Barkley Forum for High Schools

2020 — Atlanta, GA/US

Saahit Adabala Paradigm

6 rounds

Broad Preferences

For the most part, I debated pretty tech throughout my high school career. I will be able to catch pretty much anything you throw at me. Debating tech does not mean card dumping. I prefer warranting behind claims and will always prove unwarranted analytics over unwarranted cards.

Overall, my judging style is tabula rasa. I will vote off of only what happens in the round.

Big picture weighing is very important

If you want me to evaluate anything at the end of the round it has to be extended through Summary and FF(except for first summmary defense which I mention later)

More Preferences

- no spreading

- I love weighing. Comparative weighing is the easiest way to my ballot. Do the work for me. Start weighing early.

- I also love collapsing. IMO, going die hard on 1 arg is a lot better than 5 blippy args. I just think its smarter debate.

- BE NICE. Should go without saying.(Here is a tutorial :

- Please have an author with all your cards. If needed, I will call for cards at the end of the round, but I don't want to. Just don't be sketchy, you should have nothing to hide.

- I like flushed out warrants and specific, clear impacts. If I had to choose between the two it would definitely be the warrants. You need to have really well-warranted arguments and your links have to be strong by the end of the round.

- You don't need defense in first summary, but if you think it is necessary to your narrative then please extend it to show me how important it is.

- It's not necessary, but I really really want to see frontlining in second rebuttal.

Even More Preferences

- Dont be afraid to be funny. I know how stressful and long debate tournaments are. We could all use a laugh here and there.

- I like bee arguments

Please ask questions before the round if you have any doubts. I wrote this paradigm while watching Netflix so I may have missed some things. Good luck to all the debaters.

Aidan Anderson Paradigm

4 rounds

* Tech > Truth. I vote exclusively off of what is said in the round.

* I like weighing to begin as early as possible. I've even had teams ad-lib impact calc in their constructive speeches which I really enjoyed.

* 2nd rebuttal MUST respond to turns made in 1st rebuttal or else you'll be dropped.

* 2nd rebuttal MUST NOT include offensive overviews.

* All new offense must be made in the first half of the debate. Arguments introduced in summary/final focus won't be considered. The one exception is that first-summary may frontline turns.

* Any ethical problems in the round will be voting issues on my RFD, regardless of whether the debaters make those ethics-based arguments themselves.

* 60-second shot clock for pulling up evidence. After 60 seconds, I will drop the evidence off of my flow.

Jeremy Andreades Paradigm

6 rounds

I am a law student at Emory. I coached PF at Delbarton, CBI, and ISD. I competed in PF Bronx Science.

1. Please don't give line by line final two speeches.

2. Limit what you're going for in your final two speeches (prioritize good substantive warrants rather than more blippy responses). Group responses when you can in summary, and explicitly weigh in both speeches but especially in final focus.

3. If you would like me to vote on certain offense bring it up in both summary and final focus.

4. Use the summary to respond to responses made in the rebuttal and give me voters (alternatively you can devote time in the second rebuttal to front-lining). I am uncomfortable voting for an argument that hasn't developed at all since your case (unless of course you show me it's been dropped and bring it up in summary and final focus).

5. Please have your evidence available promptly. I will get fed up and start running prep time or docking speaker points if you can't find it quickly enough. In extreme cases, or if I feel like you are intentionally being unethical, I will drop you.

6. That being said, don't call for every card. Only ask to see evidence if you are legitimately concerned about understanding the content or context.

7. If you aren't using prep time (as in, they are searching for a card to show you), then don't prep.

8. When in doubt I will vote for the most consistently brought up, and convincingly warranted arguments.

9. Only give me an off time roadmap if you're doing something atypical.

10. You should have your preflows ready on both sides before you enter the room.

11. If you card dump, there is no way for me or your opponents to fairly ascertain credibility. I will not flow it as evidence.

12. I give speaker points based on persuasiveness and good rhetoric not technicalities. If you win every argument but sound like a robot, or just read off your computer, you will get low speaker points.

Caspar Arbeeny Paradigm

3 rounds

About Me

I debated for 4 years at Poly Prep and was relatively successful on the national circuit.

I now coach PF for Edgemont Jr/Sr HS in New York.


You know how you debate in front of a classic PF flow judge? Do that. (Weighing, Summary and final focus extensions, signposting, warrants etc.)

That said there are a few weird things about me.

0. I mostly decide debates on the link level. Links generate offense without impacts, impacts generate no offense without links. Teams that tell a compelling link story and clearly access their impact are incredibly likely to win my ballot. Extend an impact without a sufficient link at your own peril.

1. Don't run plans or advocacies unless you prove a large enough probability of the plan occuring to not make it not a plan but an advantage. (Read the Advocacies/Plans/Fiat section below).

2. Theory is important and cool, but only run it if it is justified.

3. Second summary has an obligation to extend defense, first summary does not.

4. I am not tab. My threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. This can include incredibly dumb totally ridiculous impacts, link chains that make my head spin, or arguments that are straight up offensive.

5. I HATE THE TERM OFF TIME-ROADMAP. Saying that term lowers your speaks by .5 for every time you say it, just give the roadmap.

6. You should probably read dates. I don't think it justifies drop the debater but I think it justifies drop the arg/card.

7. I don't like independent offense in rebuttal, especially 2nd rebuttal. Case Turns/Prereqs/Weighing/Terminal Defense are fine, but new contention style offense is some real cheese. Speak faster and read it as a new contention in case as opposed to waiting until rebuttal to dump it on an unsuspecting opponent.

Long Version

  • Don’t extend through ink. If a team has made responses whether offensive or defensive they must be addressed if you want to go for the argument. NB: you should respond to ALL offensive responses put on your case regardless if you want to go for the argument.
  • Collapse. Evaluating a hundred different arguments at the end of the round is frustrating and annoying, please boil it down to 1-4 points.
  • Speech cohesion. All your speeches should resemble the others. I should be able to reasonably expect what is coming in the next speech from the previous speech. This is incredibly important especially in summary and final focus. It is so important in fact that I will not evaluate things that are not said in both the summary and final focus.
  • Weighing. This is the key to my ballot. Tell me what arguments matter the most and why they do. If one team does this and the other team doesn’t 99/100 times I will vote for the team that did. The best teams will give me an overarching weighing mechanism and will tell me why their weighing mechanism is better than their opponents. NB: The earlier in the round this appears the better off you will be.
  • Warrants. An argument without a warrant will not be evaluated. Even if a professor from MIT conducts the best study ever, you need to be able to explain logically why that study is true, without just reverting to “Because Dr. Blah Blah Blah said so.”
  • Analysis vs. Evidence. Your speeches should have a reasonable balance of both evidence and analysis. Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Don’t just spew evidence or weak analysis at me and expect me to buy it. Tell me why the evidence applies and why your logic takes out an argument.
  • Framework. I will default to a utilitarian calculus unless told to do otherwise. Please be prepared to warrant why the other framework should be used within the round.
  • Turns. If you want me to vote off of a turn, I should hear about it in both the summary and final focus. I will not extend a turn as a reason to vote for you. (Unextended turns still count as ink, just not offense)
  • Speed. Any speed you speak at should be fine as long as you are clear. Don't speak faster than this rebuttal
  • Advocacies/Plans/Fiat. I grant teams the weakest fiat you can imagine. The aff is allowed to say that the action done in the resolution is passed through congress or whatever governing body we are discussing. That is it. This means that you cannot fiat out of political conditions (i.e. CUTGO, elite influence, etc.) or say that the resolution means we will increase infrastructure spending by building 20th century community learning facilities in the middle of Utah. If you want to access plans and still win my ballot, you must prove a rock solid probability of the advocacy occurring in the real world.. (Note the following is just a guideline, other forms of proving the following are ok as long as they actually successfully prove what they say will occur.) In an ideal world that means 3 things. First, you prove that there is a growing need for such action (i.e. If you want to run that we should build infrastructure in the form of low-income housing, you need to prove that we actually need more houses.). Second, you prove that the plan is politically likely (Bipartisan support doesn't mean anything, I want a bill on the house floor). Finally, you need to prove some sort of historical precedent for your action. If you are missing the first burden and it's pointed out, I will not by the argument on face. A lack in either of the latter 2 can be made up by strengthening the other. Of course, you can get around ALL of this by not reading any advocacies and just talking about things that are fundamentally inherent to the resolution.
  • Squirrley Arguments. To a point being squirrely is ok, often times very good. I will never drop an argument on face but as an argument gets more extravagant my threshold for responses goes down. i.e. if on reparations you read an argument that reparations commodify the suffering of African Americans, you are a-ok. If you read an argument that says that The USFG should not take any action regarding African Americans because the people in the USFG are all secretly lizard people, the other team needs to do very little work for me to not evaluate it. A simple "WTF is this contention?" might suffice in rebuttal. NB: You will be able to tell if I think an argument is stupid.
  • Defense Extensions. Some defense needs to be extended in both summary and final focus, such as a rebuttal overview that takes out an entire case. Pieces of defense such as uniqueness responses that are never responded to in summary may be extended from rebuttal to final focus to take out an argument that your opponents are collapsing on. NB: I am less likely to buy a terminally defensive extension from rebuttal to final focus if you are speaking second because I believe that it is the first speaker's job to do that in second summary and your opponent does not have an extra speech to address it.
  • Signposting/Roadmaps. Signposting is necessary, roadmaps are nice. Just tell me what issues you are going to go over and when.
  • Theory. Theory is the best way to check abuse in debate and is necessary to make sure unfair strategies are not tolerated. As a result of this I am a huge fan of theory in PF rounds but am not a fan of in using it as a way to just garner a cheap win off of a less experienced opponent. To avoid this, make sure there is a crystal clear violation that is explicitly checked for. It does not need to be presented as the classic "A is the interpretation, B is the violation, etc." but it does need to be clearly labeled as a shell. If theory is read in a round and there is a clear violation, it is where I will vote.

Speaker Points

I give speaker points on both how fluid and convincing you are and how well you do on the flow. I will only give 30s to debaters that do both effectively. If you get below a 26 you probably did something unethical or offensive.


I may call for evidence in a few situations.

  • One team tells me to.
  • I can not make a decision within the round without evaluating a piece of evidence.
  • I notice there is an inconsistency in how the evidence is used throughout the course of the debate and it is relevant to my decision. i.e. A piece of evidence changes from a card that identifies a problem to a magical catch-all solvency card.
  • I have good reason to believe you miscut a card.


I encourage teams to ask questions about my RFD after the round and for teams to come and find me after the round is over for extra feedback. As long as you are courteous and respectful I will be happy to discuss the round with you.

Matt Bartula Paradigm

6 rounds

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Anish Bathwal Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Aman Bedi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Bischoff Paradigm

6 rounds

I am generally a flow judge and can follow fast paced debate.

Framework should be established and followed throughout the round. Tell me why your framework is superior and back up your claim with evidence in contentions. If there is no framework debate, the round will rely on weighing evidence in contentions.

Contentions should be clearly stated with supporting evidence and analysis. Your evidence should be fully explained and analyzed as to its impact on the debate. I prefer evidence be referred to by subject/topic throughout the round rather than simply the author's name. Know your evidence well enough defend it in cross-examination.

Your case should be organized, focused and come to a reasonable conclusion that convinces me to vote in your favor. Failure to communicate the importance of evidence, weighing values and impacts, or extending key arguments may result in a loss.

Shannon Blood Paradigm

3 rounds

A bit of my background:

I competed at Seven Lakes High School in Katy TX (2008-2012) in LD for 1 year, and Congress and Extemp for 3 years. I dabbled a bit in PF here and there. I'm chill, but also hugely respect what debate brings and thus respect the events and hope those competing do to!

In General:

- Being respectful, confident, and poised gets you everywhere, aggression only gets you so far. Attacking your opponent's logic and attacking your opponent are two very different things.

- Have fun and bring your personality!!

For PF:

- If you spread, make sure you are clear. I will be flowing but it's been a couple years and frankly, its on you to convince me, not my notetaking skills. There is still a speech aspect to PF and I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand them. Word vomiting arguments hoping one goes unnoticed helps no one, but especially doesn't help you.

- Signposting is always a plus for me. Don't make me guess where your trying to make a point on the flow. Less you bounce around the flow, the better. Voters and good summation is a plus for me! Don't just repeat everything!

- Cut cards. Do not paraphrase without reading evidence verbatim. The only time I would be okay with paraphase is in rebuttals, but I prefer you just read the card again. Debate is nothing without evidence, so make sure your evidence is clearly linked to your overall argument and not just tangentially linked.

- On the topic of evidence, please be able to quickly exchange evidence and make sure that card is cited and is full text.

- Please time yourselves.

- I'm not as familiar with the progressive stuff being run in PF (think Kritics, Theory, etc), so take that as you will. You can run it but it has to match the logic of the round. If you logically use something "progressive" and argue it clearly, go for it! If you run it just to confuse your opponents and not match the logic in the round, you may also confuse me.

For Congress:

- Congress is a great combination of argumentation and persausive speech skills. That means, please speak well! Be articulate! Be clear! And most importantly, speak to persuade the room!

- Congress is still a debate event (as much as other events may disagree ;)). If you are not a first aff or first neg, I will deduct points for not acknowleding that there have been other speeches and argumens made. I will double especially deduct points for repeated arguments.

- Participation is important. I'm weighing your activity during other CX as much as your speeches.

- If you are PO, please make sure to define how you run the room i.e how timing is down, selection for speeches, etc. You aren't giving speeches so your score is from how well you run a room and efficiency in running it.

Caroline Bond Paradigm

6 rounds

History: I debated four years in Public Forum (with some LD debates thrown in there) for Houston County High School and now attend Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, GA. I have judging experience in both categories.

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.
Make it clear to me.
Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and a ton of fun! Please try to have a good time in a respectful, inclusive and meaningful way.
I will vote on topicality. These debates should be a clash between two competing interpretations and impacted. You need to tell me why I should prefer one interpretation over the other. Do not just list it as a voter and move on, because that won't convince me that it is important enough to evaluate. Critical Arguments—I really enjoy these debates, and truthfully it is where I focused my attention as a competitor. However, please do not operate under the assumption that I am familiar with your authors or your interpretations. Please be clear in identifying your links and implications. Specificity is key and tell me a story! Always a good choice to slow down! Also a great choice, cut the jargon.
If your strategy when confronted with a critical argument is to rest solely on your Framework laurels, you will have a lot of difficulty winning in front of me. I like to see arguments engaged directly— more on Framework….
So far, observing framework arguments, I am not a fan. I am not of the opinion that debate is the wrong forum and that arguments should, on face, be excluded. A more sophisticated argument, and one that I am definitely willing to vote for, is one that identifies how the argument operates as a disad to the critical case, provides impact comparison, and warranted analysis how they cant capture/access x advantage.

Matthew Brandstetter Paradigm

3 rounds

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik but will entertain the argument as well as counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy. I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. Please remember that debate is both an exercise in argumentation as well as a communication enterprise. Recognizing the rationale behind the creation of public forum debate underscores this statement. As a result, I am an advocate for debate as an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me in the back of the room. Signposting, numbering of arguments, crystallization, and synthesis of important issues are critical practices toward winning my ballot.

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters engaging with me as I explain a decision; that being said, I am happy to entertain further discussion via email should a situation warrant.

Andrew Briceno Paradigm

4 rounds

I did 4 years of PF in high school at Cypress Bay (class of 2018)

I think debate is supposed to be a fun extracurricular activity so keep the round lighthearted. I am open to all styles of debate, just be respectful of your opponents and the rules of the game. In other words, "SHOW ME WHAT YOU GOT"

If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round!

Anthony Brown Paradigm

6 rounds

Public Forum rounds are starting to take much longer than necessary because teams are taking forever to find and exchange cards with their opponent. If you exchange cases in an email chain ( to speed up the transfer of evidence, I'll increase your speaker points by half a point. If more than a minute passes between being asked to send a card and sending it in the email chain, I'll start deducting speaker points.


Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.


You would probably classify me as a flay judge. This will be my 13th year in the debate community but I still have a healthy skepticism of sketchy arguments. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.


Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30’s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to trick out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for.

I’ll listen to theory but pretty much only if it has to do with evidence ethics.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)


K: 2 (4 for Baudrillard)

Theory: 2-3

Phil: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with identity K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but need you to why it should weigh heavier than case side stuff on my flow. Past that, I’m still getting comfortable judging LD so I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

Bilal Butt Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a Debate Coach at Charlotte Latin. Have been coaching all types of debate (except Policy), but most specifically Public Forum.

Email Chain:

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- "Flow” judge I guess, can follow the fastest PF debater but dont use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

5 Things to Remember…

Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.


I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.


Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.


I would prefer if you DO NOT paraphrase; you can, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round.


Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.


"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Nilesh Chander Paradigm

6 rounds

For online debates, add me on the email chain:

Short Version

Debated for four years at American Heritage and graduated in 2019. I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.

Tech > truth, but the best teams win on both fronts.

Long Version


- If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider inexistent.

- I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.


- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- You can extend stuff very quickly with little explanation if it is clearly conceded.


- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but I hate bad weighing. Don't do these 4 things.

1. Weighing that is not comparative

2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments

3. Strength of link weighing - this is just another word for probability and probability weighing is usually defense that should've been read in rebuttal

4. New weighing in second final focus. I may still evaluate it if there's no other weighing in the round, but not too heavily.


- I will call for evidence if it's contested and key to my decision. I may also call for it if I'm personally interested to see what it says but in this instance it would have no effect on the decision. I generally tend to believe that reading evidence promotes intervention.

- I won't drop a team on miscut evidence unless theory is read. I will probably drop the argument unless there's very good warranting.


- Go as fast as you want but I'd prefer it if you didn't spread.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I have a good understanding of theory, but I wouldn't trust myself to correctly evaluate a K.

- I don't evaluate 30 speaks theory. I tend to believe disclosure is good and don't have a strong opinion on paraphrasing. If you claim your head coach doesn’t allow you to disclose and that turns out to be a lie - I’ll give you the lowest speaks possible

- I usually prefer to judge debates about the topic instead of something like paraphrasing, disclosure, or spec theory. However, I will still do my best to fairly evaluate these arguments despite my personal qualms of strong theory debaters bulldozing inexperienced teams. I may not reward speaks based on it, but I definitely don't intervene.


- I think speaks are arbitrary and debate is always better when it’s fun. Ask me to provide a really random question before the round begins and if either partner can answer correctly I’ll give a 30.

- You can respond to first constructive in the second constructive.

- I will bump speaks if you send a speech doc with cut cards.

Other things:

- Humor’s great, especially sarcasm

- Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine

- Postrounding is fine

- Please preflow before the round

- I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.

Danny Cigale Paradigm

6 rounds

I did two years of Public Forum at Byram Hills and two at Lincoln Sudbury High School.

General Ideas

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in second rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

Overall, I was not super experienced in a lot of aspects of tech debate. I think I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is. Do with that what you will. I'd say generally don't change your style of debate for me, but be conscious that I might not be on the same page as you if you're being a big tech boi.

I don't know as much as I probably should about theory and K debating. I'm open to voting on them, but I'll let you know right now that I am not super informed and you'd have to explain it to me like I'm a dummy.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

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

Nate Conoly Paradigm

6 rounds


**3min summary update** You should still collapse in summary. The extra minute should not go towards you trying to cover everything on the flow. The extra minute should go towards cleaner extensions, more in-depth analysis, more frontlining on the argument you collapse to, and weighing/impact calc.

-Do not spread. On a scale of 1-10 for speed I prefer somewhere around 7. I would prefer you to slow down or pause a tad for taglines for my flow. Also if you list 4-5 short points or stats in quick succession, I probably will miss one or two in the middle if you dont slow down.

-Arguments you go for should appear in all speeches. If your offense was not brought up in summary, I will ignore it in FF.

-I do not think cross is binding. It needs to come up in the speech. I do not flow cross, and as a flow judge that makes decisions based on my flow, it won't have much bearing on the round.

-At the least I think 2nd rebuttal needs to address all offense in round. Bonus points for collapsing case and completely frontlining the argument you do go for.

-In terms of overviews, please do not be abusive. I don't like it when a team throws a nib on their opponent. I will reduce speaker points for this tactic. It's fine to use an overview for something that covers their entire case, not to just introduce a new argument that acts just like a contention from case.

-Please time yourselves. My phone is constantly on low battery, so I'd rather not use it. If you want to keep up with your opponents' prep too to keep them honest then go ahead.

-For speaking, I do not care at all about eye contact. I do not care if you sway, etc. I will not be looking at you during speeches, as I am looking down at my flow most of the time. Project your voice and be clear.

-In terms of some of the more progressive things- I haven't actually heard theory in a PF round but I hear it's a thing now. If your opponent is being abusive about something then sure, let me know, either in a formal shell or informal. Don't run theory just to run it though. Obviously, counterplans and plans are not allowed in PF so just don't.

-pet peeves:

1) Bad or misleading evidence. Unfortunately this is what I am seeing PF become. Paraphrasing has gotten out of control. Your "paraphrased" card better be accurate. If one piece of evidence gets called out for being miscut or misleading, then it will make me call in to question all of your evidence. If you are a debater that runs sketchy and loose evidence, I would pref me very high or strike me.

2) Evidence clash that goes nowhere. If pro has a card that says turtles can breathe through their butt and con has a card saying they cannot and that's all that happens, then I don't know who is right. In the instance of direct evidence clash (or even analytical argumentation clash) tell me why to prioritize your evidence over theirs or your line of thinking over theirs. Otherwise, I will consider the whole thing a wash and find something else to vote on.

3) Not condensing the round when it should be condensed. Most of the time it is not wise to go for every single argument on the flow. Sometimes you need to pick your battles and kick out of others, or risk undercovering everything.


a) What do you like to see in the round? A debate

b) What do I have to do to get a 30? Start by not asking me how to get a 30. I rarely, if ever, do I give a 30. I typically start with a 28 and deduct for rudeness, evidence ethics problems, general speaking, etc and goes up for good extensions, good strategy decisions, collapsing early, etc.

So first, I primarily judge PF. This means my exposure to certain argument types is limited. I LOVE actually debating the resolution. Huge fan. I'm cool with DAs and CPs. Theory only if your opponent is being overly abusive (so no friv). If you are a K or tricks debater good luck. I know about the progressive things but since I primarily judge PF, my ability to evaluate it is very limited from experience. If you want to go for a K or something, I won't instantly drop you and I will try my best to flow and evaluate it in the round. But you will probably need to tweak it a little, slow down, and explain more how it is winning and why I should vote for it. I come from a traditional circuit, so the more progressive the round gets, the less capable I am of making a qualified decision.

I do not want you to flash your case to me. I want to flow it. If you read to point that it is unflowable then it is your loss. If I don't flow it, I cannot evaluate it and thus, cannot vote on it. Spreading in my opinion is noneducational and antithetical to skills you should be learning from this activity. Sorry, in the real world and your future career, spreading is not an acceptable practice to convince someone and get your point across.

Please signpost/roadmap- I hate when it is unclear where you are and I get bounced around the flow. Have fun and don't be overly aggressive.

Neo Curry Paradigm

6 rounds

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain/Questions:

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

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

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

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

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

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

Speaking and Speaker Points

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

Harshal Dahake Paradigm

6 rounds

Debated public forum 4 years at North Allegheny. Currently attending Georgia Tech.

Standard flow.

Ritu Dayal Paradigm

5 rounds

I am an 8th year parent judge. I started with Public Forum, dabbled in speech and LD and am back. I enjoy Public Forum and appreciate well laid out cases argued in a lively manner that doesn’t cross the line. I would like to be convinced of your case and if I cannot understand it I cannot vote for it. Please debate accordingly, if you speak too fast or are unclear I will not be able to vote for you because I just won’t understand your case.

I also appreciate it when you do not simply read your case off your computer. I’d like to see that you know something about what you’re presenting rather than just having something typed out. I come into each round leaving all my knowledge behind so assume I know nothing about the topic except what I’ll learn from you.

good luck!

Jose Denis Paradigm

6 rounds

About Me:

I'm a 3rd year Speech and Debate Coach. Still kind of a flay, but getting more and more on the flow side of the spectrum with every round I judge. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always, especially in the online format.

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not so much in PF, but I will still listen to it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

More "techy" stuff:

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “blah blah blah therefore we outweigh on timeframe.” I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please.

Don't extend terminal defense into final focus because I'm not going to be voting for you solely off of your defense in the round hardly ever. Extending TD into Summary is important, not so much in FF. Use FF to crystalize the round and explain to my why I should vote for you. (You can ignore this last part for panels if it conflicts with another judge's paradigm).

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Bonus speaks for any Among Us puns in round.

Brenden Dimmig Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Marybeth Ehlbeck Paradigm

5 rounds

Hi! My name is Marybeth and I debated in high school and coached/independently drilled with some students in college!

Contact info:

Read this, if anything:

Please just have as comfortable of a round as you want, let's all treat each other with respect, empathy, and camaraderie.

Stolen from Malcolm Davis's paradigm: As I get old and grumpy, I am increasingly frustrated with PF's bells and whistles. We are all regular people. You don't need to 'strongly urge an affirmation' or proudly declare what the 'thesis of your case' is or anything, you just need to debate the round and explain what's going on clearly. There needn't be pomp and circumstance in a room where we're talking about ideas for fun on the weekend.

Main Preferences

1. I will vote for an argument (hopefully under a framework [one that is warranted and fairly won] ) if it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against the other args in the around under a default of comparative worlds unless instructed otherwise. Blippy and unwarranted offense will likely produce an audible sigh from me. Exceptions to this rule: the arg is offensive/exclusionary, not in both summary/FF, card is misconstrued/grossly paraphrased.

2. MY HEARING IS NOT THE BEST. please be VERY CLEAR with signposting, extending author names etc.

3. Weighing has to be explicitly comparative and contextualized to your opponent's offense.

4. No off time roadmaps unless you are reading an off.

5. The extension of defense into first summary is not required. It is required if the defense has been frontlined.

Random things due to the cultural decline of public forum:

1. read cards in front of me please, I don't care to hear paraphrased evidence but I will evaluate it when push comes to shove

2.i think disclosure theory in PF is pretty unconvincing/bad strat, although it is a good norm.

3. i would much rather you read theory in paragraph form rather than shell if that's what you're comfortable with and wont look down upon such when I'm evaluating it.

Good luck and have fun!

Ozan Ergungor Paradigm

3 rounds


and don't give off-time roadmaps

i begged you


you didn’t

and you


-rupi kaur

Micah Everson Paradigm

6 rounds

If you're reading this for Public Forum: I'm a member of the public. Also, I teach Latin, so I'm familiar with the word "forum." I don't really think that you should be looking at paradigms for PF, and I kind of object to the idea that they'd be required for PF judges. I've coached PF for the last decade, although I wouldn't say I'm a specialist in it or anything like that. I dabbled in it when I was in high school. I'd prefer that you approach me like you would approach any other moderately-informed member of the public. I'm not looking for you to adapt to me in PF.

If you're reading this for Policy: I didn't compete in Policy, but I've been coaching debate for 10 years with a fair amount of focus on Policy at least 8 of those years. The circuit I coach in is fairly limited in terms of competition, however (like 5-10 teams at most tournaments). I'm willing to listen to anything and willing to vote on anything, but I have very little experience with critical stuff or anything non-traditional, so I'll listen, I'll be interested, and I'll try to follow, but it may be harder to get my vote with a kritik or anything else outside the realm of typical stock issues.

If you're reading this for LD: I didn't compete in it. I've coached it off and on, although I've spent a lot more time on PF and Policy. I'm going to lean pretty traditional for LD, just given my limited background and the circuit my students compete in. That doesn't mean I won't vote on plans or kritiks, but you're going to have to convince me. My default mode approaching LD is that I should be focusing on a value and criterion debate supported by some straightforward contentions, and I'm going to need a little help doing the mental jump into plans or kritiks. I'd certainly rather hear a framework debate about the values presented in the round than a framework debate about whether or not LD should allow plans, but I'll reluctantly follow along with whatever.

I don't like to be confused - give me clear voting issues. If I am confused, I'll probably default to impacts / policy-maker or a simple morality question of what the right thing is to do. Speed is okay, and I'll try to follow, but speed with ridiculous breathing is obnoxious. Speed without any change in delivery for tag lines is hard to follow and hard to flow.

Kegan Ferguson Paradigm

6 rounds

Put me on the email chain: Include underrated hip hop songs/artists on the chain.

Assistant Director of Debate at North Broward Prep. PF topic committee member.

Debated at Indiana University. Sixth year judging.

How to get high speaker points and a W from me:

I'll default to tech > truth unless something egregious happens. That means excellent line-by-line is at the top of the must-have's chart for me, and will drastically boost speaks.

I would rather see smart, in-depth debating as opposed to scattershot strategies - though both have their place. The best debates develop intelligent arguments and have clear clash over core controversies. The worst have 12-off and pray for 2ac slip-up's for a W.

I appreciate snark, but strongly dislike rudeness. Debate rounds should be enjoyable and cordial until we get to elims.

Policy specifics:

CP's: Read however many of them and whatever kind you want, then hash it out in the debate. Big fan of specific PIC's and smart advantage CP's. Note: be clear when going for theory - slow it down a bit.

DA's: Topic DA's don't exist this year. Most agenda/election DA's will be dead for the Michigan tournament - but if you can Frankenstein something I did work in politics for ~4 years and love judging these debates.

Topicality: I default to competing interps and think that reasonability generally requires the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable. Apparently T-enact is a core generic on this topic.

K's: I find many of the Plan v. K rounds I'm in to be underwhelming. Too much time is spent on framework for K's that don't critique fiat and too little time is spent developing a coherent link/impact. Too often the 2ac misses the boat on the specific K and relies too much on generics. Dead-ends for me: Aff FW = no k's, 'link has to be to the plan,' and cloud clash as a concept.

FW v. K Affs: Fairness can be an a-priori impact if you win it is one. Debate is an offense-defense activity and clearly explaining your offense matters a lot. Affs can win on impact turns to T alone - but I prefer a strategy where the aff is forwarding an alternative counterinterp and vision for debate. The Aff also needs an explanation of why debate/the ballot matters for their argument - otherwise I find presumption and ballot PIC arguments very persuasive. To me, FW debates are decided by whose interp cultivates a better educational model for good debates.

Ethics: Don't be hateful or use bigoted language. Don't clip. Don't intentionally steal prep. I'll intervene here if I think my role as an educator requires me to do so.


29.6 -30: I would like to frame this speech and you deserve a nice speaker award at this tournament.

29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like a top 10 debater at a national tournament.

28.8 – 29.2: I think you are debating like a octos or doubles team.

28.5 – 28.7: Debating like you should be .500

28 – 28.4: Debating on a very average level

27-27.9: lots of room for improvement

Below 27: You have used some hateful language, been excessively rude, or given up mid speech

PF Paradigm:

Disclosure = slight speaker point bump

I don't need to be there for the flip. I don't care what side of the room you sit on.

If you take minutes to bring up a card that was called for I will tank your speaks.

Impact calc is most important.

Warrants beat taglines.

2nd rebuttal should answer the 1st, non-negotiable. First summary should extend defense, especially given the 3 minute change. Arguments in final need to be in the summary. Argument spin I could clearly see coming is not new.

Keep your evidence in cut card form, and don't just hand me an article if I call for evidence after the round. I will discount it. Don't misrepresent things and then get caught when I read evidence after the round - that's a quick way to a low speaks L.

Aly Fiebrantz Paradigm

1 rounds

Current Director of Speech and Debate at NSU University School in Davie, FL.

Former Director of Forensics and Full time policy debate coach at Cypress Bay High School in Weston, FL (7 years).


General: First judging philosophies are silly. Read whatever arguments you would like to read that you think are best appropriate for that round. I will not wholesale discount or credit arguments at face value. I think people should be nice to each other. I believe in tech over truth within reason, a shitty argument is a shitty argument regardless if it's conceded but, if an argument is dropped it's probably true and my threshold for extension/impact calc is much lower. I will also add .5 to your speaker points (guidelines below) if you engage in GOOD LBL Debate that include numbers in the 2AC. I miss organization. I prefer to have the least amount of judge intervention this means saying things like "extend" are necessary for me. Most importantly I believe the debate round isn't about me it's about the debaters. You do you and you'll be fine (mostly).

Pet Peeves that may result in lower speaker points

1) Longer than 20 second overviews on ANYTHING ever.

2) Claiming you'll go LBL and then failing miserably

3) Responding to a CX question with "we don't take a stance on that"

4) Being generally rude/mean to others. Making people feel unsafe, forcing disclosure of identities etc.

5) I'll do X debate here. This is inefficient but more importantly it normally means you're answering arguments that are in fact not on that place on the flow.

Framework Debates: I don't think you need to defend a plan or the state but I do think you need to defend your interpretation of debate if pressed. Fairness/Predictability are probably good impacts but I can be persuaded otherwise. I think "fair for whom?" Is also an appropriate question when asked in a persuasive manner. I find when I do end up voting on FW it's entirely frustrating if all of the arguments from one side are in a long narrative overview and the other is extending specific arguments on a flow. I am not inclined to take arguments from one piece of a flow and apply them elsewhere without being told.

Planless Debates: I think these debates can be awesome and really enjoyable to watch, however I think you need to defend your interpretation of debate. If that means you don't have to talk about the resolution then tell me why. If that means you don't have to have a plan text that's fine just explain/defend yourself. I sometimes find Framework arguments responsive, and reasons to reject the affirmative it quite honestly just depends on the debate round.

Topicality: I think a lot of the affirmatives on this year's topic are not topical. I'll default to competing interpretations if not told otherwise. I find arguments that Fairness/predictability are good and pretty persuasive. Topicality is never a reverse voting issue, but some K's of T might be persuasive. I think if you go for T in the 2NR you need to extend your Interp, Violation & Impacts clearly.

K's: IF you read high theory stuff (Baudrillard mainly) I might not be the judge for you and/or you need further explanation. Psychoanalysis is bunk science is a believable arg for me. And Presumption is never a winning strategy. Something like Hostage taking really shouldn't be read in front of me, I find myself thinking "who cares" I think rejection is enough of an alternative almost all of the time. Reading FW against K's I don't really ever think is a round winning argument. I'm most likely going to default that the aff gets !!s and the K gets to exist.

CPs/DAs: I don't see these debates very often, but few things. I don't think counter-plans need to be textually competitive. I think if you don't have offense on the disad I'm not likely to vote aff, I don't think terminal defense is almost ever a thing. And I am not willing to judge kick arguments. I AM NOT AN ECONOMIST do not assume I understand anything about the economy at all. It's for everyone's benefit I promise.

Speaker points ... I've done a lot of thinking about this and have decided that my speaker points did not reflect the current inflation and probably unfairly punish teams from breaking when speaker points matter. I will try to follow to the following guidelines:

medicore (you probably aren't breaking): 28.3-28.8,

I'm almost impressed. Perhaps you'll break": 28.8-29.3

I'm impressed, you even were organized and did LBL: 29.4-29.7

Best speech I've ever seen. 29.8-30

E-mail me if you have any questions and include me on email chains please :)


1) I primarily judge policy so most of my reasoning etc will default to policy norms instead of PF norms.

2) BE NICE!!! This includes using offensive/racist/sexist/rhetoric. If this is done you will receive 20 speaker points.

3) I think the 2nd rebuttal needs to answer the speech that has preceded it, and extend theirs.

4) I judge/evaluate arguments as they are presented on the flow. Arguments should be answered in the order they are presented.

5) You should flash speeches or use email chains. Prep is continuously running once speeches end.

6) Terminalize your impacts. There are 3 ways and only 3 ways to evaluate impacts: magnitude, timeframe and probability. Nothing else. Use those. Anything else (like scope) will result in a loss of speaker points.

7) You must read dates. I highly recommend you do not paraphrase evidence. I will evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics not as real evidence.

8) Disclosure is your friend. You must disclose before the debate to myself/and the other team. Doing so will result in higher speaks. If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round then it is basically over. Not disclosing or lying is indefensible.

9) You can only extend things in a subsequent speech if it was in the previous speech. This means defense in summaries, impacts in all speeches, evidence extended etc.

10) Defense does not win debate rounds, you need to extend/evaluate/weigh OFFENSE. A failure to do so will result in a mental coin flip on my part because it's impossible to evaluate competing/unwarranted defensive claims.

Harper Fine Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Tyra Gallagher Paradigm

5 rounds

I am a parent of a PF debater and I am new to judging. I will try to flow the round, but please limit the jargon that you use.

Samuel Georgecink Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated locally for 3 years and nationally for 2 (2014-2017), finishing my senior year at ToC and Nationals. Most recently I was an instructor at ENDI 2019. I can follow any speed you're used to, but try not to spread too fast. Please, weigh your arguments against your opponents arguments in summary/final focus. If you don't put weight on anything, I will have to choose how to evaluate the round. I will not vote off of anything new in final focus. I will not vote off of anything said in cx unless its extended in speeches. My absolute biggest pet peeve in round is laughing if you think you're beating your opponent. I may disagree, and in general it is incredibly rude.

Andrew Glickman Paradigm

3 rounds

Updated for Online debate in 2020.

Add me to the email chain:

Teams must be able to pull up evidence and put it on the chain promptly. A team asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep the team's prep time from starting. A team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This is my fourth year judging PF debate for my son's school. Prior to 2019-2020, most of my PF experience was at local tournaments in Montgomery County, Maryland where the competition is not broken down into varsity, JV or novice and, unfortunately, is not on par with what you see on the national circuit. Most recently, during the 2019-2020 debate season, I've judged varsity at a number of tournaments (NSDA Nationals, TOC, Yale, Apple Valley, Princeton, the Barkley Forum, Harvard, Georgetown Fall PF).

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if you are speaking fast please don't forget to pay attention to me.

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. Paraphrasing is allowed but can lead to problems that can be avoided simply by not paraphrasing. Context is often very important. Consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

Ramana Gorantla Paradigm

6 rounds

Hello, Greetings !!!

I am a parent judge and have some experience judging public forum debate format. I am aware of incredible time & effort debaters put in for preparation and how much they value and look for judge's feedback. I would like to be fair in judging and would suggest following,

1. Speak Clear,loud, confident and concise.
2. Speed - Like medium so that i can flow. No spreading.
3. Please do not bring up new arguments in Summary and Final Focus. Extend your arguments and collapse in Summary and FF.
4. Do not personally attack or use offensive language towards your opponent. I expect this to be a sportive and enjoyable experience.
5. Stick to the time limits.
6. I expect clear evidence and warranting when supporting arguments.
7. Voters - If you want me to vote for you, please make it clear what arguments you are winning on.

Good Luck debating !!!

Eric Gu Paradigm



Do whatever you want -- be creative.

Used to debate the K a lot, now less so -- would be good for policy vs policy, policy vs k, k v k debates.


- Can't flow what isn't clear: Will say 'clear' 3 times before I stop flowing the speech.

- Don't expect me to flow a 30 word analytic in 5 seconds. Go slower on what you want me to flow. Make sure you consider flow time.

- In the event of spin vs. better quality evidence, quality evidence will win as long as it is explained better.

- Will vote for "we solve better" (for neg), but I prefer the neg to explain why the rejection of aff is necessary

- I like strong, specific links, with good internal link stories. Will vote on "risk of link", but only if necessary

- If you can convince me, I will vote on it - preferences can change

- Tech over truth generally - unless it's something like climate change doesn't exist...etc. (unless completely conceded and part of a smart strategy)

- My flow > speech doc.

- When I'm reading the doc and I see clipping, I'll stop the round - the other team doesn't have to notice

- Don't be a jerk

- I love impact debate -- please extrapolate in both impact framing and calc -- default to access to impacts being the most important issue in the debate unless told otherwise

- Blippy arguments in the last rebuttals do not win debates -- if you go for something, go for it, and make sure to explain it really well

- Rebuttals are the most important speech. If you were winning the entire debate but blunder the last rebuttal, it is very hard for me to vote for you unless the other team blunders as well

- If you go for everything you’ve argued for in the entire debate I will be sad

Sushil Gupta Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Gavin Guzman Paradigm

6 rounds

I am currently a first year student at Emory. I have done four years of public forum and have attended several tournaments for both Policy and Congress. I have no issues with speed and am comfortable with most speaking styles.


I see debate as a game and feel that any effective argument can be presented within a debate round. I will vote for the team that performs better at the "game" and am not afraid of giving low point wins. In most cases, if it falls under the resolution, I will listen to any argument.


In Public Forum, I am probably the most strict when it comes to the resolution. I do not believe that teams should be running specific plans, and instead should have cases that are applicable to the entirety of the resolution. I will not immediately vote down a team for violating the resolution, only if it is thoroughly pointed out in round by the opponents. 


I would prefer that weighing begin in the rebuttal speeches, but am fine with it being presented in summary. If no weighing is done by either side, I am left with having to do it myself and making a decision off of that. I would also prefer that by the final two speeches, both sides reduce the debate to a few key arguments, rather than debating everything that was initially presented within the round.


Speaker points will determined by the quality of arguments, speaking style, and overall composure within the round. I have no key to a 30, but a joke every now and then never hurts.

Max Hardt Paradigm

6 rounds

I am an assistant coach at The Potomac School, and previously was the Director of Forensics at Des Moines Roosevelt. If you have any questions about Public Forum, Extemp, Congress, or Interp events, come chat! Otherwise you can feel free to email me at: for any questions about events, the activity, or rounds I've judged.

I'm a flow judge that wants to be told how to feel. Ultimately, Public Forum is supposed to be persuasive--a 'winning' flow is not inherently persuasive. My speaker points are generally reflective of how easy I think you make my decisions.

Things to Remember…

0. The Debate Space: R E L A X. Have some fun. Breathe a little. Sit where you want, talk in the direction you want, live your BEST lives in my rounds. I'm not here to tell you what that looks like!

1. Framework: Cost/benefit unless otherwise determined.

2. Extensions: Links and impacts NEED to be in summary to be evaluated in final focus. Please don't just extend through ink--make an attempt to tell me why your arguments are comparatively more important than whatever they're saying.

3. Evidence: If you're bad at paraphrasing and do it anyway, that's a reasonable voter. See section on theory. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. I also prefer authors AND dates. I will not call for evidence unless suggested to in round.

4. Cross: If it's not in a speech it's not on my flow. HOWEVER: I want to pay attention to cross. Give me something to pay attention to. Just because I'm not flowing cross doesn't make it irrelevant--it's up to you to do something with the time.

5. Narrative: Narrow the 2nd half of the round down with how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. I like comparative analysis.

6. Theory: If an abuse happens, theory shells are an effective check. I think my role as an educator is to listen to the arguments as presented and make an evaluation based on what is argued.

Disclosure is good for debate. I think paraphrasing is good for public forum, but my opinion doesn't determine how I evaluate the paraphrasing shell. This is just to suggest that no one should feel intimidated by a paraphrasing shell in a round I am judging--make substantive responses in the line-by-line and it's ultimately just another argument I evaluate tabula rasa.

7. Critical positions: I'll evaluate Ks, but if you are speaking for someone else I need a good reason not to cap your speaks at 28.5.

8. Tech >< Truth: Make the arguments you want to make. If they aren't supported with SOME evidence my threshold for evaluating answers to them is, however, low.

9. Sign Post/Road Maps: Please.

**Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don’t know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that with some humor and panache.**

Hayden Harper Paradigm

6 rounds

he/him pronouns. I did PF in Georgia on both the local & national circuit before graduating in 2019. I now attend UGA as a Finance & International Affairs major.

My email for the chain is but also feel free to reach out with questions about your round.

tldr: I don't care what you do in round as long as it is appropriate. Just tell me what to write on the ballot & be comparative.

Fun Facts:

No disclosure theory and no changing the structure of the round.

Theory about debate has exited for way longer than the stylized language used by camps to explain that same theory. Therefore I do not expect you to answer theory with a counter interp. An overview that is "theory-esque" will do.

I do not like topicality.

In summary defense is sticky unless it was frontlined.

The second rebuttal should address the first rebuttal.

If you can't collapse in summary you are probably going for too much. I like to see voters here.

Speaker points:

You will only get a 30 from me if I feel confident that I will not see a better debater on the current topic, or unless you follow me on instagram @haydenbharper.

A 30 doesn't mean you were perfect, I don't think that objective perfection is a thing in this event. I do think that if you work hard enough on one topic you will approach a place where you can talk about this complicated issue with an impressive degree of fluency. I just use 30's to reward that level of progress when I see it, which is not often.

I appreciate funny taglines and puns when they are in good taste.

Will Haynes Paradigm

6 rounds


Background: I debated for four years at Spain Park High School in Hoover, AL: national circuit LD my first two years and national circuit PF for the remainder. I recently graduated from Auburn University with a BS in Biomedical Sciences and minors in Spanish and Philosophy. This is my fourth year judging and coaching for Auburn High School.

Lincoln-Douglass Paradigm

I typically judge PF, but as I stated above, do have experience debating circuit LD. Therefore, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you would like to debate. Traditional is probably your safest bet, but I'm not going to disregard your arguments because they are too progressive. Just recognize that since I am a PF coach, I may not evaluate all of your arguments in the same way as an LD circuit judge would.

Flow/Speed: I am a standard flow judge. I can tolerate a brisk pace, but please do not spread.

Theory: I'm good with anything you would like to run. Competing interps>reasonability

K's: I don't particularly like K's. I'm most sympathetic to K's that are using the round to make structural change within the debate community.

Framework: Feel free to run any fun/interesting/non-standard criterions as long as you provide solid justifications.

Public Forum Paradigm

Flow/Speed: I am a typical flow judge. In rebuttals and summaries, please make it clear what argument you're responding to. All turns must be addressed in the following speech, so if you are the second speaker, and your opponent makes a case turn in their rebuttal, you must address it in your rebuttal or else it is dropped. Frontlining can be done in either the rebuttal or summary. I can flow 8/10 on speed. Do not spread. The summary and final focus must be consistent.

Evidence: If an opponent asks for a card, you get one minute to produce it. I'm ok if it takes more time for PDF's, but cut cards should be readily accessible. After one minute, I strike the card from my flow. I will call for cards at the end of the round if I am unclear on the intentions of the author or I have reason to believe it is mis-cut. I will not call for evidence due to washes or lack of weighing.

Crossfire: I do not flow new arguments in crossfire, nor does it have any effect in how I judge the round unless someone is rude, in which case I will deduct speaker points.

Framework: I default to CBA unless another empirically justified framework is offered at the top of the constructive. I enjoy a good framework debate, so do not hesitate to propose a deontological value.

Offense: Under CBA, I only weigh quantifiable and empirically justified impacts as offense. If you do not quantify, there is no objective way for me to compare impacts at the end of the debate.

Fiat: If the resolution is framed in terms of a moral obligation (should, ought ect.), then I judge the debate based off the costs/benefits of the resolution actually taking effect. Therefore, I do not evaluate feasibility claims that have to do with the inabilities of laws or policies to pass through Congress or any other governmental actor unless I am provided with compelling analytical justifications for doing so.

Theory: I believe theory is the best way to correct abuse in a debate round. It is much easier for me to flow theory if it is run in the standard format (A: Interpretation, B: Violation, C:Standards, D:Voters), but I am fine with paragraph theory as long as it is clear and well justified.

Kritiks: I very rarely vote for them, mainly just because I don't believe PF is the most conducive for such arguments so just keep that in mind before you take that risk.

Presumption: In the event that the round ends up with a wash, I will default to the first speaking team.

Callan Hazeldine Paradigm

3 rounds

I did 4 years of Public Forum at Ardrey Kell High School.

for the email chain:

I have some general expectations for round:

1.) Everything in Final Focus needs to be in Summary. You can clarify analysis present in the round and explain the warrants/links already extended in summary, but there should be no new warrants/impacts that are key to the round. A good rule of thumb is that the earlier I am able to hear/comprehend an argument, and the more you explain the argument, the more likely it is for me to vote for the argument. Even in front of "flow" judges I believe there is an advantage to the "narrative" style of debate (even when combined with line-by-line).

2.) Make sure to weigh in round. The easiest way for me to decide a round is if you are creating a clear comparative between your opponents arguments and your own. Many rounds I have to intervene and do work for the teams as they don't tell why their arguments are more important than their opponents. If teams don't weigh, I tend to give more credence to the first speaking team as they are still somewhat disadvantaged, but with 3 min summaries I am less lenient.

3.) (Stolen from Danny Cigale) I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a young man and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes up the more extravagant an argument is. For example, an argument about a conventional war seems more persuasive to me than an argument about a nuclear war. That being said, I will not punish you if – and I would even encourage you to – make novel and counter intuitive arguments; I just expect that you will put in the work to persuade me.

4.) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in the debate community (and really any community).

5.) Feel free to run whatever progressive args/theory you want. I'm not opposed to voting for them but you'll have to do a little more work. Speed/etc is up to the discretion of the debater.

Don't forget to have fun in round!!

Delta debate campers, The more I am struck the less I have to judge and that'd be pretty cool.

Leslie Hernandez Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Timothy Huth Paradigm

6 rounds

Tournament Paradigm for the 2021 Sunvite Public Forum Tournament

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering the different circumstances for the e-tournament this year, I've decided to pare down my paradigm to the most essential parts that will help you get my ballot. Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

Add me to the email chain: My email is

Cheat sheet:

General overview

Experience: I've judged TOC finals x------------------------------------------------ I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with speed: Fast, like policy fast ------------x----------------------------------- lay judge/parent judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ---------------x--------------------- not receptive to theory

Impact calculus that I use:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Charlene Johnson Paradigm

6 rounds

I am a lay judge but fast note taker, so if you speak at a "medium" pace I would appreciate that. Decisions are based off of impact. Please explain to me why I need to decide for you over your opponent. Thank you and good luck!

Rose Joyce-Turner Paradigm

3 rounds

I have been coaching and judging debate rounds since 1987.

I expect each kind of debate to resemble its intended design.

I will flow the debate. I will stop flowing the debate when time is up. I will not listen to anything once the time has elapsed.

I do not want to read all of your evidence at the end of the round; I want to be able to hear it the first time you articulate it clearly.

You should tell me “where I am voting.”

You should tell me “how I can vote for you there.”

You should tell me “why I am voting there and not somewhere else.”

This means I am not doing this for you; you weigh the round for me. I want to hear a clear narrative that has some resemblance of a clear framework, which deals with terms and concepts fairly.

In the absence of weighing, I tend to look for clear offense rather than doing weighing for you. (this means things that were dropped and clearly extended)

Saritha Kasetty Paradigm

Not Submitted

Noah Kaye Paradigm

6 rounds

plz talk slow and explain your arguments well; the former is not necessary but usually precludes the latter

Joy Kenyon Paradigm

3 rounds

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the argument. A sound argument with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended does little to compel. I like well-developed arguments that I can understand. I prefer debates that are intelligent, articulate, and persuasive rather than a speed-talking jumble of statistical evidence.I have to be able to comprehend and flow the internal logic of your arguments. If you are clear, enunciate well, with good diction and voice inflection it helps me understand the key parts of what you are saying.

Evidence is extremely important, but debate is more than just tag and card. I expect debaters to spend time talking about the implications of evidence and making analytical comparisons between arguments. Description of arguments through analogy, examples, testimony, or hypothetical situations is a much more persuasive style of debate than just presenting a flurry of statistics.

Debaters who take the time to create good cross-examinations are appreciated. A goal of the cross-examination is to reveal the fallacies of your opponents' arguments and how their claims appear to run counter to probable impacts or how their silence or ambiguities are cause to vote against their conditional claims. A good cross-examination will go a significant way to winning a debate and scoring high points. Take time to consider what it is you are going to ask and how to develop your line of questioning.

I wish to hear clear and impactful speeches. You must spend time accentuating the evidence as you read it and after you read it. Contentions should be more than a number and a few words. You must articulate the warrant extended to the claims you are offering up for consideration.

Everyone in the debate should be courteous through-out the debate, and it is preferable that you keep your own accurate time. Winning arguments are good arguments, not necessarily plentiful ones.

Have fun and show how your arguments matter and why you should win!

This is also my paradigm for LD - Please NO SPREADING for LD.

Jinsoo Kim Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm a debate coach at Riverside and focus primarily on PF and LD. I think debate should be an educational activity first and a game second. That means you can still run fun things in front of me - just don't forget to clearly explain your arguments, extend, and weigh. (LD on our local circuit is very trad though so you'll need to ELI5 if you run something progressive.)

Public Forum:

I flow everything but consider me more of a lay judge. Please do not spread. Collapse if possible. Please please please weigh. Weigh early. Weigh often. Weigh. Weigh. Weigh. Please just weigh.

Be sure to engage your opponents arguments when you weigh. If your weighing is all about your case, it tells me nothing about how it compares to your opponent's (so you didn't actually weigh anything). Also include why we should favor your weighing mechanism versus your opponent's if they differ.

Extensions in FF should have been in summary first. I'm not a fan of extending anything through ink.

I think speed can be a bit of a crutch to most debaters and would prefer if you spoke slower and carefully picked out what to attack/defend. That being said, I can understand even the fastest speed when delivered clearly so if you think you need to go fast, feel free.

Please sign post during your speeches. It helps me stay organized on my flow.

Framework is helpful (but not required) but must be extended throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it. If there are competing frameworks, please explain to me why I should prefer yours.


If you want me to call for a card, explicitly tell me during the round. (sometimes I do it just because it sounds interesting so don't panic if I randomly ask for one after the round)

When extending evidence, please also include the warranting behind the evidence. I’m human and don’t always catch everything about your evidence on my flow the first time around.

Please be quick about sharing evidence during rounds. It shouldn't take you more than a couple minutes to pull a card and send it (should be almost immediate if its from case).


Please time yourselves and check each other on prep time.

Keep things light. Crack some jokes. Be creative! Some topics get incredibly repetitive so if we're several tournaments into a topic and you bring something fresh to the table, I'm going to be way more receptive to it.

If you want clarification on anything on (or not on) my paradigm please don't be afraid to ask before the round.


Of course, I'm looking for the debaters who deliver the best combination of presentation and content, but as a debate coach, I tend to value content a little higher than presentation. However, that doesn't mean your speeches should sound like mini PF/LD cases. There should be a genuine attempt to persuade the chamber to vote for your side.

Quality over Quantity in speeches. I'm just as likely to rank someone with 2 speeches as someone with 3 speeches, if the debater with fewer speeches was still active in chamber in other ways (CX, motions, general chamber leadership, etc.)

I'm a big fan of POs that can efficiently run a chamber without getting too in the way. As PO, you should prioritize running the chamber fairly and efficiently over trying to get noticed. That being said, showing a little flair and a bit of your own personality is fine, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of fitting in an extra speech.

(If I am your parli at a local tournament and you want to try your hand at PO'ing, I'm happy to give you guidance/advice if you want it. Just ask for it otherwise I'm going to assume you know what you're doing and will do my best not to intervene.)

David Kinane Paradigm

3 rounds

4 years of pf at Unionville with some policy/congress experience

-i don't care how fast you go as long as your opponents are cool with it (ask them)

-if 2nd rebuttal frontlines, 1st summary needs defense. if 2nd rebuttal doesnt frontline, ur chillin

-the likelihood of me buying new responses decreases the later in the round it comes out

-i try not to call for evidence but i will if im told to/teams are interpreting it differently

-ill presume neg unless give reasons not to, really dont like voting on presumption tho

-theory/kritikal arguments are fine as long as they are made in accessible ways

-content warnings are a good idea

-you will lose or have awful speaks if you are being exclusionary/problematic to your opponents

-be a nice person/make smart arguments and you'll probably get at least a 28.5

Brandon King Paradigm

6 rounds

My paradigm for judging is fairly straightforward. First and foremost, I am looking for clarity and accessibility in an argument. In other words, I much rather here a debater more deeply develop their own argument in more detail rather than throw out obscure evidence or sources in order to make themselves look more knowledgeable about a subject than they actually are. In my experience, resorting to such tactics is too frequently for the sake of manipulating appearances rather than pursuing the truth in their topic. Therefore, it should be no surprise that I highly value a debater's ability to respond directly and impactfully to the argument posed by their opposition. I generally view a reluctance to do so as concession.

Devesh Kodnani Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated for four years on the national circuit.

My paradigm breaks down quite simply:

1. Engage arguments constructively. Clash is so important but increasingly teams don't know what that means. When I'm given an argument and a response that just make the polar opposite claims, it becomes impossible to evaluate if both teams don't do extra analysis, so do the extra analysis. Warrants are infinitely more important than card-stacks – good logic beats bad evidence every time.

2. Weigh on the link and impact level. Don't just give me prewritten reasons your impact is large (i.e., "scope and severity"), but instead tell me why your link into the impact is explicitly stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for, and why your impact is more significant than theirs. Direct comparison of impacts/links will take you far – one good, common sense weighing mechanism adapted to the content of the round is better than four weak pre-typed ones.

3. Be consistent. Not only between summary and final focus (first summary defense is optional but strongly encouraged if important), but also with a story throughout the round. If you read arguments that explicitly contradict each other for strategic value, I might not drop you, but you'll have a hard time establishing credibility (or high speaks). Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through (extending both warrants and impacts at minimum).

The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote.

With regards to pretty much everything else, I am non-interventionist. I won't tell you how fast to speak, or force you to answer turns in second rebuttal, or ban specific types of arguments, but exercise good judgement. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unfair, abusive, rude, or prejudicial to members of any minority community, I will do something about it. Your speaks will certainly be impacted and the threshold at which I will cast a ballot for your opponent will fall. In elims, that threshold will fall faster because I can't tank your speaks. Don't risk it, and when in doubt, ask.

And on that note, ask me if you have any other questions.

**Optional Section**

If any individual in the round would prefer these rules not be applied, let me know at the start and I'll waive them for the round, no questions asked.

1. Effective use of Kanye West and/or Frank Ocean lyrics will be rewarded with a bump in speaker points ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 points.

2. I will be enforcing the #WORLDSTAR section of Hebron Daniel's paradigm:

Have fun, and best of luck! Seriously. Have fun. Otherwise it's not worth it.

Carmen Kohn Paradigm

6 rounds

Carmen Kohn’s Paradigm

I have been judging speech and debate events for four years now. I am also currently the Head Coach for Charlotte Catholic.

Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum:

I enjoy both the ethical component of the discussions in LD and the current topicality of most PF topics. I appreciate the informative nature of these debates, especially in the current political climate.

I am a classic flow judge for both events and am looking for good clash between opponents. In LD, I place more emphasis on contentions rather than value, however, that evidence must clearly link back to the VC. I am also more interested in the impacts. A dropped contention is not automatic grounds for a win. It depends on the relevance of the argument. When rebutting, don't just extend the author's card. I am not writing down all of the authors. Please remind me of the evidence that was presented. I prefer the well-thought out, well-paced arguments. While debates are won based on evidence presented, I do find a direct correlation between technical speaking abilities and evidence offered. I also make a note of how professionally debaters present themselves and behave towards myself and each other.

I would classify myself as a advanced traditional lay judge. I am not a progressive judge. You are taking a chance on progressive arguments. While I do appreciate the occasional non-traditional argument, especially towards the end of the topic time frame, all cases should be realistic and applicable in the current environment in which we find ourselves. Please debate the current resolution. I do not care for theory shells and any games that circuit teams may play.

Absolutely No Spreading!!! I cannot follow it, especially with online tournaments. You will lose the round. This is probably my biggest pet peeve. I feel there is no educational value to that in a competitive environment. You run the risk that I will not have caught all of your arguments and may miss a main point in my flow. Please keep technical lingo to a minimum also. And if you ask a question during cross-ex, please let your opponent answer and finish their sentences. It’s unprofessional to cut someone off. Signposts and taglines are always appreciated. I generally do not disclose. Debates where opponents respect each other and are having fun, arguing solid contentions, are the best ones to watch.

Good luck to all!!

Julie Krause Paradigm

6 rounds

I have been a coach and judge since 2008. I have judged at numerous circuit tournaments. While my strengths are on the speech side, I have been judging LD and PF since 2008, and am familiar with both traditional and contemporary formatting of cases. Basically, I want to hear concrete, logically connected arguments, with solid warrants. I do my best to come into round tabula rasa, and do not consider either side "burdened" with a particular case that they need to make. I have no issues with speed, as long as I can flow; if I cannot flow your arguments, you cannot win, simple as that.

Sophia Lam Paradigm

3 rounds

I did 3 years of public forum at Poly Prep and I'm a junior at uchicago. Email chain:

- if you have offense with a terminalized impact and you outweigh with said offense, you'll probably win. If no one weighs then I'm gonna go with scope or the argument with the least ink.

- I don't like frivolous theory. If you read it you better go for it.

- I like warrants. If they provide a warrant and your only response is "they don't have evidence for this" but it logically makes sense, I'm likely to give them some ground. I prefer your counter warrant/ev as a response rather than just their lack of supporting evidence.

- speed is fine as long as you aren't speaking unclearly.

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense from rebuttal unless second rebuttal frontlines. Turns/Offense you want me to vote on need to be in both summary and final focus.

- Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline but I like it when you do.

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's important, say it in a speech

- I don't time but if your opponents are telling me time is up I'll stop flowing.

- the less you make me think, the better. I want to echo ur final focus as my rfd.

- i default neg if there's no offense

Deidre Lloyd Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Sam Loh Paradigm

6 rounds

Sam Loh - he/him/his/ Updates: Durham RR

Background - I debated for Plano West and was previously an assistant public forum coach at Hebron and Colleyville Heritage. I was also a contract judge for the Marist School. I am covering as Brooklyn Tech QC's judge for the Durham RR. I currently do limited part time coaching for Walt Whitman DP.

All of the above are still current conflicts as well as: Coppell BC, Plano East NK, Jason Luo (Westlake)

Email Chain Policy (

-Teams are required to send case with all cut cards after reading the AC/NC. (You can send prior if you want)

You get one minute to send and after that I start running your prep. Evidence exchange times have gotten beyond absurd. I will consider it sent when you tell me the email is sent.

Progressive Arguments Doc:

Full doc here. I know the doc is long, if you have quick questions it might just be fast to ask. TLDR; maximize accessibility while still leaving space for debaters to justify abuse and discuss identification issues

Strike Guide:

o I am not the judge I once was. I am much more physically and mentally worn ever since everything went online and while I have not judged nearly as much, it is highly unlikely that I can follow fast paraphrasing or heavy amounts of progressive arguments.

o Accessibility - No tolerance for spreading people out of a round. Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = auto TKO. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than 20 speaks.


-Teams are allowed to paraphrase if they have a cut card available.

-All evidence should be readily available to the opposing team if a request is made (1-2 min max)

-Bracketing is bad and inherently suspicious

-I accept evidence challenges. All prongs of official evidence challenges as defined by the NSDA are fair game (distortion, nonexistent evidence, clipping, straw man). In addition to those four, I will also accept evidence challenges for significantly miscut or misrepresented evidence (which theoretically can exist without being in violation of NSDA rules).

Argument Evaluation

-Barring problematic arguments (violent/exclusionary or abusive, latter detailed in the progressive doc), dropped arguments are 100% true. There is no such thing as a "lower bar of response" for "less realistic arguments". Any good, proper response includes both a warrant and an implication of how it responds to the argument.

-Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presumption flows neg. Feel free to make args in round as to why any of these things should be different.

-If it doesn't have a warrant, it's not an argument. Analytical warrant > unwarranted card. Appeals to authority aren't warrants. Real world examples can be used to help support arguments but are not warrants themselves.

-The first time you read an argument you need to read a warrant. If you introduce an argument without a warrant, we're going to have a problem. On a similar note, your warrants have to stay the same throughout the round...if you read that your warrant is "A" in rebuttal and then you claim the warrant is actually "B" in summary, I'm just not going to evaluate your argument.

-If I'm being honest, I hardly ever vote on turns because most teams don't do the necessary legwork for me. Extending one piece of dropped evidence and saying vote here won't cut it. Weigh and implicate pls.

-Extend implications of your defense in summary and final focus. Telling me to extend ____ argument without explaining how it responds to the intricacies of the opponent's offense tells me nothing.

-Mitigation only matters when contextualized within the weighing debate. In 95% of the rounds I've seen, mitigation has done nothing because teams have not leveraged the mitigation to gain an advantage in weighing

-I'm awful at remembering to keep track of time so I don't do it. It's not fair if I penalize a team for a speech I time while forget to time a different one. If the opponents have gone overtime, please make some indication (I.e. holding up your time to the screen)

Speech Requirements

-I only flow debate proper. In other words, I don't pay much attention to cross. If something happens say it in speech

-Second rebuttal needs to cover turns and disads. Defense is optional

-If it's in final, it must be in summary. This is true for offense or defense, uniqueness, warrants, impacts, whatever. The same argument must be in both speeches.

-All backhalf extensions need warrants; If you are trying to generate offense you also need an impact extension

-All case level responses in rebuttal. No new defense or turns on the opponent case in summary. I tend to find "new crossapps of defense" to be evidence misrep. If you do this, expect me to call for the card.

-Summary extends the full arg (UQ, Link, Internal Link, Impact). No excuses to not develop arguments with three minutes.

-Generally speaking, I am skeptical of new ev in second summary. You should be collapsing as the round progresses, not introducing new arguments. This is also to encourage frontlining in second rebuttal.

-No new weighing in second final unless no other weighing has been done in the round. You should be weighing as early as you can (like rebuttal?). I give full credence to first final weighing if no other weighing is done in the round or if the second speaking team does not introduce weighing until the second summary speech. In all other cases, new first final weighing is weak if not present in prior speeches.

-If you're kicking something you A) must do it by explicitly conceding defense the opponents have read and B) must do it in the speech right after whatever defense you're conceding was read.


-I used to be able to handle PF speed decently in person. Now probably not so much, especially if you're dumping a ton of "cards" in a single speech. Going fast while reading properly cut evidence is fine. Doing so while paraphrasing is not (I will not bother to alert or clear you if I am unable to follow the latter, it's bad practice).

Speaker Points

-The average is a 28. Don't expect 29's unless you blow my mind. Or debate decently well and disclose.

-Each speaker gets + .5 if you've disclosed case for the tournament with proper evidence ethics.

-I shouldn't need to say this but abusive and/or problematic conduct will lead to lower speaks.

Jeannie Malinsky Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a lay judge and have been judging for 2 years. I prefer traditional/topical arguments. Please don't use speed or spreading - I am likely to lose the thread of your logic and won't be able to judge you on the fullness of your case. Please don't use jargon or undefined acronyms unique to LD without defining.

Brian Manuel Paradigm

6 rounds

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Stanford, Harvard, and a crew of exceptionally talented college debaters I've had the pleasure to coach)

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta than you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, mis-cited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is a mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with anyone set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments amongst participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; that the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and using it to get judges who will automatically check in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. Its not about who wrote the best constructives only. Its about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered.Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era were students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasis the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must proves their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negatives burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's here are your presents!!)

If you love debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2 year old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Suzuki and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; its what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - its rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This mean they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your life long friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or its won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and less sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. Its called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but its unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely effected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full time coach. Debate is my full time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being ran every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

Antonio Martinez Paradigm

3 rounds for email chains

Pretty new to judging debate, here are a few things that I enjoy judging, and things I don't.

Conflicts: Grapevine HS, Colleyville HS

Things I enjoy judging:
- I Enjoy theory, kritiks, cps, plans, k affs, anything weird is always good with me as long as you are able to explain the links well.

- I enjoy stock cases, but I don't prefer them over any other type of case.

- I enjoy people being on time to debate rounds, don't be late, it is annoying.

Things I don't enjoy judging:

- Extremely fast spreading, if I can't understand you I will not vote for you. I am a 3/10 on speed.

- Don't verbally abuse one another within a round, if you are very condescending during a round, it will annoy me, and you will most likely get docked speaks, or lose the round because of it.

Speaker points: I'm a more lenient judge with speaker points, the only reason I would dock is if you are being mean or abusive to the other person. I'll up your speaks for confidence and if you seem eloquent during the round and if you know what you are talking about.

Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Give me clear voters in the 2AR and 1NR, this will help me significantly on who I should vote for, and why.

Lizzie McCord Paradigm

6 rounds

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

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


· Weigh

· Warrant and extend warrants not just card names

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

· You can go fast, but don’t spread

· Read any kind of arguments except disclosure

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

Cale McCrary Paradigm

3 rounds

I care most about the round being safe, so please be nice, read content warnings if your arguments need them, and let me know if you need any accommodations beforehand at I'd add to this that on a few recent topics there have been arguments related to violence against LGBTQ+ folk. I'd appreciate some sort of warning if you are reading an argument like this, and depending on how I am doing that day I might need the argument replaced for something else if it isn't a huge burden on your team. Thanks so much :)

PF specifics:

I'll evaluate any argument that's frontlined, fully extended, and non-exclusionary. I'm comfortable evaluating any progressive arguments.

I only need you to extend defense the speech after it's frontlined. Speed is cool as long as you're clear and can send a speech doc if me or your opponents need it.

Richard Meyers Paradigm

3 rounds

I am a parent lay judge with no experience judging national circuit rounds. I have been practicing law for 28 years, with a specialization in employment law.

A couple of things to do in the round:

-Please do not go fast, speak how you would in a conversation

-Be concise (I prefer a few strong arguments rather than a lot of weak ones)

-Make sure to tell me why you’re winning the round in the final two speeches, and address your opponents points

-I will not keep track of speech or prep time, so make sure to hold your opponents accountable during the round (if they’re over time, just hold up the clock and show me)

Jack Miklaucic Paradigm

Hi everyone! My name is Jack Miklaucic and I debated Public Forum in North Carolina for 4 years during high school and now debate Policy at Emory. Thanks for reading this paradigm!

Jan 2020: I have not debated the current PF topic, so please explain any acronyms or topic-specific jargon you use. This shouldn't be a problem as I will judge the debate as a "well-informed citizen" but not an expert on the topic as outlined in NFL judging materials.


  1. I am comfortable with speed but that doesn’t mean you should be inaudible or unclear.
  2. Please don’t make me intervene in the debate! That means clearly weighing in your summary and final focus and extending evidence with warrants and responding to counter arguments. As far as evidence debates go, this means I try not to call for a card unless you ask me to.
  3. If you are running a framework, please explain clearly why that framework is a beneficial lens through which to view the round and extend that reasoning (as well as responses to counter arguments) throughout the round.
  4. Continuity is important—you should be going for the same arguments in summary and final focus.
  5. Make sure to signpost, especially in rebuttals.
  6. Please don’t extend through ink—if the other team makes a response to your argument and you simply ignore it, I can’t vote for that argument.
  7. I will pay attention and flow during crossfire, but if you want me to vote based on a concession made in crossfire, it needs to come up in your speeches.
  8. When extending an argument, you need to extend the link and the impact for me to consider it. This goes for defense as well.
  9. Rudeness, name-calling, excessive interruptions, etc. can lose you speaker points and the round. Please be courteous.
  10. Don’t steal prep. If your prep is not running, you should not be writing, looking at your computer, shuffling your papers, etc.


  1. Add me to the email chain:
  2. I am comfortable with speed but that doesn’t mean you should be inaudible or unclear.
  3. Please don’t make me intervene in the debate! For conditionality or theory, this means that I am weighing only your arguments made in the round, not my opinion on those arguments. Feel free to run arguments that you want to—you don’t need to conform to my philosophy. I don’t want to have to read evidence and will do my best not to unless asked.
  4. That being said, I am not well read in high level theory, so clear and thorough explanation is helpful. Referencing the name of an author without any warranting or logic is not enough.
  5. Especially when running tons of arguments, organization is key. Please signpost and tell me where you want me to flow overviews or framework.
  6. Make sure to engage with and respond to the specific arguments made by the opposing team. Just because an argument is vaguely similar to something you have encountered before doesn’t mean you can read those responses and they will apply.
  7. Rudeness, name-calling, excessive interruptions, etc. can lose you speaker points and the round. Please be courteous.
  8. Don’t steal prep. If your prep is not running, you should not be writing, looking at your computer, shuffling your papers, etc.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask me!

Jeffrey Miller Paradigm

1 rounds

Jeffrey Miller
Director of Speech & Debate at Marist School in Atlanta, GA (2011-present)
Director of Debate/Asst Director of Debate, Fayette County High School in Fayetteville, GA (2006-2011)

Updated for 2020-2021 and Online Debate

Please add and to the email chain. This should be started in the tech time.

Both teams should use it and send the constructives at a minimum. I am fine with constructives being sent after they are read in the debate. Please call the email chain something real like "Kentucky Round 1 - Marist VL vs Marist HN." If you read cards, you should send the cards in the order they are read. If you paraphrase, you should send your paraphrasing and the cards that you paraphrased in the order that you read.

some major bullet points adapting to me:

- i prefer you read cards. this doesn't mean i won't evaluate paraphrasing and it doesn't mean that i'll automatically drop you on paraphrasing bad theory it just means that better arguments are made by the experts you quote in your evidence than your interpretation of the experts. i wouldn't waste a strike on me if you paraphrase but still cut cards.
- speeches build off of each other. everything in the final focus should be in the summary. second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal.
- made up jargon is bad. clarity of impact is not a thing.
- i prefer substantive debates to theory debates. i really am not a fan of theory. i have strong beliefs in how debate should be done, but i have stronger beliefs in learning about topics. read theory if you must, and I'll obviously evaluate it - but i do prefer a debate about the topic.
- i value hard work. Debate is hard. It's rewarding because its hard. The debate you have in front of me should a representation of your hard work you spent preparing for that debate.

Tim Missell Paradigm

3 rounds

I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a NARRATIVE approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it is a very TECHNICAL resolution. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented good probability we are headed in that direction.

I have (almost) never awarded a round based upon cross-fire and/or grand-cross. However, it does point out areas to examine for dropped arguments. If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better lay out all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.

The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots (LINK).

A few notes:

- You will never lose a round for being a JERK in crossfire or G-cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here.

- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.

- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say CLEAR twice and then I stop flowing altogether.

- If you go slightly overtime that's OK, but keep it under like 10 secs.

- 2nd rebuttal must front line.

- Speak up a little I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.

- Time yourselves, please.

PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left.

Kirsten Nash Paradigm

2 rounds

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

Darrell Nicholson Paradigm

3 rounds

Barkley Forum: I am only available to judge on Sunday, Jan. 26 -- or, Saturday, Jan. 25 -- but not both days.

Speech: I am a lay judge. I favor competitors who, in addition to being polished speaker/actors, creative thinkers, and deep researchers, convince me that they believe every word they say. In DP events, I look for seamless presentation, convincing characterization, and effective uses of pauses and blocking. In pieces that feature multiple characters, the characters should be easily distinct.

PF: I am a lay judge. I favor competitors who, in addition to being polished speakers, creative thinkers, and deep researchers, convince me that they believe every word they say. In PF events, I look for substantive arguments that are well organized and presented clearly.

Congress: I am a lay judge with experience at the highest levels of judging, including NSDA Nationals, and The Sunvitational (finals). In congress, each speech and participation should illustrate an exquisite understanding of the bill being debated and a brilliant sense of flow. I am delighted by POs who have a good grasp of parliamentary procedure and show absolutely no favoritism. Speakers (and questioners) need to keep their composure during cross-ex, avoid smugness.

Shannon Nix Paradigm

3 rounds

I have been judging LD and PFD debate for fifteen years.  In a typical year, I judge 2-4 national tournaments, including CFL and/or NSDA nationals in many years, and a number of tournaments at the state and district level. After 20+ years as an executive in the high tech industry, I am into my second career, in academia, having just earned my doctorate international history. My spouse is a high school speech and debate coach in North Carolina and we have two children that have competed  on the national circuit and internationally.

Although I have been around the block, so to say, I still consider myself a lay judge.  I try to stay abreast of "progressive" debate and am pretty comfortable with speed, but these are not my preferences.  To me debate is about communication and persuasion and I rarely find these styles persuasive.  I am more likely to be swayed by quality than quantity, by convincing well-reasoned, well-warranted claims vs. cleverness -- alas, I am not a clever man.

Most of all, I want debaters engage one another, find the clash, and tell me how to weigh the round.  Remember, I am not a clever man, and you don't want me deciding how to to weigh the round.  

Above all, I want the competitors to have a positive experience, to grow intellectually and as communicators, and to have fun in the process.  I strive to provide clear and constructive feedback and I am always open to questions if my feedback or decision is not clear. 

Jasper Ou Paradigm

6 rounds

—————————————————————————dededede ——————————————————————————

what's good, debaters!

what has four letters,

occasionally has twelve letter,

always has six letter,

and never has 5 letters?

—————————————————————————dededede ——————————————————————————

Livia Peracino Paradigm

6 rounds

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 10 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.


I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging defat more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

Les Phillips Paradigm

6 rounds


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. 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. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary. Ask me questions!

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?


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

I do not demand that the second speaking rebuttal or any summary speech do anything in particular. If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary. 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 also expect debaters to be able to state/defend the qualifications of every single piece of evidence they use. Though it is not the explicit NSDA standard, I believe that quals should be read out loud. I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton." Evidence standards in PF are improving, but they are still not good. You will not get good points if you do not meet these standards.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. "Helps The Economy" is to impacts as "according to Princeton" is to cites. 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?


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 dcebater 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.

Lee Place Paradigm

6 rounds

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

Lee Quinn Paradigm

6 rounds


Titles: Assistant Director of Debate at Samford University (AL).

Head Coach at The Altamont School (AL).

Debate Background:

College: Top Speaker at ADA Nationals. 2x NDT First-Round Bid at Wake Forest. 2x NDT Octofinalist. 2x Kentucky Round Robin. Dartmouth Round Robin.

High School: 3x TOC Qualifier. 2011 Winner of Emory's Barkley Forum in Policy Debate. Greenhill and Harvard Round Robin Invitee. Winner of Woodward JV Nationals. Third Place at NSDA Nationals in 2011. Seventh Place NSDA Nationals 2010.

Policy Thoughts:

I’m not the smartest human. You’re maybe/likely smarter than me. Please do not assume I know anything you are talking about. And I would honestly love to learn some new things in a debate about arguments you invented.

Debaters are guilty until proven innocent of clipping cards. I follow along in speech docs. I believe it is judges job to police clipping and it is unfair to make debaters alone check it.

Meta level: Research skills and persuasive speaking are the foundation of debate. The team that persuasively makes the most arguments backed by the Brookings Institute likely will win my ballot.

Condo. 3 against a basic/big stick aff is about my ceiling. 3 contradictory condo and I can more easily be persuaded to vote on condo. For new affs, I think at most 5 condo is permissive. Anymore and I think you risk losing on theory.

Process/ Conditions/ consult CPs are the devil, unless you have a fire solvency advocate specific to their plan text which can prove its predictable and important for that area of debate. But I’m persuaded that a generic/predictable aff posted on the wiki can win a theory debate against a generic process/ conditions/ consult CPs. You just need an interpretation about a world of debate that excludes these CP’s. This is especially true with any Con Con CP. Con Con is the worst.

K debate is cheating in policy. Especially K affs. Kritikal literature is obviously very relevant to being educated and ethical, but in debate this lit is bastardized for polemic positions that unfairly tilt debate in their favor for a litany of obvious strategic gains.

I hate judge kick. Do you want me to flow for you too? Maybe compose your speech doc while you're at it? I don't give the affirmative random permutations. Don't make me kick your trash counterplan for you. I won't be there to take your boards or bar exam saying "hey don't worry I got you if you make the wrong choice.

PS- Please do not read global warming good. Global warming is real and will kill us all. And I am particularly persuaded by the argument that introducing these arguments in debate is unethical for spreading propaganda and should be deterred by rejecting the team. I'm way more persuaded by inevitability and alt cause args.

LD Paradigm

I am largely engaged with college policy debate levels of debate. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate. LD is often one big K debate which is fine in LD but I err towards util/consequentialism FW's. I can be persuaded pre-fiat impacts are extra-topical and can be rejected as such (likely not a reason to reject the team). But I do love me a good ol' fashioned value premise throw down from time to time, I must admit. It is the premise.

PF Paradigm

I'm increasingly frustrated with the liminal space public forum operates in. I'm so happy to see the progress made in terms of substance and clash, but am frustrated at the lack of norms that should accompany these progressive improvements. Here are my thoughts when judging a PF debate:

- Public Forum, if you're looking for your paraphrasing theory gatekeeper, you've found them. I will vote on paraphrasing bad theory ONLY IF the you read properly cited and highlighted cards that are sent out prior to your speech. Please dear god people, let's stop this spreading "Reuters '19" and "Forbes '19" non-sense. Atleast policy has to read long cards, that's WHY they have to spread. Paraphrasing makes debate impossible for both debaters and judge to genuinely test the veracity of evidence sources. This is an increasingly important issue too in our modern age of disinformation, fake news, and propaganda. Let's all work together to continue the progress being made in PF.

- I DO NOT CONSIDER URL/ARTICLES EVIDENCE. if you have to google/search for an article after I call for a card I will not evaluate the evidence and will treat it as an analytic. A CARD HAS TO BE CUT. There has to be some norm to reward actual research and preperation.

- I do not want to be a "policy judge" in PF. Please do not unload the canon and spread at 110%. If you want to do that, just come to policy debate and I'll be happy to judge it. I feel like my experience in policy debate/another debaters experience asymmetrical tilts the debate in a way that is unfair to debaters who do not have policy experience or experience spreading. You can make a ton of arguments while still going at 60-70% of your top speed. How do I plan to enforce this? I'm not entirely sure. It will definitely be reflected in speaks and will feel empathetic to the other team, but past that I'm not entirely sure. I have judged enough PF rounds now where debaters come in and spread that I feel like I am unfairly skewing the debate in one teams favor. Please do not make me feel like this! If you wanna spread, do policy/come do policy for me at Samford.

- Disclosure norm. I'm a BIG advocate of open source/wiki, but I'm not entirely sure I'm willing to vote down a small local school who maybe didn't know there was a wiki against a big school reading disclosure theory "to help small schools." It almost seems counter-productive. I think it can be an easy win if the other team drops it, or if its two big schools debating, I could consider it. But I literally judged a round where a team from a the reigning TOC policy champion school read disclosure theory against a small rural school with no coach and said it would help small programs. I'm not the biggest fan there.

Susan Ramsey Paradigm

6 rounds

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

Carolina Rincon Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Hagan Rose Paradigm

6 rounds

I vote tech over truth. I try to interfere as little as possible, and the best way to make your case is weighing. However, debate is an art, not a science, and just because you win the flow doesn’t mean you’ll win the round 100% of the time.

Debate Theory usually plays poorly-run at your own risk. At this level, presentation and delivery should be strong; clash is often the differentiator in my rounds. I’m fine with a little speed, but I won’t flow anything that’s TOO fast. Probably 225 words per minute is an upper limit.

Additionally: Warrant extensions are crucial. Give me a strong argument and apply your warrants through the round.

Obviously practice good evidence ethics. I will call cards if necessary and judge how they fit the round. Feel free to keep your own time. Don’t be rude or disrespectful- we’re here to have fun. I’m happy to provide more insight at the beginning of the round.

Gabe Rusk Paradigm

4 rounds

PF Paradigm 2020-21 Season:

eDebate - Year of the COVID

- I consider myself tech>truth but I have been approaching a closer equilibrium between the two lately due to how poor evidence ethics have been become.

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 more often when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot.
  • 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 but it's less likely I will defer to nuclear war, try or die, etc on the risk of magnitude. Probability over magnitude debates unless I'm given well warranted, carded, and convincing framework analysis to prefer the latter.
  • 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.
  • I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory and/or pre-fiat debates in PF. I don't let my teams disclose on the wiki and will not travel them if they do. Take that as you will for disclosure theory. I will be especially incredulous of your theory argument if I discover your application of theory is principally inconsistent. For example, you are running disclosure or paraphrasing theory against one team for violating but not another team who violated (assuming both judges would have equally been receptive.) There may be other extenuating circumstances that explain the discrepancy in application but they need to be addressed. Lastly, if you look back at the last 22 rounds or so I've judged with theory or a pre-fiat argument as the primary voter I've probably only voted for the team who introduced said argument in the round 6 of 22 rounds. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock specific rounds but in principle remain tabula rasa.

Little Things

  • 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.
  • DA's in general or second rebuttal? You mean the borderline new contentions you are trying to introduce in the round that are tentatively linked at BEST to the existing arguments in the round order to time skew/spread your opponents thin? Don't push it too much. Will especially hit your speaks.
  • 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. Smh y'all.
  • If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear.
  • My favorite question in cx is: Why?
  • My favorite phrase in debate is: "Prefer our warrant" or "comparing our warrants you prefer ours because..."
  • Don't read "framework" at the top of case unless it's carded. Rarely is it warranted or carded. It's almost always asserted. If you have a card and have an independent warrant go for it. Otherwise don't waste our time in the speech when we know the debate will end with CBA. You can run overviews and weighing but that's different than framework as some approach it. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.
  • Don't read definitions if the judge is familiar with the topic. Waste of time.
  • I understand the desire to ask for quantifications or quantitative brightlines. It can be helpful in some debates. However, if you ask for a specific quantification then the burden on you in turn is to provide quantifications for your argument as well. I can't tell you how many times I see teams ask others to quantify their impacts and little if none of their own meet that same standard.
  • If you run a percentage increase in an impact or effect you better have the original baseline or original percent if asked. Saying something increases by 845% is misleading without context. If my tea drinking increased by 200% per day and the original amount was 2 oz that isn't significant in context.
  • Offtime road maps fine
  • Pre-flowing in general should be done before the round. Especially if it's second flight. Like what are y'all doing outside the room lmao. Print out copies or something. Easy.
  • Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [lol in covid times this is prophetic]
  • To see my discussions and extended preferences please check out r/debate on reddit:

Gabe Rusk

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

Coaching Experience: 10+ years of coaching, instructor at 12+ debate camps, debate camp director, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, Director of Debate at Fairmont 2018-Current, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, Capitol 2016-2018, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Law & Religion - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment - Majored in Religion and Philosophy at DU '14. Other research areas of familiarity include Buddhism, comparative religion, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, copyright law, & SCOTUS history.


Ahhhhh! You made it this far. Plus .1 speaker points if your pet Zoom bombs, you make an organic reference to the Last Airbender in the round, or drink some permutation of tea in the round.

Russ Rywell Paradigm

3 rounds

Good with speed up to a point, if you go blazing and I miss it, I can't weigh it.

I need each team to tell me why they think they won the round, so I don't have to figure it out on my own.

I have no strict rules about what has to be said in summary, but I expect consistent argumentation. Something from the first four speeches should not just pop up in the final focus as a voter.

It is important that your evidence says what you say it says. If the debaters make a card(s) important to the round, I may call for evidence.

Chris Salamone Paradigm

3 rounds

I tend to attempt tabula rasa with all debate events. No weighing, impacts, burdens, plans, solvency, etc. will be default valuable. Please extend any evidence or argumentative tools you consider outcome determinative. Quantitative evidence, which is probable, brings me joy. Please time yourself. Manners maketh the debater.


-Director of Forensics, Santa Fe High School, Gainesville, Fl

-Teacher of Debate III-V Honors, AP Macroeconomics, AP Government & Politics, and AP Human Geography

-Bachelors in History w/ emphasis on China, Minor in Mass Comm. (UCF)

-Masters in Education Leadership (UF)

-Juris Doctor in Law (USD)

Boost in speaks for the team/individual that best incorporates (pertaining to your case) a seasonally appropriate haiku, featuring a classic 5-7-5 format. :-)

Harrison Schlossberg Paradigm

3 rounds

I competed in public forum debate for 4 years at Poly Prep, coached Lake Mary Prep last year and I currently coach for Poly Prep.

Tech > Truth

Don't read blippy turns in rebuttal and then blow the argument up later in the round.

Do comparative weighing, and also tell me why your evidence is better if there is conflicting evidence.

If I call for evidence and if it's miscut you'll get low speaks.

The two easiest ways to my ballot -> 1) clean, unresponded to offense from either case or rebuttal 2) offense with thorough, well developed warranting if there's a lot of ink on that argument.

Basically, I don't want to have to work through messy arguments that don't end up making much sense when I'm making my decision. To make my life even easier weigh the arguments you go for well, don't just throw out the words "scope," "magnitude," etc.

Theory: Not accustomed to judging and evaluating theory arguments. My threshold for abuse is really really high but if the abuse is clear I'll evaluate the argument the best I can.

*I most likely won't vote on disclosure theory*

Gaurav Sett Paradigm

6 rounds

PF debater for four years at Unionville, now a first-year at Georgia Tech.

- If you're wondering if I have clout, I'm friends with David Kinane but that's about it.

- I haven't done anything debate related since June though so don’t assume I’m familiar with the topic.

â €

Overall, I'm a normal flow judge.

- Speed: Fine

- Spreading: No thanks

- Formal clothing: Don't care

- First summary: Doesn't need defense if unresponded to

- Tech: Over truth

- Calling evidence: Be quick

- Wacky arguments: Run them! It's fun

- Collapse: Do it

- Weigh: DO IT

â €

If you have questions just ask!

â €

Ekta Shah Paradigm

3 rounds

Updated during Harvard Westlake 2019 because my previous paradigm was a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

TLDR because you could be reading a more interesting NYT article or somthng:

· I’m not a former debater.

· I’m not a current debater either, although I am often mistaken for one.

· I’ve been teaching high school English and coaching Speech and Debate at Quarry Lane for the past three years.

· Debate is a safe space. I won’t tolerate anyone that violates this. No exceptions.

· My former student Allen Abbott said it best: Debate is still problematic in many ways. If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, please let me know beforehand.

· Convince me why I should vote for you and you can win. It’s that simple.

· My email is Start an email chain.

· Extra kudos to those who wear Northwestern merch. Go Wildcats!

Bob Shurtz Paradigm

6 rounds

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy - let's avoid kritiks, disads, plans, counterplans and theory arguments.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kirtiks or critical affs.

Danny Siegel Paradigm

4 rounds


I competed in Public Forum on the national circuit from 2013-2017. This is my fourth year coaching for Durham Academy in Durham, North Carolina. I currently am a senior attending the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill majoring in Peace, War, and Defense with a concentration in international security and intelligence.

Please have pre-flows ready when you get in the round so we can start immediately.

I will disclose unless the tournament tells me otherwise.


I will buy any argument and vote off of it. This includes kritiks and theory... Just warrant such arguments well.

I don't care if you paraphrase. Just don't misconstrue what your evidence actually says.

Split rebuttals are impressive/strategic but they are not necessary. Just make sure your first speaker frontlines effectively in summary. However, feel free to make their job easier and frontline for them in rebuttal.

My threshold for warranting arguments is very very high. If you are winning an argument in case or in rebuttal, clearly articulate the link chain of the argument when you are extending it. This does not mean shout random card names at me. Just walk me through the logical link chain of what you are extending.


I can flow at just about any speed


If you are going to speak quickly, PLEASE SIGNPOST. ie: "We are winning our 2nd response on their first contention, which is *insert well explained warrant* *insert well explained impact*." I also do not know all the names of authors in your case so tell me what authors say!! Do not just extend specific authors!!

I flow fairly quickly but if I do not know where you are you will likely see me scrambling to figure out what to do with my flow. You should pay attention if I do this because that means slow down or signpost better.


If you have an issue with your opponents evidence make it very clear to me in the round. You can do this in many ways. Examples include reading your opponents evidence out-loud during a speech, explaining how the evidence is misread, and/or telling me to call for the evidence post round.

I will not call for your evidence unless asked to call for something. In my opinion, calling for evidence without a reason is a form of judge intervention.

How to get 30 speaks:

Make the round entertaining/make me laugh.

I personally hate rounds that are way too serious and debaters are not questioning the analytical logic of each others arguments in an entertaining way. This does not mean turn the round into a joke but rather pretend like there is an audience on the zoom call/in the back of the room. This is generally a good strategy to seem perceptually dominate too.

Stacey Sims Paradigm

3 rounds

Generally, I like a well-formed outline driven debate. Spreading to the extent understandable is acceptable; however, if you talk too fast to understand I will not consider it. I hate performance debates. Tell me why you should win. Point on deficiencies in opponents arguments.

Derek Sivells Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Emma Smith Paradigm

5 rounds

Hi! I competed in PF at Nova High School in South Florida from 2014 to 2019. I'm now a student at Duke University and coach PF at Durham Academy. I use she/her pronouns.

How I make decisions-

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance. This is the place on my flow where I need to intervene the least as a judge in order to make a decision. Explicitly identifying your cleanest piece of offense in the round, winning that clean piece of offense, completely extending that clean piece of offense (uniqueness, links AND impacts in BOTH summary and final focus), and then telling me why your cleanest piece of offense is more important than your opponents' cleanest piece of offense is usually an easy way to win my ballot.

General Stuff-

- Second rebuttal isn’t required to frontline but I do think it is really strategic to do so (especially turns).

- First summary doesn't need terminal defense (I guess you could say its ~sticky~ even though that word is gross).


- I think a lot of debaters give "flow" judges too much credit for knowing things. I can only vote on arguments I understand by the end of the round. If your argument is still unclear to me after 4 speeches and 3 crossfires, thats your fault not mine. While I do coach and usually know the resolution well, please do not assume I know everything.


- I personally feel that calling for evidence as a judge is interventionist. I will only do it if 1- someone in the round explicitly tells me to in a speech or 2- reading evidence is literally the only way that I can make a decision (if this happens, it means both teams did a terrible job of clarifying the round and there is no clear offense for me to vote on. Please don't let this happen).

Progressive Args and Stuff-

- I'll evaluate and vote on Kritiks if they are clearly warranted, well explained, and made accessible to your opponents.

- I will also vote on theory that is clearly explained, fleshed out, and well warranted. I believe that theory should ONLY be used to check egregious instances of in-round abuse. So running it to waste time, get a cheap win, or exclude your opponents from the debate will result in low speaks and possibly a loss if you annoy me enough. I won't buy paraphrase or disclosure theory.

- If you plan on reading arguments about sensitive topics, please provide a trigger/content warning before the round. Please work to maintain debate as a safe space and refrain from reading potentially triggering arguments if someone in the round asks you not to. If you have any questions as to what a content warning is, how to go about reading a content warning, or if you're unsure if you should read one- let me know before the round. I'm more than happy to help you! With that being said, I am very receptive to trigger warning theory if one is either not read or violated.


- This should really go without saying but- racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. If I deem your behavior to be excessively rude, condescending, arrogant, or hateful, I reserve the right to intervene and drop you.

Hopefully this covered everything but if you still have questions after reading please feel free to ask before the round!

Ariel Story Paradigm

3 rounds

Background Info:

I debated PF from 2013-2016, and co-coached PF at Grovetown High School the last two years. I have been judging since 2016. Senior Secondary English Ed Major at Kennesaw State University. :)

Important things during the round (PF):

Please give me clear, concise voters as to why your team won the round. It makes it easy for your opponent and I.

Please do not run any theory or K arguments, this is Public Forum debate, and it's not really impressive here.

I care more about CLARITY than SPEED!! If you cannot understand your opponent due to speed, let them know during CX, because there is no reason that should stop you from doing your best. Spreading is a pet peeve of mine. If I cannot understand you due to speed, I will let you know as well.

Please make eye contact during the round with your opponent when you are speaking to them. It's super awkward when debaters only make eye contact with me. Yes, I am literally judging you, but I am not debating you. (This was pre-COVID, resume this whenever in-person debates exist)

In the virtual world, just make sure to do a quick tech test in the room before the round starts!

I do not like calling for cards. If you call for cards, it should be a piece that should be something that is a statistic or imperials and the like, not semantics. If I do, its either because of a dispute between two teams about what the document says. The important part is how you use the card and how well you know it. The point of using evidence to support your argument.

If you make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or in any way meant to put another group of people down, I will be giving you the lowest speaks and reporting you to your coach and the tournament director.

I do not flow CX, but I will be paying attention very carefully to follow arguments, and see how you speak to your opponent.

You can sit, stand, jump rope, whatever you need to do to get your argument out, is fine with me. Make sure it is okay with your opponent too. Show them the same respect you would show your partner. (This was also pre-COVID, will resume once in person tourneys start again)

Speaks: I don't have this long explanation of why my speaks are given, I give them based on how well you argued points, continued to keep up with impacts in the round, had a professional way of addressing and speaking to your opponents, and your overall attitude during the round.

Please keep it kind, I am not a difficult judge, I love hearing arguments and being apart of this debate community! Please email me if there are any questions at

Good Luck out there! :)

Andy Stubbs Paradigm

6 rounds

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.

PF specific:

-Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though.

-You have to frontline offense in second rebuttal

-I rarely call for evidence; if you don't have the warrant in the summary/final focus, I'm not going to call for the card and do the work for you

-If we're going to run theory... make sure it's warranted and, more importantly, merited.

***Speaker points include delivery, strategic decisions, conduct in the round, etc.

*** If you're second flight and the tournament is already running behind and you walk into the room and haven't flipped and pre-flowed, I am going to be annoyed

Pronouns: he/him

Jesse Sun Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated for two years in high school for Lincoln-Sudbury (in Massachusetts).


I think you should be frontlining offense in rebuttal (turns and disads). I think frontlining defense is strategic, but it isn't necessary.

Extensions of Defense:

You must extend defense in first summary if they frontline their arguments in second rebuttal, or else I think your defense is essentially dropped. Clean defense doesn't need to be extended, but the more you repeat an argument, the more likely it is to stick and for it to factor into my decision. Second summary should definitely be extending defense.

Extensions of Offense:

an extension of an argument is only accepted 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)


don't just weigh using random buzz words, do comparative weighing between your offense and your opponents' 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, 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.


You can go pretty quickly in terms of speed for a PF round, but I'm not very experienced following full on spreading.

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.


i vote for the status quo on presumption

i will always prefer the more clear, specific, and well-warranted argument.

i am wholly inexperienced with theory and K debate. I don't think you should run it in front of me.

please ask any questions you may have before the round


at the end of the round, i will disclose the result and provide feedback. Ask me any questions about anything and I'll be down to give you whatever answer I can provide. I think providing feedback after round is the most direct way to convey my thoughts to you as debaters, so I'll prioritize that over writing down comments when I need to.

Jim Sydnor Paradigm

6 rounds

——— High School Judging Paradigm - Princeton ———

Email Chain: -- please add me to any email chains. I don’t know why high school debaters are so hesitant to exchange evidence; they fix so many issues with evidence engagement and even minimizes damage if a debater glitches out mid-speech.

Background: Debated policy in college and high school (TOC). I primarily coach and judge PF and LD.

Argument Choice: I am generally open to and find value in all forms of debate, be it “traditional” or “progressive.” I try to evaluate arguments with minimal judge intervention but will intervene in cases like enforcing NSDA established rules on things like speech times, evidence protocol, etc. I also generally believe arguments like “racism good” or “sexism good” are untenable, and an opponent’s argument about that, regardless of resolution or rest of the flow, is enough to vote against you.

Speed: I can usually handle spreading and flow-heavy debates, just don’t neglect clarity. Debate is a speech-communication activity, and if you cannot adequately communicate to me your argument, then I feel justified saying I did not evaluate that part of the debate. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for being intelligible; you still have the burden of communicating what you’re reading.

Digital debate is also not helping anyone be more clear as voices get warped, lagged, and distorted by the form in which the debate takes place. Even if tech failures are inevitable: there’s a vast difference in me not hearing 2 arguments slowly spoken and warped versus 22 theory subpoints spewed and misunderstood because of lag. Just be careful.

Round Evaluation: I begin by deciding which framework I'm evaluating the round with based on the debate, and then move to evaluating impacts within the framework. I analyze the risk/feasibility of those impacts in the context of their significance within the given framework. In other words I reward debaters who control framework to help your impact and limit out your opponents, and do a good job with impact calc. I default to a consequentialist cost-benefit analysis until otherwise specified, especially in Public Forum, and you can just win on impact calc.

——— Lincoln-Douglas ———

Theory: This is fine, but I admittedly might not be the best judge for it, especially when straying away from conditionality, PICs, framework theory land, and into incredibly arbitrary disclosure violations that shift to exclude whatever the debater didn’t do. I use to think RVI’s were silly, but I’m growing more sympathetic in certain circumstances given the use and abuse of theory in LD.

Topicality: Necessary part of the arsenal. The topic is generally the locus of discussion. I generally believe that when dealing with plan-based debates the Aff still has the burden of maintaining a topical advocacy, that the negative gets T to check back Affs that might have a bad interp for debate, and that the Aff doesn't get a ballot just because they did their duty to be topical. I generally default competing interpretations unless sold otherwise. The exception to all these notes on T is a K Aff strat that challenges interpretations based on instrumental affirmation and can win disads to the act of T.

K’s: As a debater I primarily leaned towards the K. I believe K debate is at its best when its enactment of the critique features deep engagement with the specificity of what happened in the 1AC. Please don't assume I'm head deep in the latest, greatest Bataille, Baudrillard, or high theory lit. I reward debaters on either side who can engage the K lit and its relation to the Aff with clarity and strategy.

K/Performance/Nontopical Affs: I think these are great. I just want a clear reason why you chose your methodology over a more “instrumental” or truth-testing approach. The Neg has to in generate substantial offense against what the Aff did methodologically, even if it's T/Framework, if they hope to beat these Affs.

CP’s: I love a good PIC. I think they’re great in LD, but I am willing to listen to some whole-res args that dismiss the role of CP’s since the role of the debate is not as much about implementation or significance of calculating opportunity costs.

Spikes/Traps/1AC Excessive Underview Nonsense: Grouping the diversity of these all together - sometimes this feels less about smart arguments and instead rewarding “gotcha!” argumentation over substantive engagement. I understand why you do this and have voted on it. I am also sympathetic to theory arguments that could reject you for your practices or at the very least give your opponent room in terms of argument engagement.

——— Public Forum ———

Evidence: I enforce the NSDA established protocols for what’s required in debates in terms of having cards ready for opponents and judges with proper citation are clarified rule similar to speech times, contextualized by whatever decisions are announced by the tournament. This is not a “personal choice,” even if other judges choose not to enforce. I abide by the NSDA clarification on paraphrasing: it’s acceptable, but you still have to have evidence paraphrased available in card format for in-round engagement and judge decision making.

It is your burden to make sure you get the evidence your opponent is citing either immediately before or after they speak (preferably before). You don't need to take prep time to flash or email. I won't intervene if you don't ask, but I will intervene if they refuse to share it to maintain standards. I don't pause prep time or cross-x so you can read your opponent's evidence, but will pause prep if we’re waiting on something like an email to come through.

CP/K’s/Plans/Progressive: This is awkward given the aforementioned discussion of being stricter on evidence. Some of these types of arguments are explicitly banned by the NSDA -- a ban that I do not necessarily believe in, and serves as a content/form regulation that no other type of debate observes at the level of rule-making. I think many of these arguments would make debate better. However, it’s in the same documents that setup things like speech times and evidence policy, and I jurisdictionally have to default to their exclusion unless a team makes a compelling argument for why I shouldn’t exclude. Tell me why it’s an important style of debate and why my ballot helps with norm setting. Likewise, if you’re debating this, why is it unfair for them to introduce this? Long story short: I am a little more open to progressive arguments, but also have to do my job as a judge in an event that has procedurally limited out certain argument styles.

Andrew Taber Paradigm

3 rounds

Debate Experience: Graduated HS 2018; 3 years of PF debate for James Madison Memorial High School. Now at Emory

1) Clean extensions - This means responding to every response on your relevant offense in summary. Extend your warrants and impacts fully eg: If you say the tagline or a card name - I will not flow it for you; you must explain the argument behind the tagline or card name.

2) Weighing- Weighing is the first thing I evaluate at the end of the round. Tell me where I should vote. Logic matters.

3) Summaries and Final Focus - You can extend defense directly from first rebuttal to first final focus unless the second speaking team goes back to case in second rebuttal. All offense must be in summary and final focus.

Those three things are the most important and applicable to every debate round.

4) Speed. If you want to speak fast, make sure you're good at speaking fast. If I can't understand you, it can't make it to my flow. That said, speed rarely is a problem.

5) Second Rebuttal. Second Rebuttal doesn't have to go back to case. However, I think its strategic for you to do so. If first rebuttal puts a turn on your case, however, make sure you address this in second rebuttal.

6) Dropped Arguments: Arguments are dropped after you ignore it in summary. Please collapse strategically. If you don't respond to turns on a dropped argument, your opponents can extend them. Kicking contentions/subpoints is okay as long as you do it correctly.

7) Evidence. All evidence must have author and source. eg: "Vovata of Harvard University" rather than "Vovata" or "Harvard University". I will call for evidence if either your opponent wants me to or if its extended in two different ways. Obviously, you may call for evidence from your opponents etc. but if you do I expect to hear about it in speech.

8) Dates: I think if you have time you can put dates in your case/rebuttal. If you don't, you can open up yourself to date theory. For people running date theory - tell me why it puts you in a structural disadvantage in context to the topic. Don't just cite "NSDA Rules"

John Tegen Paradigm

3 rounds

— This paradigm is written by Carter —


I am a parent judge!

My background is in Software Engineering and Aerospace Engineering. I follow the news but don't have extensive knowledge on the topic.

That said, while I'm mostly tabula rasa, arguments should be well developed from the uniqueness to impact with good warranting. Don't expect me to fill in the dots for you.

I understand the basis of collapse and conceded arguments, and will be flowing throughout the round.

Things that make me happy:

Extended narratives: Don't just extend card names and restate what they say. The best practice is to give warranting and piece evidence together to make your argument crystal clear in the back half.

Warranting: Explain how each evidence links to the next and how evidence reaches its conclusion. E.G. don't just state a % increase in x results in a % increase in y, but explain how the two are connected and then give the quantitative.

Comparative Weighing: Don't just assert that you outweigh on magnitude, severity, etc but actually give the comparative of the two impacts and then warrant why the mechanism is important. Good weighing is a great way to my ballot.

Humor: Have a fun time and make the round enjoyable for me. Jokes shouldn't be forced, just don't take the round so seriously.

Signposting: Don't give an extensive roadmap — I'll probably forget. Just tell me where you're starting and signpost so I can follow.

Things that make me upset:

Ks, Theory, Tricks: Don't think this a good idea, just read substance.

Speed: Don't think this a good idea either.

Being mean: Cutting your opponent off in cross or generally being mean.

Overall, make my ballot easy and treat me as an above-average lay judge.

I will disclose after the round.

Tanner Terry Paradigm

6 rounds

I do not believe in judging paradigms.

Ashish Tewary Paradigm

3 rounds


I am what you would call a "lay judge".

I have judged 20+ PF Rounds at local tournaments.

I like logic, make it clear for me to understand.



*30 speaks if you spread, read a K, or read theory





Angela Thomas Paradigm

6 rounds

I'm a teacher, I know how hard you work and how much this means to you.

I'm a fan of decorum, professionalism, yet a sense of humor can win me over every time. Diction is extremely important to me, as is body language.

I like it when you can incorporate into your arguments why you "solve" or "win".

I flow, I follow impacts and links, and cards matter.

When teams are well matched and cases are both strong, I will often make decisions during Grand cross fire.

Yili Tian Paradigm

3 rounds

I has been judging for a few years, and really enjoy it. I am a senior manager with a large company, and the author of some scientific papers and a book entitled GIS Technology Applications in Environmental and Earth Sciences (ISBN:9781498776059). I have been speaking at many conferences, including the United Nations GIS conference in New York City, October 2013.

I can handle faster than normal conversation speed, if you speak clearly. I don’t like you read your entire speech to me. Doing so will definitely cost you speaker points.

I evaluate teams based on the quality of their arguments, reputable evidences and sound analyses. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your cards over your opponent's cards. No new argument should be introduced in the final focus. I usually do my own research on the topic before I judge it, so I have some knowledge about it. But, my personal opinions have absolutely no influence on my judgement of yours, regardless of anything.

Also, I may pay attention to CX, and judge it. If you interrupt your opponent too much, you may lose points. You win by clearly delivering your convincing arguments, credible evidences and good analyses.

Alyssa Turk Paradigm

6 rounds


I am a flow judge.

I have a few things you should keep in mind:

I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters.

When extending evidence, extend the warrant not just the author (because sometimes I don't write down the tag and just the warrant).

Everything in final focus must also be in summary speech.

I do not flow crossfires. If you make an argument in crossfire or your opponent concedes an argument in crossfire, you must say it in a speech in order for me to count it.

**Although I am a flow judge, I reserve the right to forfeit my flow (and vote like a lay judge) if competitors are offensive, bullying, or just unnecessarily rude.

Will Turk Paradigm

3 rounds

I competed in PF for all 4 years.

The round is in your hands; I will vote for any arg and any style, just convince me. I prefer to vote for the work you put on the flow, not necessarily the best args. I vote for the best debaters. That being said, I'm skeptical of teams using theory in PF.

Defense is sticky. Any evidence/arg in Final Focus must be in a previous speech (not just CX).

Use prep time whenever you're talking with your partner, writing on your flow, typing, or looking at evidence outside speeches.

Talking fast (when necessary) is fine, but I won't be able to flow full-on spreading.

Be nice and have fun :)

Devon Weis Paradigm

3 rounds


I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice cry

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. yell You need to re-explain your argument from fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. This goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

I need parallelism (summary+FF) for any offense you want me to vote for.

I realize this is controversial, but I don’t require defense in summary,sealed although it usually makes sense to extend in 2nd summ once you know what offense your opponent is going for. With that being said, if your opponents frontline case in 2nd rebuttal, you need to answer back their frontlines in 1st summary if you still wanna go for that defense. Defense is most important for me in Final Focus though, so if you want me to delink/NU the offense they're going for, blow it up in FF. (Long story short, good pieces of defense can be extended as terminal D from rebuttal to FF if it isn't answered by your opponents)

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.


Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time.undecided

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Weighing is usually a waste of time if you don't attempt meta-weighing. If aff says they're winning magnitude and neg says they're winning timeframe, and nobody tells me which is more important and why, then I'm going to have to intervene, and that will make me sad. frown

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants money-mouth)


I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

I may look like I’m timing stuff, but I just like to watch the clock run. Track each other’s prep. innocent


Theory's fine, usually it's frivolous in PF. I love RVIs kiss. Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event, but I won't intervene against a shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args if you win/extend role of the ballot :-)

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership tongue-out

Jon Williamson Paradigm

3 rounds

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law


Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

Isabella Wu Paradigm

6 rounds

I used to have a long paradigm, but nobody read it. Here's the tl;dr:

WEIGH- if nobody makes an attempt to weigh, I'm going to flip a coin

Open to pf-considered wacky args i.e. div war, dedev

Theory/K's are fine, but if you suck at them, I will notice

Spread if you want

I might call for ev

Entertain me! (+0.2 speaks per debater, max once per bullet point)

- Call the AFF case arguments 'protentions' instead of 'contentions'

- Skip GCF

- Do an interpretive dance

- Spin around when you read a turn

- Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!)

Thinking about subtracting speaker points for being late because y'all are ridiculous

Myung Yoo Paradigm

3 rounds

I'm the parent of a debater, treat me as a traditional "lay" judge. Speak well and be consistent between your speeches. I expect everything to be brought up in the final focus be in the summary. I always prefer a debate with less arguments but more analysis than a debate with more arguments but less analysis. I prefer a fact supported by quantifiable measurement Don't run progressive arguments such as theory, Ks, or tricks as i don't know how to evaluate them. Have fun and be respectful of each other.

Gian Zaninelli Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rui Zhao Paradigm

6 rounds

Updated 1/7/2020:

In evaluating a debate round, there is the choice of evaluating strength of the arguments vs evaluating debate techniques. Of course one could argue that better techniques lead to stronger arguments, so they are pretty closely related. However, sometimes good techniques are deployed precisely to disguise a shaky argument. I vote based on strength of arguments as they transpire in the round.

I realize that given modern technology whatever case a team is running, pretty soon it is known to the entire circuit and every team starts running similar arguments. How do you judge when almost all teams on pro (or con) run similar arguments without being prejudiced towards one side? My focus is on how well a team responds and counter responds to opponent's arguments and counter arguments.

The following are some ways you can strengthen your case.

A) Logical link. Establish clear link(s) for your argument that opponent could not effectively overturn. Please note that merely saying there is a link between A and B or A implies B is not enough. It is up to you to establish and explain the strength of the link, based on logic, scientific theory, statistical inference or common sense. Offer clear logical explanation why opponent's links are weak.

B) Evidence. All pieces of evidence are not equal. It is up to you to explain why your evidence is strong and supportive of whatever you claim, and why your opponent' evidence is weak and non-supportive of whatever they claim. Evidence without clear explanation and context is not effective evidence.

C) Impact. You should weight impact whenever possible. I like numbers but will take them with a grain of salt, especially when you refer to large numbers of lives or huge sums of money, until you explain their plausibility. The better you explain how you arrive at the numbers and in general the better you explain the plausibility of your predicted impact, the more favorable your argument would look to me.

D) Abundant words and last words do not win the round by themselves. However, repetition does help me remember things so please feel free to repeat your key points (don't overdo it), especially in Summary and Final Focus.

More info from earlier version:

I have been judging Public Forum debate for a few years. I have a background in economics. Consider me a rigorous lay judge if that makes sense to you. Some general principles I vote on:

1. Soundness of your logic. If your logic is not clear, your evidence is likely not being used correctly.

2. Evidence. We are not talking about laws of nature. Social outcomes are rarely inevitable just because they seem logical, at least not along a predicted path. Good evidence makes their occurrences seem more likely or reasonable. Please cite your evidence clearly: who said what where and when. Explain how the evidence supports your argument.

3. Weighting impacts. To weight impacts, it often seems like you need to compare apples with oranges. It is your job to find criteria that help me compare apples with oranges. As an example, if you convince me we should only care about sweetness and nutrition of these fruits and oranges are both sweeter and more nutritious than apples, then I will accept that oranges are better than apples. Look hard for common characteristics of different impacts.

Style. It is hard for me to appreciate style if your logic is flawed or your evidence is misused. Having said that, doing somethings right will help you get more speaker points:

a. Be polite. Don’t shout. Don’t try to shut the other team down.

b. Keep your time and opponents’ time well.

c. Keep your cool and remain calm.

d. Humor can be a powerful argument…at the right moment.

Doing the opposite of a, b, c will reduce your speaker points.