opponents' impact. Meta weighing is comparing two different weighing mechanisms against each other (like saying why probability is more important than scope, etc.). Using these methods to weigh your impacts properly will go a long way.

7. Be Personable! At its core, debate is a game of persuasion. To me, the best debaters are always smiling, engaged, friendly, and working to simplify the round the best they can. Charisma and critical thinking are the most portable skills that you develop in this activity, and they are the fundamental to both your performance in round and interactions outside of debate.

I have been judging speech and debate tournaments since 2014. I do not like spreading or technical jargon, but I understand the basics of argumentation. I take notes but I don't flow in a traditional sense. Passion for the topic and respect for the opponents are something I look for. The way the competitors carry themselves in the debate is important to me.

I am most experienced in judging Public Forum debate and am familiar with a claim-warrant-impact structure. I usually make my decisions based on which team better meets the framework of the debate. Off-time road maps are always appreciated, as well as the use of lay-friendly rhetoric.

Hello! I'm a third year parent judge, but I am experienced. When speaking, please speak slow, I judge what I can understand. I am not so clear on debate terms, so either clarify of refrain from complicated terms. A weighing mechanism (in debate) is preferred so I know how to judge the round. That's about it, good luck! :)

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Background

I competed in Public Forum on the National Circuit for all 4 years of High School. I’ve qualified for Gold TOC, Nationals, and placed 5th at state, so I’ll flow don’t worry. I’m a fan of public forum being for the public so I prefer you to stay away from theory and technical debates and focus on the real, tangible impacts of the resolution.

General

Warrant your arguments well. If you read something, explain why it happens/its true. This applies to blocks in rebuttal as well as case arguments. I’ll be writing down evidence cards so if you’re gonna carry something across the flow mention it by name.

Please weigh. Love that.

Signpost. This also makes everyone's life a lot easier and if you do it well, I'll reward you with higher speaker points.

Time yourself but I probably will too because I hate when teams go like 30 seconds over.

I believe public forum should be accessible to everyone. I’m big on the idea that it was made for the public and should be treated as such. I will probably not vote off of theory unless there is a serious abuse. If you do decide to run theory, don't run it as a cheap way to win.

Evidence

Preferably read dates

Don't misconstrue evidence.

Usually I won’t judge the evidence myself unless what you say sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I will not call for a card unless I am explicitly told to or both teams read conflicting evidence and neither team weighs one over the other.

Case/Rebuttal

Warrants are mega important. If there's an x% increase in _____, tell me why.

Second rebuttal doesn't have to respond to defensive responses but I highly suggest using the advantage of speaking second and responding to offense in the first rebuttal (case turns and offensive overviews). I don't require any kind of time-split (2-2, 3-1, etc). However, I won't buy a brand new response (to a turn) made in second summary unless the turn came in first summary.

Arguments that are not responded to are considered conceded but only if the team brings up that it was dropped. If the summary calls the argument conceded, and it is, then they will probably win the round unless you can outweigh the argument effectively.

If you're turning something label it as a turn, I'll probably figure it out on my own but it just visually makes it easier on my flow.

Offensive Overviews

I will only evaluate offensive overviews if they are read in first rebuttal. Case turns and general responses/defensive overviews are permitted in both rebuttals.

To clarify, don't run random DA's or new contentions in 2nd rebuttal and call it an"Overview." I think this is unfair as it gives the first speaking team almost no time to respond.

Summary/Final Focus

You don't need defense in first summary unless there was frontlining in second rebuttal. You do need turns.

Don't read any new evidence in second summary unless you're responding to new arguments from first summary.

I will not evaluate arguments in the Final Focus that weren't in the summary.

Don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Give me 1-2 voters in final focus.

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh. I want magnitude, time scale, all of that good stuff.

Crossfire

My attention to crossfire will usually be solely for speaker points. I don’t weigh it highly unless it’s brought up in a speech.

How I vote

I'll look at what offense was extended through summary and final focus then vote for the argument/narrative that was weighed best. If no one weighs then I'll do my own weighing and that means there's a good chance you will be upset with the outcome. If both teams weigh and it's still very close, I will take the path of least resistance i.e. the cleanest piece of offense in the round.

I debated in High School for all four years and qualed to TOC. I have experience in mainly PF, but on a number of occasions I debated circuit LD, holistically I'm more familiar with PF and the style in general. There are a few things I love to see in rounds and a few things that I hate to see. Otherwise, don't try to mold yourself too much to me as a judge, I just want to see a good debate.

Onto some of the things I love to see in rounds. Super intense crossfire is always fun, but I will not flow anything said unless you bring it up in a later speech, which I feel is pretty standard across most judging pools. Weigh your impacts, duh, but unless it's clearly warranted and you stress why it's important, it won't mean much to me. Remember I'm not the one researching this topic for weeks/months, clearly tell me why you won. I like jokes, make one and I might bump your speaker points up. Please don't come across as condescending or rude if you do that, your opponents probably don't deserve nor need that, and I don't want to watch it. I love a good offtime roadmap before rebuttal, summary, and ff. Please signpost to let me know where you are on my flow, this will greatly improve the chances of me fully comprehending your argument.

Now onto some of the general things I don't want to see in round. As a girl debater, and coming from a majority girl team, I faced a lot of sexism and heard countless stories about judges and fellow competitors participating in sexism in the round. I have no tolerance for seeing that. If you are a male/boy debater please be conscious of your actions throughout the round. Just because your voice is deeper and louder, does not give you permission to speak over anyone else in the room. It also does not make you a better speaker. Please be courteous and mindful and there should be no issue. The second thing I hate to see in rounds is rude behavior towards your opponent. Even if you think you are winning, win with grace and don't be a jerk. There's no need for that behavior and it could lose you speaker points, and potentially the round if it's severe enough. Please don't spread unless your taglines are clear. Like I said I did circuit LD and PF so I can flow it, but if I can't hear a tagline that looks poorly on you and the argument. I'm the judge you should want me to hear everything you have to say. The last thing is framework. I will not vote on a framework unless it is clearly extended through each speech. Don't just say the words cost-ben or utilitarianism, and expect me to perfectly fit that to your case. If you want it to impact the round, tell me why you win under it specifically to this round. But don't bring it up unless you actually want me to vote on it.

As of right now I'm judging at tournaments and attending college, but I really want to help give good feedback that could potentially help you in a later round. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round starts.

About Me::

-I have been in forensics for 6+ years

-I've debated in college, most of my experience is in NPDA Parli and IPDA (International Public Debate). I've probably done every speech event that's been available for me to do, competing in Interp and platforms all throughout high school (college too, though more platform at this level)

-I was a speech/interp coach for two and a half years at Mountain House High School.

-I'm currently a double major in Economics and International Relations at the University of California, Davis.

Overview::

-I'm familiar with jargon, theory, as well as "K's" in debate (I DO NOT LIKE KRITIQUES)

-I look for a story when it comes to interp, I can't stand it when I'm only getting glimpses of a scene that doesn't make sense.

-I'm fine with speed in debate, but keep it reasonable or I'm going to miss something.

-Make sure platforms have a cohesive pace, engagement is through your tone; if you're bored I'm bored.

-I try my best to flow the whole debate, that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. I protect the flow the best I can (call point of orders if you like just in case).

When Judging::

Speech~

-I see the story as everything, if there's no story there's no point (this goes for both interps and platforms)

-Character, blocking, and articulation is most important in any speech. If you're lacking in one of these three it'll be really hard for me to rank you high in the round.

-Please let there be a clear indication that you've switched into your intro. Otherwise, I get confused when the piece and the intro blend. Your intro should explain your message, if you're not giving me that, then you've wasted this one glimpse I get at the whole point of your piece.

-Please stay positive to your round mates, you're all there for the same reason. Don't stonewall and pay attention, I feel as if it's a lame tactic that does nothing but make you look like a jerk. I count this towards speaker points (if applicable).

Debate~

-I enjoy good clash in the round, go into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). This means link refutations and impact comparisons/weighing.

-Make your case, arguments need to have a point. Useless arguments that you just say and don't come back to, makes me question why it was said.

-Organization is key; please signpost, roadmap, whatever needs to be done to tell me where you are putting your arguments. Tell me where you want me to vote on the flow.

-Impact analysis is essential to all debates, impact statements without analysis are not impacting, it's reiterating the argument, if you are going to tell me why it matters, make it matter!

-Tell me why you are winning, give me voters in your rebuttal. At the end of the day, whatever is on my flow is what you have going for you. So you have to show me why you won. I will not do the work for you, if you don't carry the arguments over, I won't carry it over.

-Theory, if done well, is something I see as useful. It's your check against your opponents to prevent shifting or other unfair actions. That being said, I don't mind that you use it to collapse and win, or even for strategy (but don't be shady about it!). Theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interpretation level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (am I rejecting the argument or the team?) and why is it more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate).

* The framework I default to is Net Benefits...

-K's are not my thing. I never liked them, so doing one in front of me is probably not a good idea. The literature in them is often so individualized that I can't keep up a lot of the time with the point you're trying to make. I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard and for that reason, I don't see it as a smart argument to be made.

Overall::

-The point of forensics is to create experiences that could be used outside of rounds.

-Be courteous, respectful, and inclusive to everybody you interact with

-Go nuts and have fun doing it :)

Yes, I would like to be included in the email chain: ghanimian.levon.98@gmail.com

Educational background:

- BA in History from California State University, Northridge. My focus was on the Medieval and Early Modern Middle East.

- MA in Community-Engaged Education and Social Change from Claremont Graduate University. My research mainly focused on Settler Colonialism in education and how to use Critical Pedagogy to develop praxis.

Debating and Coaching background:

High School: Traditional LD with Granada Hills Charter

College: Policy with California State University, Northridge

Coaching: Traditional and Circuit LD at Granada Hills Charter (2016-2021), Public Forum at Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy (2017-2020). I mainly coached Traditional LD at Granada Hills Charter.

Debate Style: Since I did traditional LD in high school, almost all of my circuit knowledge comes from policy debate. I mostly read K's in Policy.

It's been a minute that I've judged TOC debate, so you might wanna limit how much jargon you use. Please take time to explain things clearly to me. I appreciate debaters who do this a lot!

General:

- LARP > Plan v. K > K v. K > Phil/Theory > Tricks

- Please slow down for analytics. I can't follow your arguments if I can't understand them.

- Don't be rude.

- Don't be someone who advocates for discriminatory or harmful positions.

- I'm not omniscient. I greatly value quality over quantity. Take time to explain things to me, especially terms or concepts that would generally be considered inaccessible.

- Clarity is one of the most important things for me in a round.

- I used to be completely tech>truth, but tricks and friv theory are pushing me to a more techy truth approach.

- I usually see myself giving 28.5 on average. I tend to give one 30 out per year.

- I'm pessimistic about the future of debate mainly because competitors do not bother to explain anything to the judge and they treat the judge as if they're an idiot for not knowing something. Taking the time to break away from your script to explain something to me is something I look forward to.

FW:

- I'm generally fine with any T/FW arguments you decide to run as long as they're ethical. Warrant your interps and counterinterps well. I like to see good clash with T/FW. In other words, actually interact with your opponent's claims.

- Please articulate your links clearly.

- I'm not the most familiar with RVI args, so reading it in front of me might leave me wondering how to evaluate the argument.

Kritik:

- Theories I'm fairly familiar with: Critical Pedagogy, Settler Colonialism, Cap, Foucault.

- I like performance debate a lot, but sometimes it's hard for me to follow along with the link, so I'd appreciate it if the links are clearly articulated.

- I am really interested in identity K's, but I don't feel comfortable voting for debaters that don't identify with their K and simply use it as a tool to win. Otherwise, I'm all for hearing identity politics and performance.

- Please clearly establish your alt.

- I'm down for PIKs

- I believe TVA is a strong argument against K Aff's.

- If you are going to run something that is high theory: Zizek, Delueze & Guattari, Derrida, Baudrillard, Agamben, etc., please explain it to me like it's not high theory. In other words, explain it to me like I'm five.

DA:

- My only request here is that YOU do all of the link work for me. I will not fill in gaps for you.

- A conceded DA will usually never look good for you.

CP:

- Net Benefit, net benefit, net benefit

- Don't drop the perm. I would like to see actual interaction with the perm.

- I think condo, generally, is good, but I'm willing to evaluate a condo bad arg.

- I don't mind PICs

Theory:

- I'm not a fan of frivolous theory by any means. (Highlighter, Brackets, Shoes, etc.)

- I believe that theory should be used as an actual check against abuse in round.

- I don't mind "X" argument bad arguments.

- Otherwise, explain theory clearly and simply to me.

Tricks:

-No, just no.

Case:

- Both sides, DO NOT drop the case.

- Aff, I think it's super important to hammer down on the fact that the case stands through. Too many debaters spend too much time on off cases and leave their case in a very vulnerable position.

- Responding to the case is a MUST. If you're a K debater, it's not mandatory for me but it will convince me to vote for you even more if you are able to pull direct rhetorical links from the AC.

Postrounding:

- Please feel free to ask me any questions after I give my RFD.

- It's very possible that you do not agree with my, or any other judges', interpretations in a round you lost. This DOES NOT give you the right to yell at your judge or the competitor.

- If you have any other questions after the round, please feel free to email me.

Speed:

- I'm generally okay with spreading, but I'd appreciate if slow down for analytics.

- Slow down for tags and authors.

- DO NOT spread if your opponent is not okay with spreading.

Public Forum:

- I vote off of a general offense/defense paradigm and use cost/benefit framework. However, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to have another FW in round.

-I expect arguments to be extended through summary to final focus if you intend on winning off of them. I don't have specific preferences for PF besides these, so if you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.

I AM A LAY PARENT JUDGE. Treat me as such in the round. I can understand complex arguments, but make sure it makes sense. Clarity is super important. I do not understand/evaluate Kritiks, Tricks, Spreading, Theory (I won’t understand theory unless it is something really abusive. Run at your own risk). Please weigh, extend, defend your case, and signpost. While generally cross examination doesn't effect my decision, key concessions are important to bring up in speeches.

Random stuff:

• I flow
• Everything said in Final Focus must be mentioned in summary.
• For framework you can read it but don’t spend time on it unless it is very different from your opponent’s.
• You can give me an off time roadmap
• I WILL NOT EVALUATE DISCLOSURE THEORY
• Be cool about evidence. Don’t misrepresent it.
• Have your evidence organized and find it quickly if someone calls for it.

Note about outrounds: I get that I am lay and if I am on a panel with two tech judges I might just get dropped/ignored, try not to do this though, PF is designed for the general public to understand (ie lay judges) so try to keep it that way.

Hello debate enthusiasts,

I am a parent judge who enjoys watching public forum debate. For the benefit of the community, I would like to use this passion and turn it into service as a debate judge.

Regarding speaking preferences, clarity is very important to me. I dislike spreading and prefer a more moderate pace.

Also, I value thoughtful and insightful debates with emphasis on impacts and command over topic literature. Make sure you effectively extend your claims in summary and crystalize your impacts in final focus.

In my book of judging, logic is as important as evidence.

Wishing good luck to all the competitors at the tournament!

Hi everyone! 

My name is Scott Hong and I am a junior from Fairmont Preparatory Academy. I know you guys don't want to spend 10 mins going through a high school kid's paradigm so I will make it short.

Quick Intro ->

I've been doing debate specifically Public forum for about 3 years now and I've competed in the national circuit for 2 years. 

Flow ->

I do flow in round. I don't flow cross fire but I will listen. If anything important is mentioned in cx, it must be mentioned in your speeches again for me to vote/weigh it. 

Rebuttal -> 

You are not obligated to frontline (defend) your case if you are speaking 2nd. Just make sure you do so in summary. 

Summary/Final Focus ->

Summary and Final Focus must match. If there is an argument that you want me to vote for, it has to be mentioned in your summary and final focus for me to vote for it. If there are any warrants/turns you are extending, make those extensions clear for me. You must also explain the warrant behind the card that you are extending. Don't just say "extend Jacobi in 2017." Tell me why that evidence is important and why I should vote for it.

Weighing ->

Weighing is not necessary in summary but it is better if you do. It makes my job and your partner's job easier. For final focus however, weighing must be done in 4 ways: Magnitude, scope, timeframe, and probability. Make your voters clear and do a comparative world analysis. 

 

 

TL DR

Treat me like a lay judge, probably.

I debated for Lake Mary Prep for 3 years in high school

I am not well read on the topic, usually. I'm probably well read on any econ arguments that may come up.

Speed is tolerated but not recommended. Warrants, links, and weighing are highly recommended if you want my ballot.

Good luck have fun.

Crossfire:

I will be paying attention to crossfire, unless I am obligated to write down comments within the ballot. I believe that crossfire is a key part of the debate round, and any concessions and answers to questions will be binding. If you want something from crossfire to be on the flow, however, mention it in a speech.

Frontlining:

I believe that defense should be somewhat sticky. My likelihood of believing/accepting frontlines decreases as the round progresses. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required.

This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. But you certainly shouldn't feel obligated to.

Extensions of Defense:

With a three minute summary, I think it's not too difficult to extend defense. So please do so. At all times, extending defense is a great way of reinforcing your argument and persuading me further.

More specifically, you must re-extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped.

Second summary should definitely be extending defense, but I will allow defensive extensions from second rebuttal to second final focus (if it is not interacted with), because I think frontlining is super important to debate. But, again, the more you repeat/extend an argument, the more likely it is that I understand it and factor it into my decision.

Extensions of Offense:

An extension of an argument is only accepted as offense if BOTH the link AND the impact are extended. Extend the warrants behind both of these parts as well. This means that if I don't have BOTH of these parts of an argument extended in both the second half speeches, I won't vote for it unless there are severely unusual circumstances

Keep your summaries and final foci consistent based on the most important issues in the round (they should be about the same arguments).

Please consolidate the debate as early as possible (2nd rebuttal + First summary) into the most important arguments, then focus on those arguments. I prefer 1 well-explained, well-extended, well-weighed argument over 100 that aren't done very well.

Weighing:

don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponent's to help me vote for you. If you just repeat your impact and attach a "magnitude" or "scope" to it, I won't evaluate it as weighing.

Evidence Stuff:

I will not call evidence until it is absolutely crucial to my decision. This means that if I don't understand your argument by the end of the round, (link-story or impact scenario), I will not call for your evidence to clarify it, you just won't generate much offense. Please warrant well with this in mind, as there are three scenarios where I will call for round-changing evidence.

1. I am explicitly told to call for it as an implication of an indict.

2. There are competing interpretations from the teams and neither team gives me a compelling reason to prefer theirs.

3. The meaning of the evidence has been changed/misconstrued when extending it throughout the round.

Finally, I require qualifications of sources. Saying Smith 19 doesn't quite do it for me, who is smith and why should i trust his opinion? Oral citations should preferably include Last name, qualification, and the date. If you don't read qualifications at least in case, which can be as basic as the website you are citing from, your speaker points won't be over a 28.5

Speed:

You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but don't be full on spreading unless a) you can be super clear while doing it and b) your opponents are ok with it. I really won't tolerate it if speed is used to exclude more local/inexperienced debaters from competing.

Tech vs Truth:

I'm more tech than truth. But, I'll have a lower threshold for analytical responses when an argument is super out there, and be more likely to buy the defense it. If you wanna go crazy, do so, but make sure you're not misconstruing evidence, and explain your argument and the warrants behind it super well.

Other:

Please don't say judge or refer to me in the round. If you say "judge" over 5 times in one speech I'll make an angry face.

I will evaluate progressive arguments but I'm not well read on the literature. If you read these type of arguments, go slow, be clear with your links and warrants, and how the role of the ballot should operate otherwise.

When there's no offense in the round I could default either neg or first. I probably default neg if I'm not explicitly called on to default first.

General Notes

Don't be a bigot. This includes misgendering competitors. You will lose the ballot.

I generally give relatively high speaks due to the subjective nature of speaker points and the issues therein.

Remember to time yourselves and your opponents.

At invitationals, add me to the email chain using crystal.debate.speech@gmail.com .

In all forms of debate, I value logical argumentation and strong analytics supported by credible evidence. Speed, if clear, is fine, as long as it remains at a level that works for all debaters in the round. Out-spreading an opponent kills education.

Policy (and Policy-Style Parli)

I am open to theory arguments and will rarely vote on T , but you need to explain them clearly and thoroughly in the round. I studied critical theory as applied to literature in both undergraduate and graduate school, so I have a strong background in feminist, Marxist, deconstructionist, queer, and psychoanalytic theory. I enjoy a well-executed K, but only run kritiks you know well -- not something you grabbed off the wiki/open ev.

I strive to evaluate the round using the framework agreed upon by the debaters and do not have a particular preference regarding stock issues, policy maker, etc.

LD

Support and bring everything back to your V/VC -- even if you're running a plan (for non-CA LD). Evidence certainly matters but evidence without analytics will do very little for you.

PF

I'll accept theory arguments when necessary to address in-round abuse, but please proceed with caution. I still value Public Forum as a form of debate that can be understood by lay judges, so please don't spread or run a K, and keep the jargon to a minimum.

Speech

In extemp, I want to see your introduction connect clearly with the topic and the rest of the speech (bring it back briefly at the end). Please clearly sign-post your main points and cite your evidence (ideally with more than just "According to the New York Times this year..."). Don't be afraid to use humor -- even if it's a little dark. Most of all, be authentic, engaging, and keep things flowing.

I will give time signals in extemp and impromptu.

In original oratory, original advocacy, & informative speaking, I look for well-crafted speeches delivered with fluency and appropriately varied tones.

If you're competing in an interp event, your intro should make me care about the topic at hand and should, of course, be your original words. Also, if you're competing in oratorical interpretation and the original speech includes cursing, please say the actual words or select a different speech (e.g., AOC's 2020 address to Rep. Yoho in which she quotes his profanity).

"People have become educated, but have not yet become human.” - Abdul Sattar Edhi.

TLDR;

Do whatever you want, but do impact calculus.

A Little About Me:

I competed for Dougherty Valley High School between 2015 to 2019 in Public Forum and Extemp. It's been a number of years since I was involved in the debate space and I'm sure PF has changed since I left. I am generally okay with any type of argument, but I have limited experience with K's and Theory. You will benefit if you slow down while presenting these types of arguments.

Specific To Stanford 2024:

I am fine with spreading but I would highly prefer you email speech docs to your judge beforehand.

On The Juicy Stuff.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) judge so I will believe anything you tell me, but it needs to be warranted. I try to limit my judge intervention as much as I can, however, I won't be afraid to intervene is if there is no impact calculus in the round. Other than that, I'm fine with any type of argument you throw at me, and you can speak as fast as you want.

I will try to be a visible judge so if I start shaking my head maybe don't go for that argument, but if I am nodding that's probably a good sign. I use my computer to flow. I will yell clear if it is too fast, but my threshold is pretty good, but if you want to full-on spread please flash me the speech doc so I know whats going on.

Tech > Truth.

Time Yourselves.

I evaluate framework and overviews right on top. I love it when I know what impacts are going to be the most important, and which impacts I should prefer. This helps you organize and helps me understand what the narrative of your team is. I love, love, love overviews/underviews and think they make Public Forum Debate interesting.

Please sign post, especially in Summary and Final Focus.

Whatever is in Final Focus must be in Summary, however I am totally ok with you extending defense from rebuttal to final focus if you are the first speaking team. This is because I believe that Public Forum Debate is structurally disadvantaged for the first speaking team. That means first summary obviously needs to have all your offense. I will literally stop flowing if the argument in Final Focus is not in Summary.

I love it so much when teams collapse into two to three issues in Final Focus. I love it when teams blow up impacts in Summary and Final Focus and use the ends of their speeches to do Impact Calculus. This is really important, I NEED good impact calculus to evaluate who I vote for. I need to know why you win on things like Probability, Magnitude, or Time-Frame and I need to know why those are more important than what your opponents are going for. If you don't know what impact calc is do some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_calculus

I award speaks based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will not be afraid to vote you down and nuke your speaks.

I will always call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. I am bad at remembering tags, but I definitely call for cards.

PLEASE FOLLOW NSDA/CHSSA (Depending on the tourney) EVIDENCE RULES AND HAVE EVIDENCE ETHICS. I need to hear author last name and date in the speech, otherwise its just rhetoric.

On other arguments. I'm totally ok with things like K's, Theory, whatever else but do know that I personally have minimal experience with K's or theory shells so I will need these types of args to be well warranted and explained.

If you have ANY questions about my paradigm or my decisions please do not be afraid to ask.

If you are funny and not offensive, I'll probably up your speaks.

Good Luck!

Also I think the way that I view debate is very similar to Shreyas Kiran, so check out his paradigm if you are bored.

Email me at TheSaadJamal@gmail.com if you have any questions.

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.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

(he/him)

- For PF, you can use my partners paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=saad&search_last=jamal

- Competed in PF for 4 years at Dougherty Valley

- I have minimal experience with any type of argument not traditionally run in PF (Ks, theory, etc.).

email: kiranshreyas29@berkeley.edu

This is my second year in the Speech and Debate community and I thoroughly enjoy judging. I am a parent of a varsity debater, so I am fairly familiar with the process. Please do not spread unless I can still understand every word you say. Please make your impacts and the reasons why you win very evident and clear in your rebuttals. I want both debaters to feel comfortable and confident, and take something of value away from every debate. I am fine with policy and circuit LD arguments, as long as they are delivered in an educated, clear manner. Good luck, debaters!

Key Considerations:

• Substance and quality of argument outweighs style of argumentation.

• Provide a clear thesis for which you are contending and make sure that you accomplish it in such a rate of delivery that can be followed.

• Strong development of IMPACTS, appropriate evidence, proper linkage are all assets in round.

• Healthy clash is encouraged so that each posited argument clearly claims its unique ground. Vigorous clash is welcomed as long as it is with clear respect for one's opponents.

• In the end, give me a clear route to giving you a winning ballot.

Experience:

• This is ONLY MY SECOND YEAR Speech and Debate coach. I am still learning and adjusting. I have judged in Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln Douglas debates at district tournaments, state tournaments and national tournaments.

USC Alum (class of 2023)

Debated for 4 years for University School in Cleveland, OH. Competed on the circuit at a handful of tournaments. Coached at a few camps after graduating.

Overall, slightly technical but haven't competed in debate for a little while. I can try my best to follow speed but be prepared with a speech doc if you're going to go really fast.

Ask questions about voting preferences before the round starts if you want

1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.

2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.

3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.

3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.

4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.

5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.

6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.

7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."

last updated for chssa state quals:

will evaluate the debate as a lay judge unless both teams agree to a fast debate. please do not spread unless both teams are on-board and in agreement. in a split setting, please adapt to the most lay judge in your speed and explanation.

my paradigm is pretty short because i try to be very tab rasa lol. you can run arguments that are factually not true if you'd like (climate denialism, etc.) but just know that because of my own personal biases that i cannot help despite trying to be very tab rasa is that my threshold for evaluating those arguments is probably a lot lower than other arguments.

about me: debated policy four years at leland. in high school i competed in both lay and circuit policy (i've debated stock issues and ran Ks, CP, DAs, theory, FW, etc.). that being said, if you're more comfortable with stock issues, debate stock issues. if you're more comfortable with circuit, then go circuit. i don't care what you run as long as you debate it well and you can explain your arguments. creative arguments will be rewarded (speaks!)

i don't have an argument preference—i will vote on anything as long as you tell me why i should vote on it over your opponents' arguments. i never envisioned myself running a k aff, but my partner junior year wanted to run one so we ended up doing it. as a former debater, i know that judge intervention is annoying, so it's up to y'all to tell me which arguments to prefer and why (framing!) my personal preferences and thoughts about arguments don't play a role when it comes to deciding who debated better in a round.

critics / coaches who I respect / admire / had a large influence on my debate career: Michaela Northrop, Stacy Dawson, jon sharp, Mark Hernandez, Mylan Gray. you should also check out my former partner's paradigm (Allen Kim), who has a far better articulated paradigm than mine, and we generally hold similar views on good debating.

also, i try to make my facial expressions expressive so yall can tell what arguments im jiving with / which arguments i'm unclear on or have doubts about. please don't take it personally! i personally preferred being judged by individuals who were responding to my arguments, which is why i try to do the same now.

imp. disclaimer:

please be nice to each other! at the end of the day, we're here because we want to learn and debate is fun, and i think pettiness and toxicity ruins debate for everyone. there's a clear line between witty humor or sarcasm and rudeness. don't cross it, or it'll be reflected in your speaks.

ask me any specifics before the round! hnh.debate@gmail.com

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

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.

I debated on the National Circuit for all four years of High School in Public Forum. During that time, my partner and I qualified for Gold TOC multiple times, Nationals, and placed 5th at State.

The reason I love PuFo is because it’s a debate for the layman. I prefer if theory and technical debates and spreading stay in Policy. In PuFo, I like to see well formulated arguments that are supported by evidence and can be evaluated based on the impacts of the claims.

On the flow, I weigh evidence pretty heavy. Make sure that when you make links, you are able to support each of them with evidence. Don’t make illogical or wacky links that can’t be substantiated. Furthermore, please make links. If you are not linking you claim to your impact clearly, I will drop the whole impact from the flow. This is also something that you should call out if the other team fails to make links.

In first and second constructive, make sure you signpost. This makes flowing much easier for everyone.

First rebuttal should be spent refuting the other team’s arguments. Second Rebuttal should be spent refuting the other team’s arguments and also addressing responses made to the case.

I don’t look for structure too much in summary, just make sure you are not just spewing a bunch of infomation. Make it organized and clear. Also, the more your summary and final focus flow together, the easier it is for me to keep things on the flow. Furthermore, first and second summary should address clash and weigh.

Final focus should not be used to tell me why your opponents lost the round, but why your team won.

I don’t usually flow cross, but I do pay attention. Make sure you aren’t getting over emotional and you are prepared with questions and responses.

If a framework is not provided, I will default to cost-benefit analysis. Make sure weighing of impacts is done throughout the round and the most in final focus.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

1/21/23

I am getting back into circuit/progressive debate this year, though the last time I was considerably involved was 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty, and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but recognize the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks in my opinion.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes (frivolous theory).

I am a parent Judge, however do not mistake that for being ignorant of the debate community. This is the second year judging debate and I graduated from CSU Long Beach with a degree in communications. 

Be respectful. If someone asks to see your evidence give it to them. 

Please be clear! Talk as fast as you want, but I need to be able to understand what you are saying. I won't flow what I don't understand.

Framework and impact calc are key! Give me a clear way to evaluate the round. Do not leave me without a mechanism to judge. 

Explain your warrants. Give me a play-by-play of the scenario and always state your reasons WHY. 

Kritiks are fine, run them all you want, but make sure you understand the material you're reading. Make sure they are warrented. This needs to be done well.  If a kritik is being run I expect you very knowledgeable about the topic. I need a clear idea of what I'm voting for. 

 

I competed in Lincoln Douglas and parliamentary debate for four years, as well as competing in various speech vents. Currently, I am both a college competitor and do freelance debate and speech coaching.

Speed/Preferred Style : I prefer speakers that are clear and concise, and ultimately do you prefer a slower debate. Well I am not opposed to debaters to do speed or spread relatively fast, be clear you are, the more likely I will be able to understand your position and evaluate effectively.

Main Philosophy: Ultimately, I mainly judge other tabula rasa. I honestly am for anything within the debate as long as the debaters are able to explain it in a way that is both effective, concise, and competitive. It is the role of a competitor to tell me what is important, and as long as they effectively do so over their opponent they do deserve the ballot. I do come from a Lincoln Douglas/value centric background, so admittedly I am partial to moral theory and arguments.

I generally take a tabula rasa approach to judging. However, having experience as a former debater, I will not evaluate arguments that are blatantly incorrect or offensive. I will normally disclose but If you want a good oral critique, then be willing to get roasted.

In the round:

• I need impact calculus with comparative analysis in the final speeches, otherwise I’ll be forced to evaluate your arguments myself which will likely not be as favorable for you.
• Don’t extend through ink.
• I only weigh arguments in the final focus if they were also in your summary.
• Don’t go for everything past the rebuttal. Employ strategic issue selection and tell me what the important voters are and why you are winning them.

 Arguments:

• I’m fine with most arguments but if you choose to go progressive (kritiks, theory, etc.) do it right, don’t butcher it, and stick to the procedurals.
• Framework is not an essential part of public forum. That being said if you choose to read a framework, utilize it because I will vote off it.

Delivery:

• I’ll give extra speaks for a tastefully savage remark. This is NOT an invitation to be rude which I have no tolerance for.
• When it comes to your rate of delivery, I’m fine with whatever but be sure not to sacrifice clarity for speed.
• I don’t flow cross so don’t get upset if I’m not writing while you and your opponent compete to talk over each other. This means that if you want me to account for an argument, you need to bring it up in a speech.

 

 

 

I competed LD all four years of high school. I did mostly league, so I'm not too familiar with circuit debate. I have some familiarity with Ks, theory, plans, etc, so feel free to run anything, and I'll try my best to follow your arguments.

Off time roadmaps and signposting are helpful.

I don’t use the info in cross, so if there is anything important, you have to bring it up in your other speeches.

I prefer if you don’t spread, but if you want to anyways, you can. It probably won't effect my decision, like I won't take off speaker points, if you do. I just might have a harder time following you. If you are going to spread though, please flash or send me your cases.

Also sorry ahead of time about how I assign speaker points. I feel like I'm pretty bad at determining how much speaker points to give people, so I apologize in advance if what I give you doesn't match how you feel you performed.

You can ask me more questions about how I judge before the round, and I’ll try to answer you the best I can :)

I'm a typical flow judge that did decently well in PF while I was involved (qualled twice, won a quarters bid, etc). Only a few caveats:

1) I hate speech docs. I will not flow off the doc but off what I hear. I've never been unable to flow speed in PF (so far). If you go too fast, I'll ask for a doc.

2) I like evidence comparison, but comparisons that make me actually think are not good. Lay it out for me. Analyze the discrepancy, why it matters, and how it impacts my choice as a judge.

3) I hate weighing. Weighing is obviously a must, but I feel too much of recent debates I've judged have been "meta-weighing" and just back and forth on weighing as opposed to substance. I really like it when there's some clash on weighing, but even more emphasis on how people win the actual substance of the argument and how the arguments implicate under the weighing. I'd prefer you to add how your contention fits your opponent's weighing mechanism more than you reading pre-written reasons why your weighing mechanism is good.

4) As hinted earlier I dislike things that are pre-written (especially rebuttal and summary). Makes for boring debate and ruins the educational value of each round. I won't dock speaks (my partner also only read off a doc lmao), but I will not give you a 30. I'm looking for responses in rebuttal that are specific to the particular details in your opponent's case, weighing/frontlines in summary that are also pertinent to the debate, etc. I'm here to judge your ability as debaters, not readers lol.

5) I know how to evaluate theory from my LD days (a long time ago, keep that in mind), but not Ks that aren't simple like Cap Ks. If you decide to run these arguments, I hope you're okay with a possible judge screw, or ready to explain the crap out of your argument. The best explanations often end with "_____ means that you vote for _____"

6) I know I'm asking you to explain a lot and terminalize it into my decision, but I feel that's the only way for me to limit judge intervention. I will never make a cross-application of arguments/weighing/anything for the team- make it yourself. I will not presume for a side for you either. If somehow I have to presume I'll vote for the team with higher speaks, then deduct 2 points from both teams.

7) Most importantly have fun, keep it civil, and enjoy the tournament. If there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know!

I used to be a parliamentary debater and went to nationals in public forum. I am well versed in all forms of debate and don't have any particular grievances that anyone should worry about except for the fact that I don't like spreading. You can speak fast but if you start to spread then I wont write anything down and you'll subsequently lose the round. Stick to good ol fashioned debate and you'll probably be fine. Please ask me any specific questions you have before the round and I will be happy to answer or clarify anything.

Hi! I'm a parent judge and I take both quality of arguments and speaker clarity into high consideration. I prefer debaters who can clearly articulate their arguments and at the same time create a logically cohesive argument.

 

Im not familiar with progressive arguments such as kritiks, theory and topicality. If you do plan to run them please be extremely clear with your explanations. 

 

Please don't spread as I don't have exprerience judging speed rounds.

The following paradigm was written a couple years ago but still rings true, however I want to preface that I've been out of the loop since 2019, so if there are any new catch-words or jargon I may not be completely on top of that, just so you know!

Former Debater, 4 years, am familiar with both lay and circuit styles of PuFo and LD, and I prefer a style that lies somewhere in the middle (probably a little closer to lay, if I'm being honest). If you construct a superior logical and rhetorical argument than your opponent and effectively communicate that to me, you're going to win the debate. I weight framework heavily, especially in LD. Tie everything back to what you're asking me to weigh the round on for the best results.

I'll be flowing the debate but don't expect me to weigh the debate on an issue if you don't touch on that issue during your final speech. Use the first three speeches to win the debate, use the last speech to tell me WHY you won the debate.

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.

K

- 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.

PF

- 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

Did PF and some LD in high school (currently a sophomore in college).

- Weigh for me (and give me a way to weigh round e.g. global warming is more important than the economy or vice versa), please don't make me do it for you because then you might get mad and what a shame that would be

- If you want to go for theory, krtiks, etc. you do you but I will probably dock speaker points (except for a few rare instances; and if you choose to go this route make sure they are well warranted)

- If you want to spread you do you, but my flows arent the best in the world and if I can't understand you or keep up...

- Please signpost, I can't read your mind

- If you have a nice savage remark I will give you an extra speaker point (this can be said in cross as well)

- In the unlikely event of a tie I will default for the first speaking team

- If you have any questions please feel free to ask me

Pet Peeves

- This should go without saying but please please please do not be offensive (aka don't be an ass)

- Don't ask to preflow before the round starts you should have already done it (aka don't be an ass)

- Don't take 5 years to pull up a card (aka don't be an ass)

- I don't really care about crossfire, but don't be that guy/girl who doesn't let their opponent speak (aka don't be an ass)

- I you haven't gotten the gist of this by now... don't be an ass

I will give you 30 speaker points if...

- You do jumping jacks during the rebuttal or constructive (good form is essential and you better do it for the whole speech; if you don't want to do jumping jacks you may propose another exercise and I may or may not accept)

- If you can rap your whole case or rebuttal (it has to be decent tho, I will, however, give you at least +1 speaks for at least trying)

- If you can successfully do at least 15 bottle flips in any one of your speeches

- If you choose not to give one of your speeches and save us all the time, because as we all know time is money and I personally am a big fan of money

I like to be a "blank slate" judge. I want both teams to make arguments which are supported with evidence, and weighed and extended well. The cards should make sense, and should have logical impacts: the teams should NOT just be reading out the card but explaining and impacting it as well.

Brief Background: 1 year in policy, 3 years in pf (2 on the national circuit) for BASIS Peoria, now I am debating Policy for USC.

PF Paradigm:

the short version is: tech over truth but winning the tech of an argument doesn't mean I will vote on it unless it is 1) warranted and 2) weighed. Fascist arguments will never get my vote even if you win the tech sorry not sorry but do better.

Speed is fine (I personally prefer fast and technical debate because I think it is more entertaining and intellectually stimulating, however, my principal philosophy about debate is that it should be totally up to the debaters to decide what they want the round to be like as long as it's not problematic*)

I would like to be on the email chain and I do prefer cards/read evidence in case/rebuttal and then implicated in the second half of the round.

Other things:

I don't really bother keeping a poker face so you'll probably be able to guess if I like/dislike and especially if I don't understand something about your argument based on nonverbals.

1. I care far more about a well-warranted and extended link chain (with 3 minute summaries there really is no excuse) than about which misconstrued impact card has the biggest number. On that same note make sure you front-line AND extend by warrant. I am not prejudiced against magnitude weighing (this is more-so an evidence ethics qualm I have- impacts are often misrepresented), just that I like to know exactly what happens and why it happens when I vote for you. Also if your impact evidence is the same as or at least written with your link evidence in mind (the literature, not your case) I will be more inclined to believe the totality of your impact. Basically, make sure the conditions specified in your impact evidence are the conditions you fulfill within your links.

1.1. I do believe that a conceded link chain grants you full access to the argument HOWEVER I think saying that "probability weighing isn't real" doesn't take into account the fact that the authors of the evidence themselves often speak about the probability of their scenario in context (i.e. an author writing about nuclear war probably uses language to indicate that they don't believe it will be an absolute certainty, but rather a possibility, yet when we cut evidence we usually leave that language out.) As such, I do leave a *little* some room for probability comparison if the analysis is smart and compelling. However, you are probably better off leveraging defense on their link chain if you want to prove their story unlikely.

2. 2nd Rebuttal doesn't NEED to the frontline, but it is probably strategic to do so. IF 2nd rebuttal does frontline, 1st summary probably needs to extend any defense that they wish to be evaluated and should obviously frontline offense (even from rebuttal) if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline, 1st summary doesn't need to extend defense because it is still untouched.

3. I am tabula rasa on theory as well as any other type of argumentation. The threshold for me voting on a theory argument is twofold 1)you articulate any abuse/violations that the other team has incurred 2) you articulate why your standards for debate are better for the activity. I will probably not vote on your theory args unless you demonstrate in-round abuse. You can read a shell or paragraph, I don't really care, but I think a shell tends to be technically more easy to follow and probably more strategic as well. Ks are fine as well if you know how to debate Ks. I am familiar with K lit so go wild if you want.

More specifics:

Framework/Meta-weighing matters or else I default to util (though I am very easily convinced util is the debate equivalent of #alllivesmatter)

In terms of tech or truth; treat me as you would a very tech judge in the sense that I will flow all of your arguments and grant you access to an impact if you win and extend the link and impact, but that doesn't mean I will vote on a 5 second blippy extension that's not weighed or implicated, even if it's dropped. If you really think your 5 second turn is good enough to win you the round, it's up to you do strategically allocate your time and convince me that it outweighs.

*overtly problematic ____ist argument will get you yeeted; if you as a debater in the round feel as though something said in the round is problematic and for some reason I'm not catching it (whether because my privilege insulates me or for whatever reason) please feel free to speak up, on time or off, because I believe it is essential that we all work to make debate as inclusive as possible.

I am a lay judge.

Don't talk too fast.

Truth over tech.

I will vote on the most compelling, well warranted arguments.

I prefer a slower rate of speech so no spreading will be tolerated. If you do I will give you no higher than a 27 in speaks. If your opponents say clear or slow make sure you listen to them so everyone can hear. Remember, it doesn’t matter what you say if nobody in the round can hear.

Puns and jokes are allowed and encouraged as long as they have pertinence to the round.

I will only flow through your argument as long as you can reason it well. Ex. I can’t flow through an impact of 10 million jobs unless you tell me why so many jobs are being lost. But even if it is a really far fetched argument I have to flow it through unless the opposition can rebut it well.

As to summary and final focus for pf I cannot extend your arguments unless I hear the argument in your summary and final focus.

For a counterplan in policy and Lincoln Douglas you have to be able to tell me what your counterplan is with evidence and reasoning, why the opponents’ plan cannot be used, and why yours is preferable.

I will Side with the weighing mechanism that proves that theirs is more preferable in the context of the round.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

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

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I did 2 years of circuit debate pretty competitively.

I try to be flow, only two things kinda different about me:

1. Terminal defense exists to infinity. If you never frontline an argument your opponents defensive ink still exists on my flow. Them not extending responses is not an excuse. Extensions of terminal defense are never necessary, just appreciated. You will never win an argument if defense against it is dropped.

2. I care more about warrants than impacts. Weighing an impact is irrelevant at the point that you do not win the links into the impact. If there is clash at the warrant level make sure to weigh links and actually explain to me why your warrant should be preferred to that of your opponents.

I'll evaluate any claim backed up in evidence or logic, run crazy shit, it's fun

I debated PF for 4 years on the national circuit. While I am a "flow judge" and can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.

Couple things to consider when having me as a judge:

1. All arguments that you want me to evaluate in the round should be in summary and final focus, although I'm okay with first speaking teams extending defense from rebuttal to FF.

2. Collapsing is crucial. Pick and choose which arguments you want to go for; PLEASE do not go for everything in your case. The ability to collapse on 1 or 2 arguments will automatically boost your speaks for me.

3. This goes hand in hand with collapsing: please weigh your arguments. If you don't, I'll unfortunately be forced to do it myself which may or may not work out the way you would like.

Overall the key to winning my ballot is making the round as EASY AS POSSIBLE for me to evaluate. As the judge I want to do as little thinking as possible, so if you want to explain your arguments to me like I'm 5 years old, I'm game. The best way you can do this for me is with a clear and consistent narrative presented throughout the round. I will always weigh a long, well warranted, analytical response more heavily than a card dump. More often than not, if you just logically make more sense than your opponents, you will win my ballot.

Other thoughts:

-I hate wasted time in rounds where teams take 10+ minutes outside of their prep time trading evidence.

-If both teams are chill with it we can skip grand crossfire.

-I will never call for cards. If you have an issue with a card, bring it up in your speech.

-I don't vote for anything said in crossfire, if its important, bring it up in your speech.

I debated 4 years in policy and pf at Saratoga High School.

Most of this paradigm is stolen from my high school debate partner (love u ayush <3) so please feel free to ask questions before the round

*I won't vote for an argument that doesn't have a warrant

*If it's important it should be in every speech (including key defense)

*Speed is fine, but slow down for taglines and citations. Don't use it exclude other debaters. It's been some time since I've had to flow particularly fast debating, so please start slower and ramp up if you plan on going very fast. I'll shout clear if I need to

*I probably have a higher threshold for case extensions than other PF judges. I require a full extensions of links, warrants and impacts to vote on an argument

*DO NOT take advantage of or commodify the suffering of marginalized groups to win rounds !!!

Theory

-I'm fine with evaluating theory, but would definitely prefer to judge a substance debate

-Default to competing interps, no RVI, drop the arg (unless justified otherwise)

K

-I like kritikal arguments, but the worst rounds are those that contain badly run Ks, so please do not run a K if you are unsure about how to do so

-Ks don't necessarily need an alt

-Don't assume I know your literature and please explain thoroughly, especially if your K is not particularly common (ie cap, biopower, security etc.)

-Default to K comes before theory (unless justified otherwise)

Evidence

-I prefer debaters read evidence straight from cards. Paraphrasing often leads to misconstruing

-I will only call for cards if told to, and I'll be unhappy if things don't line up

-Pls read authors and years

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

King Round Robin/NDCAs: you do you but probs would prefer topical debates seeing how far we all came for the tourney and TOC practice. Topical K’s fine I guess but still prefer substance.

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.

Hello! I am a lay/parent judge. I have minimal experience judging and English is not my first language so please speak clearly and slowly and make sure you explain the argument/narritive thoroughly. Do not be rude and perception/weighing will be an important thing for me during round and my descision, and most importantly have fun and best of luck!

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I’m a strictly flow/technical style of Lincoln Douglass judge!

I vote based on the linkage of impacts through the framework given in the round, and what arguments are most heavily weighed through the prevailing framework structure.

i decide who wins each argument/framework based on clash ie which debater either better responds to a given argument and/or then successfully outweighs the opposing debaters arguments.

i do no intervene. Meaning I vote purely based on the information given by the debaters in the round and I will only make decisions based on my flow. With that said it is up to the debaters to make their arguments clear to me on my flow and I allow spreading of all sorts but many students do not articulate which is not the judges problem, it is always on the debater to make sure their information is being presented clearly!

Also I do not accept most forms of theory outside of apri ori, framework, and burden structures since most other forms of theory require judging “voters” which are a form of judge intervention. I will not decide the winner of a round or an argument based on my own personal interpretation of the “rules of debate”. That would be a subjective decision id be making to accept certain arguments over others, and that would be completely unfair to the debaters who prepared the topic.

ill always answer any questions debaters have about my preferences before the round so do not be afraid to ask!

Focus on clear articulation and strong final focus. Discussions during cross is important for me to understand the contentions better.

Hello my name is Pat Skipper. I am a parent judge so tell a story. Team with the best argument wins. Good luck!!

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.

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.

I’m a parent judge. I’m looking for mainly clarity and articulation throughout the debate, so please, no speed. I’m not experienced in theory so please keep it to substance. Don’t make crossfire a yelling match and have fun!

i did PF in high school (2014-18) and coached for ~2 years after.

i have not thought about debate in the past 4 years, i don't have topic knowledge, and am not comfy with technical/theory-ish things in PF. please treat me like a flay judge! i like seeing lots of impact calc, meta/weighing throughout the round along w/ a clean narrative — doing all of these well will mean i give u high speaks (29+). i will lower speaker points for teams that are mean :(

you can wear whatever is comfortable for you in rounds. i don't believe in having to wear a suit for tournaments.

more importantly, i hope you are having a good day :)

sanjim@berkeley.edu

I have coached middle school speech and debate teams and have also judged high school speech and debate tournaments for at least five years. For debate, if you want me to hear you, stress your points and look at me. I know you might want to get as much information in as you can, but if speaking quickly make sure your words do not roll over each other. Speech, look at your judge and your gestures and voice and volume must bring energy to your piece.

Debate:

I do not mind assertiveness , but must remain polite towards your opponent. Cite your evidence when needed , unless you are doing a style that does not need citations, and when asking for cards, make sure you are doing so for a reason and not to buy time.

Speech:

Energy, volume, gestures must go with your speech. Do not add gestures just to do so, make them meaningful.

Hello! I'm a mom of a competitor who has done PF, LD, Worlds, Congress, OO, OI, and IMP.

I have judged both speech and debate before but I am by no means a tech judge. I won't be able to understand spreading or very tech terms/techniques (critiques, etc). For debate try and make it as clear and clean as possible throughout the flow and arguing that becomes mean or personal in any way will not be tolerated.

If you have any questions please let me know and please feel free to take a second and explain before or after the round (not during) anything that might occur that I as a lay judge may not understand.

30 speaks for a snack

don't extend through ink

i did pf in high school

10th in Duo State but trust, I'm flow

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

Assume I want to be added to your email chain: andre.d.washington@gmail.com

Andre Washington
Rowland Hall St. Marks
Assistant Coach

IMPORTANT CHANGES: After 5 years of judging a wide range of debate styles, I think I've come to the conclusion that I just can't connect with or enjoy the current iteration of HS high theory debate. Being able to act as an educator is an important reason for why I judge, and I don't think I can offer that in your Baudrilliard debates anymore.

This will be my sixth year with the program at Rowland Hall, and 10th year of debate overall.

I love debate and want students to love it as well.

Do what you want, and do it well. ---

Kritiks: Despite the revision above, you absolutely should still be reading the K in front of me. I am fine with the K. I like the K as it functions in a greater neg strategy (ie, I'd rather judge a 5 off round that includes a K than a 1 off K round). However, I went 1-off fem K in highschool for many rounds, so I am genuinely pretty accepting on this issue. Given that I don't spend a great deal of my time working through K literature, I think it's important that you explain these to me, but that's basically what a good K debater should expect to do anyway.

Disads: I cut politics every week. I love both sides of the politics debate and can benefit you as a judge on how to execute these debates well.

Counterplans: Counterplans of all shapes and sizes are a critical place to form a strategy and I enjoy these debates. Theory is to be argued and I can't think of any predisposition.

Topicality: I think that debaters who can execute "technical" args well are enjoyable enough to watch and judge, and I think I can probably benefit as a judge to any technical debater. I think that any violation, on face, has validity and there are no affs that are so "obviously" topical that they cannot be beaten on T.

Kritikal affs: I am not ideologically opposed to K affs at all and even enjoy these debates, although I primarily work on and with policy affs so I would say explanation is still key.

Framework: I find that good framework debaters know how to make the flow accessible to the judge. I think that there are a number of compelling claims and debates to be had on framework, and they can be just as strongly argued as anything else (including your kritik or kritikal aff).

add me to the email chain pls!!! adelinecorinnewilson@gmail.com
i am very short and am often confused for a high school child. yes I am your judge.

Who I am:
Denver East/Denver Independent '17
UC Berkeley '21 (go bears)

I debated policy in high school, TOC qualified, almost entirely as an independent entry. currently coach for Harker.

tldr: if you're wondering if you can read *x* argument in front of me, the answer is yes. I am familiar with and have read K literature, the politics DA, performance, framework, counterplans, high theory, heg good affs, etc. don't tailor your argument to fit what you think I want to hear. do what you're good at and explain your arguments well and there won't be any problems.
in terms of speaking—despite spreading, I believe debate is still an exercise in persuasion and public speaking. look at me! make jokes! be charismatic! make fun of the other team's arguments/yourself/people I know!

Things I think are rules of debate:
tech > truth
you cannot clip cards
you must flash/show your evidence to your opponents
speech times
you cannot text or communicate otherwise with anyone who is not your partner during the round
you cannot steal prep
debater-directed sexist/racist/prejudiced speech or behavior is never acceptable

Things I do not think are rules of debate:
whether or not you are topical
using the internet to look up what the hell that weird K word means (this is ok)
being nice to your opponents (tho you will lose speaker points if you are not)
being nice to me (tho I'll like you more if you are)
what you choose to do with your speech/prep time

LD DEBATE:

This is somewhat new to me! I have been coaching/judging LD for about 3 years now, but I never debated LD in high school. so, for whatever this means to you, I will approach the round from a somewhat policy perspective. sorry. some stuff just gets ingrained. that being said, I like judging LD! feel free to ask any clarifying questions, but these are my main thoughts:

Theory:

If you're thinking of going for the most convoluted, tricky, weird (no offense), LD jargon-y theory argument, I'm probably not your gal. too often I have found myself frantically trying to keep up with someone as they spread through some theory block their coach wrote for them years ago or some absolutely ridiculous violation of a made up rule with little to no contextualization to the round. this will not be particularly persuasive to me.

don't get me wrong, I'm good with speed and I like a good theory debate. that being said—call me crazy, but ripping through your theory block SO QUICKLY that i practically break my keyboard trying to taking down maybe 70% of what you say is a BAD theory debate. if I can't flow it comfortably, I won't.

Other stuff:

no RVIs on T. just no.

pretty much everything else applies from my policy paradigm (see below). I vibe with both Ks/fun, critical affs and heg good affs/tricky econ DAs. do ur thing.

POLICY DEBATE: see everything below

K affs:
do what u want! this is what I did. I will hold you to a very high threshold when it comes to answering framework because this is an argument that you ABSOLUTELY need to have good answers to if you are choosing to read a K aff. if you chose to advocate something (which you probably should), tell me what it is and why it matters. tell me what my ballot means. use your 1AC. too often the actual aff gets lost in clash of civ debates and I hate when the 2AR is nothing but "framework bad". framework is not bad or evil. it is an argument to test the compatibility of your argument with the activity of debate.

FW:
as a judge, my perspective on FW debates has evolved considerably from when i was a debater. you are on the side of truth—use it. read specific interpretations and topical versions of the aff. tell me specifically what about the aff is unfair/abusive. HOW DOES THE AFFIRMATIVE ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT DEBATE IS A COMPETITIVE ACTIVITY WITH A WINNER AND A LOSER. please don't make it hard for me to vote for you—if the aff reads a bunch of "disads" against your framework, ANSWER THEM.

Ks:
yes!!!! I like Ks. read them well. this includes going very in-depth with the link debate in the block, articulating your alternative well, explaining the relationship between the squo/the world of the aff/the world of the alt, and most importantly: clear, developed framework that tells me how I should evaluate the round and what my ballot means in terms of the K. *side note* if you're reading a K your coach just threw at you moments before the round because you think I'm a K hack and I'll like it better than a policy arg, don't. I will be sad.

Language/Rhetoric Ks:
I decided to add this here after some thought, and my goal is not to offend anyone with this section. please be careful when reading language/rhetoric Ks in front of me (ex. "you guys"/ableist rhetoric). unless the K is either connected to the argument you are reading or genuinely comes from a place of passion and desire to improve debate, please don't read it. a simple call out during CX should suffice and is often a more effective way of changing this kind of speech. obviously I will deal with any egregiously offensive language. but if the team you are debating unintentionally lets slip a word that carries offensive connotations to a certain group—this should not be treated as an instant ballot for you. it is an opportunity to educate and should be handled as such. if you have questions feel free to ask me :)

Affs v. Ks:
pretty much the inverse of my stance on Ks. attack each and every link, point out flaws in the alternative, tell me why the aff is better than both the squo and the alt, and make good framing args. for critical affs against the K- articulate and execute the permutation if you have one, but please explain what the perm looks like.

T:
yep. compare and explain your definitions/interpretations and tell me why they're better. attach your interpretation specifically to the topic and the necessity to exclude THIS aff in particular. fairness can be an impact, but explain why it is at stake in this round.

CPs/DAs:
I love them!!! the CP should be both textually and functionally competitive. I will listen to it and vote for it even if its not, but it should be.

disads are great by themselves but are best when paired with a more offensive argument in the 2NR. specific links will get you far.

Theory:
I don't air a certain way on any theory arguments, however I believe they are almost never reasons to reject the team. the only thing important to me is that you contextualize all of the arguments you are making to what is happening in the round.

I feel like I'm pretty normal in terms of baseline views—the neg should be allowed to read counterplans, etc etc.

PF DEBATE:

I also sometimes judge this lol. in that case, ignore all of that ^ because it won't affect how I judge PF. the only way that my policy/LD background sneaks into my PF judging is that I think almost every final focus goes for too much. I know this isn't as common of a practice as it is in policy, but pick an argument you are winning and go for it. frame my ballot around it. I will not punish you if you don't extend every aspect of your case‚ unless you needed to because the other team did something funky/put offense on it.

also, I am probably the most informal judge you will ever have. you don't have to ask me if you can stand or sit during crossfire or if you're allowed to use the bathroom, take your jacket off, etc. I do not care.

add me to the email chain: jzhen13@ilstu.edu

pronouns: she/her/hers/judge/you

Background:

I'm currently a graduate student at Illinois State University where I am pursuing a masters in communication studies. I debated public forum in high school and competed in policy debate at California State University, Fullerton. I earned my bachelors degree in political science and human communications with an emphasis in argumentation and persuasion.

I have not judged or competitively debated in a while. Therefore, I would prefer if everyone could speak at a reasonable pace. Clarity and being able to articulate your arguments clearly is important to me.

PF Paradigm

-Explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts

-Your speech should be building off each other. If you want to bring something up in the final focus, make sure it's in the summary

-I am fine with speed but make sure to speak with clarity. I need to be able to hear the cards and warrants

-I dont flow cx

LD/Policy Paradigm

AFFs: I like traditional and nontraditional AFFs. However, I do prefer traditional style of debate. These are my favorite to judge.

I don't like phil. I'm not the best in evaluating them. However, if you do read them in front of me, I will do my best in evaluating it.

Even though I prefer traditional debate, I still like any type of argument you run! It doesn't matter if it's straight up policy, K, CP, FW, etc. I am familiar with these arguments and have read these before. However, I would rather you err on the side of over-explanation. Make sure there are links between your arguments and you clearly explain them to me. Do not just read cards and expect that to be sufficient, I want you to go further than that. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote on. I've voted on extinction good before, just give me a good reason to do so.

-Impact calculus is important to me. I want you to weigh the impacts and not just read them. If you do not articulate your impacts to me, then why does your argument even matter? This is what I usually judge off of.

-Spreading is okay as long as you articulate and are clear. However, since it is now online, I would rather you speak a bit slower. I have judged a couple tournaments online and there are times when the speech is unclear due to technological problems. I need to be able to hear the words coming out of your mouth!

-I don't permit clipping cards. That is unfair and you will lose and get a 0 for your speaker points.

-Don't expect me to do the work for you because I won't. Tell me why you deserve the ballot.

Tech > Truth

Please dont be racist, sexist, homophobic!! Dont be mean in the round. If you do any of these things, your speaker points will be really low.

-If you have any questions or comments about my RFD you can email at jzhen13@ilstu.edu