Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

1. Talking fast is fine but no spreading.

2. I am okay with theory and kritik literature as long as you warrant, link, and impact it very well. I'd prefer you stick to the topic at hand, but if you're really passionate about your "alternative" argument then by all means run it. You'll just really need to explain to me what's going on or you'll lose me.

3. Act as if I'm a blank slate on the topic.

4. Tech > truth

5. Crazy args are fine as long as they are explained well.

PUBLIC FORUM PREFS

1. Please don't frontline case in your second speech ( that's what summary is for!). That is such a waste of time. I'd rather have you give me a full 4 minute rebuttal.

2. I'd like a 50/50 split offense/defense in summary. Doesn't have to be *exact* but a general guideline to follow.

3. If you drop something in summary I won't consider it at all if you bring it up in FF.

4. In final focus I put my pen down for the most part. I want you to clearly and succinctly explain to me (i.e., give me numbered reasons) why I should vote for you. Weighing directly at the impact level is also super important here.

PARLI PREFS

1. Asking/attempting AND answering POIs is a good way to get higher speaker points. Don't spam your opponents with POIs though. Just enough for me to know you are engaged in the debate.

2. I hate parli because of the longer speech times. Please keep me interested. Being "performative" is a good way to do that.

3. Tag teaming is fine, but you need to repeat what your partner says.

I am a parent judge, and have been judging mainly PF for 4+ years. I appreciate clear communication and respect for time. I prepare for the topic and like to be involved. I will accommodate any challenges due to online nature of the debate, but would appreciate if the participants have tested their connectivity etc.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

I'm a parent judge with minimal experience. Clarity in communciation/articulating the info will help me digest the info better.

Lay judge.

I ask for clear definitions, contentions, and framework at the beginning.

I judge based on merit and how well the individual competitor spoke and identified their argument clearly.

I am a parent judge and have not judged very many rounds. Please speak slowly and clearly if you want me to understand your arguments. I do not flow speeches or crossfires extensively but I will pay attention to everything that is said during the round.

Be nice to your fellow debaters.

I coach PF, but have personal competitive experience in Congress and Humorous Interpretation.

No spreading.

Tabula rasa.

When saying the name of a source and it's author, please slow down and speak clearly.

I may ask for cards.

Overall, I am looking for teams that are respectful and understand their arguments holistically.

For Public Forum:

I debated on the national circuit in high school and late outrounds at nationals. Now I am a senior studying political science in the bay area. I'm fine with critical arguments and speed, but both must be done well. I judge off the flow so clear signposting and argument order are paramount. I'll reward creative arguments or unique pieces of evidence, but I do not flow crossfire. If you want points made during crossfire to make it to the flow, they must be used in a speech. I also want crossfires to be clean, limit the cutoffs and the rambling-- they should actually be understandable. I do often call to review evidence, I will not hesitate to through out evidence that has been disingenuously sourced or quoted from. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask before the round begins. Good luck to all debaters.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

I am a lay judge, so speak clearly and at a speed that I can understand. Speaking quickly is fine so long as it's comprehensible. I like it when debaters use evidence to back up their arguments and logical analysis. Speak to me while you are talking, and be respectful during cross.

I prefer that students speak clearly and at a slower pace. Please be respectful during cross ex. I don't disclose.

I would prefer the debaters to talk at an appropriate speed.

Another thing I would appreciate asking for cards only when actually its needed, unnecessary demands about cards consume time and also breaks the debate rhythm.

Hello!

I debated PF for 4 years in HS, and led my team in HS. Playing the role of both coach and debater I first and foremost want to see proper decorum during a round. More specifically, try not to drop cards: everything you want must be extended in summary.

Please do not try to impact things not related to the resolution or hard to reach (nuclear war, epidemics, economic depressions). If you have any questions for me, ask before or after the round.

If you want good speaker points, try not to get too nervous or worked up by your opponents. Also, do not try to work up your opponents. Lastly, I am a big Avatar: The Last Airbender fan so bonus speaks for referencing Uncle Iroh or Prince Zuko.

Good luck.

I have judged PF for more than 2 years and 4-5 times per year. I value clear speaking. Please be polite and respectful to each other during rounds.

Please weigh your arguments and spell out my ballot.

It’d be great if you can spend a little time establishing your framework and structure in the beginning to let me know what’s important and what to expect. Please don’t drop the key arguments during the crossfire. In the final focus please show how your arguments outweigh the opponent’s.

I'm a lay judge. I have kids who debates, so I've judged some local circuit tournaments, but that's it. Please do not speak too quickly. Please be clear and nice to your opponent.

Please don't use too much debate jargon.

Otherwise, have fun in the round, make me laugh, and let's debate!

Steve Clemmons

Debate Coach, Saratoga HS, proving that you can go home again.

Former Associate Director of Forensics University of Oregon, Santa Clara University, Debate Coach Saratoga High School

Years in the Activity: 20+ as a coach/director/competitor (Weber, LMU, Macalester, SCU and Oregon for college) (Skyline Oakland, Saratoga, Harker, Presentation, St. Vincent, New Trier, Hopkins, and my alma mater, JFK-Richmond R.I.P. for HS) (Weber State, San Francisco State as a competitor)

IN Public Forum, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ EVIDENCE THAN JUST PARAPHRASING. I guess what I am saying is that it is hard to trust your analysis of the evidence. The rounds have a flavor of Parliamentary Debate. Giving your opponent the entire article and expecting them to extract the author's intent is difficult. Having an actual card is key. If I call for a site, I do not want the article, I want the card. You should only show me the card, or the paragraph that makes your article.

This is not grounds for teams to think this means run PARAPHRASE Theory as a voter. The proliferation of procedural issues is not what this particular event is designed to do. You can go for it, but the probability of me voting for it is low.

How to WIN THE DAY (to borrow from the UO motto)

1. TALK ABOUT THE TOPIC. The current debate topic gives you a lot of ground to talk about the topic and that is the types of debates that I prefer to listen to. If you are a team or individual that feels as though the topic is not relevant, then DO NOT PREF ME, or USE A STRIKE.

2. If you are attempting to have a “project” based debate (and who really knows what it means to have a project in today's debate world) then I should clearly understand the link to the topic and the relevance of your “project” to me. It can't always be about you. I think that many of the structural changes you are attempting to make do not belong in the academic ivory tower of debate. They belong in the streets. The people you are talking about most likely have never seen or heard a debate round and the speed in which some of this comes out, they would never be able to understand. I should know why it is important to have these discussions in debate rounds and why my ballot makes a difference. (As an aside, no one really cares about how I vote, outside the people in the round. You are going to have to convince me otherwise. This is my default setting.)

3. Appeals to my background have no effect on my decision. (Especially since you probably do not know me and the things that have happened in my life.) This point is important to know, because many of your K authors, I have not read, and have no desire to. (And don't believe) My life is focused on what I call the real world, as in the one where my bills have to be paid, my kid educated and the people that I love having food, shelter, and clothing. So, your arguments about why debate is bad or evil, I am not feeling and may not flow. Debate is flawed, but it is usually because of the debaters. The activity feeds me and my family, so think about that before you speak ill about the activity, especially since you are actively choosing to be involved

SPEAKER POINTS

They are independent of win/loss, although there is some correlation there. I will judge people on the way that they treat their partner, opponents and judge. Don't think that because I have revealed the win, your frustration with my decision will allow you to talk slick to me. First, I have no problem giving you under ten-speaker points. Second, I will leave the room, leaving you talking to yourself and your partner. Third, your words will have repercussions, please believe.

FLASHING AND PREP TIME (ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC FORUM)

One of my basic rules for debate is that all time comes from somewhere. The time limits are already spelled out in the invite, so I will stick to that. Think of it as a form of a social contract.

With an understanding that time comes from somewhere, there is no invisible pool of prep time that we are to use for flashing evidence over to the other team. Things would be much simpler if you got the cards DURING CX/Crossfire. You should either have a viewing computer, have it printed out, or be willing to wait until the speech is over. and use the questioning time to get it.

Evidence that you read in PF, you should have pulled up before the round. It should not take minutes to find evidence. If you are asking for it, it is coming out of your prep time. If it is longer than 20 seconds to find the evidence, it is coming out of the offending teams time.

CX/Crossfire

This should be primarily between the person who just spoke and the person who is not preparing to speak. Everyone gets a turn to speak and ask/answer questions. You are highlighting a difference in ability when you attempt to answer the questions for your partner, and this will be reflected on your speaker points. Crossfire for PF should really be the one question, one answer format. If you ask a question, then you should fall back and answer one from your opponent, or at least ask if a follow up is acceptable. It is not my fault if your question is phrased poorly. Crossfire factors into my speaker points. So, if you are allowing them to railroad you, don't expect great points. If you are attempting to get a bunch of questions in without allowing the other side to ask, the same thing will be reflected in your points.

Evidence in PF

My background is in policy debate and LD as a competitor. (I did CEDA debate, LD and NDT in college and policy debate and LD in high school) I like evidence and the strategy behind finding it and deploying it in the round. I wish PF would read cards. But, paraphrasing is a thing. Your paraphrase should be textual, meaning that you should be able to point to a paragraph or two in the article that makes your point. Handing someone the article is not good enough. If you can't point to where in the article your argument is being made, then all the other team has to do is point this out, and I will ignore it. This was important enough that I say it twice in my paradigm.

This is far from complete, but feel free to ask me about any questions you might have before the round.

I am a lay judge.

Please explain your arguments clearly.

I will not vote off of cross though.

I have been a judge associated with Notre Dame High School since 2018 as my older sister is the director of speech and debate there. Tournaments I have judged include invitationals and state qualifiers. My experience includes debate events such as public forum and Lincoln-Douglas, as well as interpretative, oratory and extemporaneous speech events. My debate judging style focuses on the value criteria of net benefit or maximizing welfare. If I feel the proposal would potentially do more harm than good compared to the status quo, I would vote for the negative. If the proposal seems to be more beneficial compared to the status quo, I would vote for the affirmative.

I am a lay judge, so I am a parent. Don't speak too fast! Speech skill counts for 50% of my judging, and the other 50% is the content and accuracy of the arguments.

Hey all. I am Abhijit Dey, a judge from Dougherty Valley High School who judges PF and Extemporaneous Speech. So far I have been judging for 1.5 years at DV.

I will award speaker points to the most eloquent speakers and the ones with the most knowledge on the topic, as well as the ability to explain themselves smoothly. Speaker points are also based on your attitude- be nice to everyone in the round.

I like to see clear drawn out arguments and impacts in the final speech with comparison to opponents arguments. Please spend a lot of time explaining your argument to me throughout the rounds, if not, I may be lost if you go fast.

I will be taking notes but not fully flowing.

Use evidence how you would like but do not lie about it. If your opponents ask to see it send it to them immediately and continue the round.

I evaluate cross examination greatly. As someone with a congressional law degree, I believe that your arguments are made and set up in cross examination and you must be good with your questions.

The truth is extremely important but your arguments do not need to be 100% truthful if you are winning off of skill. However, if the round is close, I might not want to vote for you because your arguments are mistruth as I may be biased.

PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND PLEASE

I did pf for 4 years completed on the national circuit.

Warrant every argument you make, and don’t expect your opponents/judge to take it at face value.

Weigh the round so I don’t have to, by the end of the second final focus it should be pretty clear who I am voting for because the debaters evaluated the round and condensed it for me. You don’t want to be in the position where I am left at the end of the round weighing arguments for you and putting the decision in my hands.

If you’re gonna spend 30+ seconds of your speech on framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what u gain/opponents lose. Speeches in public forum are too short for you to waste your time debating framework if winning it makes no difference on the overall decision.

Debate style: I am open to anything. If you’re going to talk fast you need to be clear and sign post properly or it will work against you. Be respectful to one another, you can be assertive and make points without being rude.

My name is Narender Enduri. I prefer candidates speaking slowly, clearly. They should respect each other during cross examination and don't take anything personal. I would like everyone to present proper evidence to back up any of their arguments, and the arguments should be logical and explained thoroughly. If you have any doubts before the round begins, feel free to ask me any questions.

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

If you do not have an off case position, I will forget your off-time roadmap. Please tell me in your speech what argument you are addressing.

Read whatever (non-offensive/egregiously untrue) argument you want; I try to be flexible.

I will not evaluate theory arguments presented in the ABCD interp violation blah blah format. If you want to explain your theory argument in the (relatively) conversational language that you present all your other arguments in, then I will listen. https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/

I reserve the right to be more persuaded by a team.

Lay judge. No debate experience myself, other than judging PF the past two years.

Clear, normal paced speaking is appreciated. I take notes, and weigh evidence. I use a bar of whose arguments ultimately convince me Aff vs. Neg, and take into account how far-fetched the linking of evidence goes. (Try and not have everything end up linking to ISIS or Godwin's law for example.)

Hi!

For background, I debated the UIL and TFA circuit in high school (small school debater with experience on the nats circuit). I'm ok with spreading but be clear/emphasize main points. I'm comfortable with non-traditional cases/arguments (Theory, multi-level frameworks, etc.) but i'm iffy with Kritiks. If you run them, you'll need to weigh them big-picture wise if you want me to buy them over topical arguments. Make sure to be clear on your voters and weigh impacts.

Engubia Fontama is a current freshman at Stanford University.

A novice judge, but has previous experience in debate. In high school, she was a part of the debate and activism organization, Junior Statesmen of America where she watched and participated in supreme court simulation, gavel and standard debates.

please please PLEASE stop calling for so much evidence what kind of norm is this

**current thoughts on debate: i think the longer judges take to come to a decision the more incorrect their ballot is**

email: gantlasr@gmail.com

4 years PF @ canyon crest/carmel valley, also championed the prestigious and well-run del norte pf round robin w/ syon iain & maanas

all events:

if you're going to spread, i need the speech doc

no slurring pls and slow down for numerical stats

please no Ks

messy round = long wait for rfd, see above

explain any topic-specific terms clearly

PF specific:

-you're best served debating the way that you normally debate as i can understand pretty much everything within the realm of PF and can adapt to most styles

-that being said, a few things you should know (most important --> least):

i require everything to be frontlined in 2nd rebuttal to access case offense, not just turns - be strategic

dropped defense can go from rebuttal to ff

ideally, no theory/K/etc. i think these types of arguments aren't relevant in most PF rounds -- i have a low threshold for responses

ill probably call for cards but if there's anything you want to make sure i read, tell me to in your speech -- i only read highlights unless you tell me to read unhighlighted parts

misc:

preflow in your own time, show up to round & set up table tote ASAP, flip beforehand etc - please don't keep the tournament waiting

For speaks: if it's a really good round, expect 30s. otherwise, I tend to give out pretty average speaks. Default 25 if you're syon mansur or Yash gupta

if you have further questions, ask before round

Speak at a normal speed- do not spread or go fast.

Make logical arguments.

Weighing- make sure to tell me why your impact is actually more important

Be polite during cross! I will tank speaks if you are rude or obnoxious to your opponents during the round.

No rude cross fires please

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

I am a parent judge who has experience judging the Public Forum debate. I prefer clear argumentation that directly relates to the topic and for students to provide voter issues for me in the final rebuttal speeches. I don't like it when debaters dodge questions in cross-ex.

I consider myself a myself a flay judge (flow/lay). I prefer that you don't spread too fast, as then I won’t be able to understand your points. Make sure to talk slowly, and please do not yell or be overly aggressive. Whatever you say should have merit and whatever you say should add value to the debate. For Speaker points, I’m looking for good overall decorum and calm collected speakers. Other than that good luck!

Lay Judge

* Speak slowly and clearly. Keep things simple and logical. Don't use debate jargon.

* When you read evidence, please say reasons behind it also (don't just say we have _ card and move on).

* I prefer reason over evidence. I like when teams remind me of their final case arguments but don't spend a whole minute on it - just say it in one or two sentences.

* If you collapse, please say clearly that you are collapsing.

* I don't believe improbable arguments like nuclear war and extinction. A piece of advice is to run smaller impacts for me to believe and vote for it.

* Please be respectful to each other

Thx and have fun.

This is my third year judging, mix of PF and policy. Would prefer you keep it simple. Please no kritikal Affs or super out-there postmodern kritiks. Please keep topicality reasonable.

Please don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't judge you.

Please include on email chain (cecarr@gmail.com)

I am a lay judge. I would appreciate slow and clear speaking and the explanation of any debate jargon you would like to use. Thouroughly explain your arguments, and repeat any key points. I want to see clear voting issues, good vocal inflection in all speeches.

I believe persuasive communication is important. I don't make my decisions based solely on speaking style, however it is important. Please make a few clear concise points.

Samuel Nelson stated "-make a claim, explain that claim, and back it up with evidence."

I don't mind a heated crossfire, but please be polite.

I am a parent judge and this is my 3rd year judging PF.

-I value each debater's preparation, commitment and passion in debate. In order for the judge to be fair and objecive to evaluate your arguments and performance, please talk with reasonable speed, fully explain your arguments with logic and clarity. Explain your jargons or acronyms and don't assume the judge is a professional debater.

-I give extra speaker points to the debater who is respectful and thoughtful to his/her opponents, especially during the crossfire. At the end the competition is a game. Winning is great, but being kind with each other will have better long-term impacts.

Be yourself and enjoy the game!

I am a lay judge. Please speak at a normal pace.

Parent judge-

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Please be respectful to your opponents.

Prefer Crossfire to be question and answer rather than arguing.

i am a parent judge. please add me to the email chain and before speeches, email both your case and rebuttal documents so that I can better read/follow along and understand everything in online debate: teresahu08@gmail.com.

please speak clearly, and be respectful during crossfire.

good luck!

Truth vs. Tech is not a zero-sum game.

I am a parent judge. I value truth over tech. Please go slow and be engaging. Never judged ld before.

USC Alum (class of 2023)

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

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

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

I have been a parent judge since 2016. I flow but consider me a flay judge and I try to be completely unbiased going into the round. I cannot flow spreading make sure to speak as fast as you would with a novice judge.

I do not evaluate crossfire for the result of the round other than your speaker points. Any concessions made in cross must be brought up in a speech otherwise I will not evaluate it. Please make sure to be courteous during cross otherwise your speaker points will reflect that.

The way I evaluate the round is based on extended impacts in summary and final focus. Make sure that you impacts are warranted otherwise I will not consider the impacts. Everything you reference in final focus must be extended through summary otherwise I will not evaluate it in the round. Most importantly WEIGH otherwise I will have to do my own weighing analysis and you might not like the results.

Occupation: Software Engineer

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2 years (PF, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, Expository)

I award speaker points based on fluency, cohesiveness, and presentation style.

How I will choose the winner:

-Narrow down your points by the end of the round.

-Support your arguments with evidence, but reasoning is important too.

-My decision will mostly come from what is presented in summary and final focus.

-Signpost, don't go fast, and don't use debate terms.

-I mostly understand the concept of offense and defense, but if you decide not to go for an argument with only defensive responses, please tell me so I know.

-Explain your responses and how they refute your opponent’s arguments.

-Make sure if an argument is in final focus, it was in the summary speech.

-Weigh your impacts over your opponent's.

I try to take a lot of notes but I usually can’t entirely keep up with the pace of the debate. If something is important, make it very clear.

How heavily I weigh different aspects of the debate: (1 is not at all, 10 is heavily)

Clothing/Appearance: 1, Use of Evidence: 8, Real world impacts: 7, Cross Examination: 6, Debate skill over truthful arguments: 6

I am a parent judge. Speak calmly and clearly, the debate space should be safe for everyone. Respect your opponents through all of their speeches. Besides that, do not run Theory or Kritiks. Let's have a good debate!

I am a parent who has been judging PF for the past 7 years. The best way to win my ballot is to read thoroughly explained and well warranted arguments. I will do my best to flow, but please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a Parent Judge and been doing this since 2017, I mostly judge debates. I am convinced with the team/person who were able to convince me regarding the resolution. I would like the debater's not speak too fast, but clearly. I am of the opinion of being respectful of others opinion and wait for their turn to speak. I am mostly swayed who is able articulate with cool head. I am interested most of the topics and does some research.

I’ve judged a few tournaments in the last two years, and I would consider myself to be a lay judge. I’m open to listening to any arguments that you want to run as long as they are clear, well warranted, and delivered clearly. I do flow in the round and do my best to vote off of the arguments that remain at the end of the round. I typically give high speaker points as long as you are clear and explain yourself well.

At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun and a learning experience, so please try to have fun in the round and be respectful of your opponents in the round.

Hi, this is Tianliang’s son.

My dad is your standard lay judge. Don’t assume he knows a lot about the topic.

English is also not his first language, so I recommend you speak slowly and explain things clearly - he really likes listening to politicians talk and audiobooks as well. He isn’t too politically knowledgeable but he knows a lot of stuff about famous people because he listens to so many audiobooks. If you try to act knowledgeable and hnderstanding of the topic, he will be inclined to vote for you.

Most of all, he likes respectful and nice debaters. Do this, and it will help your speaker points a lot.

Archbishop Mitty '18

UC Berkeley '22

USC Gould Law '25

About me

I did PF in high school pretty competitively. If you have any other questions for me just ask before the round!

*PLEASE MAKE EVIDENCE EXCHANGES QUICK AND ONLY DISPUTE EVIDENCE IN SPEECHES*

PLEASE WEIGH.

preflow before round please.

*Note on prep time: if you are prepping while you are waiting for a card, you need to run prep.

Technicalities

• I will not evaluate arguments without warrants! Extending warrants in summary and final focus is very necessary. It's not enough to say "extend x author or x statistic" without the warrant.
• For me to vote on an argument please 1) Warrant it and 2) Weigh it.
• First Summary: It is not necessary to extend defensive arguments in first summary. The exception is if they frontline said arguments in second rebuttal, in which case you should respond to the frontlines.
• Second Summary: All defensive arguments you extend in final focus must be in second summary or I will not weigh them.
• Everything in final focus should be in summary. Two exceptions. 1) Again, first final focus can extend defense that was not responded to in the second rebuttal. *That does NOT mean first FF can make NEW analysis/weighing about that defense! 2) First final focus can frontline a response that was not brought up until the 2nd summary.
• Second rebuttal should spend some amount of time answering first rebuttal. While you should prioritize answering case, some response toward first rebuttal is ideal.
• Weighing: Start weighing in summary, including first summary. Don't just weigh impacts. Link-level weighing is just as or even more important. Collapsing in summary and final focus is crucial.
• Impacts: Always terminalize your impacts. If possible, I prefer concrete numbers that directly relate to your argument (1000 lives). This makes it easier to weigh as well. If you are extending/weighing scalar impacts (i.e. x increases y by 20%) try to contextualize that percentage.

Evidence

• Evidence ethics in debate and especially in PF are a big problem in my opinion. I strongly prefer quoting sources, but if you are paraphrasing make sure it does not misconstrue the intent of the author.
• Have your evidence readily available. If you cannot locate a card within a few minutes, I will strike it.
• I’ll call for evidence after the round has ended in two scenarios: 1. I was explicitly told to call for a card in a speech or 2. A card was consistently disputed in the round.
• If upon examination, there is legitimate abuse of evidence, I am automatically dropping you and docking speaker points.

Speaking

• My average is ~28.5. I assign speaker points based on strategic decision-making in round.
• I’m fine with speed, but no spreading. That being said, clarity precludes speed; only go as fast as you can while speaking in a comprehensible manner.
• Signpost clearly, especially in summary and final focus.
• You will lose points if you are overly aggressive or rude.

Ks/Theory: I honestly do not have much experience with Ks and theory, so I would really prefer you not run it because I will have no idea how to evaluate it.

edited for toc

Overview:

I do not have a preference for any style of debate, but I no longer consider myself a "circuit" judge. When in doubt, assume I'm a traditional judge (as in: I like good case debate and I'm most familiar with it). I am not tabula rasa but I will evaluate any/all arguments as objectively as possible (exception: hate speech/exclusionary rhetoric). Ultimately,you should read what you think will win you the round. My original paradigm is included below for you to peruse.

If a team has made the round unsafe for you or has excluded you from the round then please call them out to the best of your ability. I have a commitment to the flow but debate equity is much more important. I also understand that there will be instances in which calling out your opponent is not feasible; if you feel comfortable doing so you can PM or email me and I'll contact tab/ombuds for further instructions (and will be mindful of confidentiality). No matter what happens, I'll try to be reasonable. I align w/David‘s paradigm the strongest on this front, which I've also linked for reference.

Details:

- Faster speeds are fine, assuming both teams are okay with it. I will call clear and slow if needed. However, I will not be happy if you spread out your opponent at a non-bid tournament in prelims - I may intervene if it is clearly impacting the quality of the debate. See the in-round equity stuff above.

- I will be annoyed if you "kick the lay judge" in elims (what if I was the lay judge??) but I won't intervene.

- For the purpose of the round you should assume I don’t know anything about the lit base of your kritik. I am not super comfortable with evaluating performances but I understand why they may be necessary.Please clearly define alternate FWs because otherwise I will not know how to evaluate!

- My default layering is t>fw>k>case. I am a bad theory judge when it comes to tricky stuffbut I am not anti theory as a whole. You will lose me with frivolous theory that isn't explained/warranted well. I'm not familiar with tricks, NIBs, IVIs, and the like. I have a low threshold for RVIs but an even lower threshold for responses to them. Pref a different judge if you love in depth theory debates because I won't be much help in terms of feedback.

- No stance on conditionality or any type of counterplan.

- I will not call for cards unless they're heavily contested, and also will not flow cross. Keep evidence disputes short - I'll interrupt if the disagreement is getting out of hand.

- I'm very generous with speaker points (29+). Obvious exceptions if you say something blatantly racist/homophobic/xenophobic/violently ad hominem to your opponents.

- I will disclose in prelims if all teams ask/agree. Oral RFDs will be short because I'm more coherent in writing.

- Ask me for my email before the round if there is an email chain.

- I don’t have the best poker face, but I will try not to be distracting.

- Referring to me as "Judge" is fine. From my earliest paradigm: "don't shake my hand, a bow will suffice."

Try to have fun because I know how stressful this activity can be. Good luck and happy debating :-)

I did PF in HS for four years. If you win your argument and weigh it effectively, you will win my ballot.

- Everyone says to weigh. But pretty please actually do it. Weighing is not buzzwords but it is a specific comparative analysis. Good weighing requires significant time allocation and should happen as early in the round as possible.

- Logic >>>>> unwarranted evidence

- "Truth vs. Tech is not a zero-sum game." - Sauren Khosla

Ultimately, debate is supposed to be fun. I want y'all to enjoy the round. Please feel free to make as many corny puns, tik tok references, and awkward metaphors as you want. Happy to answer any other questions.

“Road work ahead. Uhhhh yeah I sure hope it does” - Vine

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

judged ld/pf before but haven't judged in the past couple years. try not to spread and ill flow, have fun!

I am a lay judge with minimal experience, please talk slowly and clearly because if you don't I won't be able to take notes on what you say - specifically for Apple Valley and the Novdec topic try not to use big words and debate terms to sound smarter - it'll only serve to confuse me more.

I debated Public Forum for 2 years and briefly debated policy for one year while in high school. I also competed in oratory for a year and have had some experience with expository. That being said, while speech skills are still important within a public forum round, I will look towards arguments and debate skill when weighing a round. As far as speed goes I am okay with any speed and will be able to understand you as long as you are clear, however, make sure if you are going to talk fast that you are clear while doing so.

For what I like to see in a round, I would like a good clear round with well presented arguments and clash from both teams. I believe clear organization is important to a good round and will make it much simpler for debaters as well as me as a judge to follow what is going on. The Final Focus and Summary are the two most important pieces of a round to me and I would like to see main arguments presented and impacts weighed against each others. During FF I would like to see voters presented clearly as well. I like to see what arguments are left at the end of the round from each team.

I am okay with any type of argument as long as you have the evidence to support it and can clearly communicate the information you would like to present. Assume that I as a judge know nothing about the topic beforehand.

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

In the round:

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

 Arguments:

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

Delivery:

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

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

I am a professor of Ophthalmology at Stanford and I am a parent judge who looks forward to hearing concise and informative arguments. I am not keen to have volumes of data thrown out without depth of the argument brought the forefront. Assume I know nothing about the topic (far from true) but your case needs to be understandable by anyone and everyone--so don't float too high in the clouds. I flow your arguments so keep it tangible.

Most importantly: smile, relax, and have fun. let your hard work and preparation flow in the moment.

I am a lay, parent judge.

Please talk clearly and slowly (no spreading). Please debate a PF round (no kritiks or theory or counter plan). Please be polite, especially in crossfire. I like signposting and please make each response clear.

Looking forward to the debate.

Hello,

My name is Hugo and I’ve been a lay judge for hire for 3 years. I do not have any experience competing as a speaker/debater. Please do not spread or I won’t be able to keep up. Speaking quickly is alright though, but if I can't follow along then I might miss the main point of an argument. Assume I know nothing of the subject. Good luck young debaters.

I was a national circuit debater for Lake Highland for four years.

I really value strategic decision-making in-round — rounds are won when teams pick voters, extend warrants and impacts cleanly, and weigh them well.

Anything that comes up in cross needs to be presented in speeches as well to be considered. If I need to ask for evidence, tell me that explicitly. Be polite to one another.

This is PF! Never assume your judge/audience is super technical! I'm fine with speed, obscure arguments, etc. but you should be aiming for simpler explanations/rhetoric whenever possible.

I really don't need off-time roadmaps, but if you need them just make them short.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

I'm an experienced parent judge with three years of experience judging Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parli. I will be flowing your round.

When it comes to speed, I want a debater to be clear, concise, articulate, and speaking at a reasonable, understandable pace. I despise, with a passion, spreading and the arguments that often accompany that "rhetorical" style.

Arguments: Please be rational. Links to extinction devalue reasonable debate, if you use them, you lose. This same rule accompanies K-debates, theory debates, irrelevant phil debates, and most things "circuit debate."

If you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you might as well not come to round.

All of this is to tell you what not to do because the pendulum of debate seems to be swinging towards this and away from critical thinking, rational thought, and deep and poignant philosophy. This next bit is what I actually enjoy to see in a debate.

Framework: I weigh philosophy heavily, especially if it's creative, relevant, and understandable.

Arguments: Not card heavy, statistics can be overbearing (use them sparingly but effectively) Logic sprinkled with facts to back it up.

CX: Be polite and effective.

Rebuttals: Act as though you are a surgeon, systematically explain and refute your opponent's thought process one clear step at a time. Be organized.

Have Fun!

1. Speak clearly. Don't rush. Face me when you are talking, room could get loud at times.

2. Try not to repeat arguments.

3. Provide your case convincingly.

4. Ability to listen and let the other person finish is important for me.

5. Finishing your arguments/statements/points within your allotted time is important for me.

Occupation: Computer Engineer

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: I do not consider myself an experienced judge, but I have judge Public Forum, Parli, and Policy at a few tournaments over the past two years.

Speaker Points: I understand things only when spoken clearly and at an understandable speed. I will award speaker points based on how well I understand what you are saying,

Voters: I will vote off of things that you clearly depict to me that you have won in your last few speeches. Make everything as clear as possible please!

Flowing: I try my best to note down what I can. I cannot promise an organized flow, but I do take notes.

Clothing/Appearance: Just dress appropriately!

Real World Impacts: I will often weigh impacts based on what I think has a bigger magnitude, but please don't run things that are out of proportion as I will view them as having close to no probability of occurring.

Cross Examination: Be respectful! I do not like when people don't let others finish talking or talk over them.

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

I mainly judge public forum, and occasionally policy or congress.

The following is for Public Forum. Here’s what I expect:

1. Make sure you introduce yourselves before you start.

2. I expect all debaters to know the rules and be respectful to one another.

3. Debaters should keep track of their prep time and speech times but I may monitor them and time myself.

4. Be clear and communicate effectively (No spreading please). If I can't understand you, I will assume you don't know your topic.

5. Anything dropped in the round can not be responded to later in the debate.

6. Don’t read new cards in the Final Focus.

7. Do lots of weighing in the Summary and Final Focus; you should make it clear to me who won the round, I shouldn’t have to do the weighing myself.

Policy

1. Come prepared to round with a flash drive in case the WiFi is down and you can't email your speech docs.

2. Say which argument you are responding to before you read a card, and group arguments.

3. Don't read just evidence and expect me to interpret why they were said; make it clear what each card means in the context of the debate with analysis.

4. Do what you would do in a normal policy round- don't read floating pics and unreasonable theory shells against your opponents just because they or I don't know the rules as much as you.

5. I will be reading your speech docs but it would be wise for you to read at a speed at which I can clearly understand what you're saying.

6. Divide the neg block between your partner reasonably- for example you shouldn't be going both case and off case in each speech of the block.

7. Properly flow the round and be respectful to your partner and opponents by at least acting like your listening to their speeches. This will enable you to debate line-by-line rather than just using pre-made blocks that don't necessarily address the warrant of your opponent's arguments.

Updated (06/29/2022)

Currently an IP lawyer. If i am judging, it is because i owe someone a favor.

Overview:

Ill say "what" if i didnt hear/understand what you said

PF:

a decade worth of national circuit experience. former national competitor. former top 10 PF coach. Ill disclosed if you want. time yourselves. 

CX/LD:

Love a good theory debate but i love a good debate on the merits (blame the pfer in me) i wont blame you for striking me lmao

I am a coach-adjacent (married to one) judge, and I have been judging policy, PF and LD for 15 years. I was also a policy debater in the last century. That said, I am not necessarily dialed in to the most current strategies and shorthand, especially in policy. My overall approach is basically tabula rasa- I will consider any argument that you can explain in terms of engagement with your opponent, i.e. if you can tell me WHY what you are bringing into the round should win my vote. That could be evidence, impacts, kritiks- whatever- I just need to know that you are listening to your opponent, engaging them directly and weighing their response to you. I’m not really drawn to debates about debate (theory?) in a debate round, but I value thoughtful kritiks about the appropriateness and shortcomings of topics/resolutions in the real world. I will vote on topicality, but it needs to be rigorously adapted to the case in round by specifying exactly why something is non-topical. I’m well aware of the implications for educational purposes.

In terms of mechanics, I can flow fairly speedy rounds, but I have always been a quality over quantity judge. Debate is still about communication and persuasion, and presenting a great volume of evidence/sources accomplishes neither goal.

For Public Forum rounds, much of what I like to see in policy applies, only more so because the time to make arguments is so abbreviated. The winning team will have narrowed their best argument down to one or maybe two by final focus, and will keep it tight, clear and concise.

In LD, I am old school, and I appreciate the idea of a ponderous, reflective and challenging philosophical discourse on a contentious topic. I want to see well developed cases and arguments that explore the moral implications of respective sides of a resolution. A good LD round, in my view, is one in which both participants can speak like orators and use the power of language to bring the listeners to hear the righteousness of their position.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

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

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

My experience is as follows:

I competed in high school for 4 years policy debate, student congress and forensics (speech).

I have judged the last 3 years in PUFO debate and speech events.

My paradigm is as follows:

Speak clearly and articulate your thoughts. If I can’t understand you then I can’t give you credit for providing evidence or making a point. I was a debater so I can flow when someone speaks quickly I just need you to enunciate.

Make sure you have evidence to back up your main arguments and be organized enough to provide the evidence to the other team if they ask for it.

Make sure to not drop an argument.

i flow the round but i'm not tech and i can handle some speed (be safe and just go slow). i'm pretty well-read on most topics, especially economic ones, but i'm tech over truth. logic > evidence w/o warranting. if the tournament allows me to i'll disclose w/ a detailed rfd

I have judged Varsity PF for 2 years. I don't have many pet peeves but do make sure to be respectful of each other. I focus on presentation and arguments made. Make sure to explain all arguments thoroughly with evidence as that is what I vote off of. Speed is fine as long as you talk clearly.

I am a Lay Judge who is new to judging. Expecting teams to speak clearly and slowly.

Hi, I am Alise and am a lay judge for PF. I have never competed in debate, but I have judged public forum at a few local tournaments around the Bay Area.

I will evaluate the arguments that I can understand. Please speak at conversational speed if possible or I may not catch your arguments. I will take occasional notes, so please focus on being persuasive and really explaining each of your arguments.

This is the first time I will be hearing this topic, so please explain any acronyms/arguments in the same way you would explain them to someone for the first time. I want everyone to have fun and enjoy themselves so please keep the debate cordial. Feel free to ask me any questions before the debate!

!!! IF THE SECOND-SPEAKING SIDE CALLS FOR EVIDENCE OR TAKES PREP TIME BEFORE BOTH CASES ARE READ, THEY WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED ON MY BALLOT. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--

Hi, I'm Pratik. I'm a former PF debater from Canyon Crest, now studying at UC Berkeley. (class of '23)

--

TLDR: Read the bold (but you should read everything if you have time). Also, these announcements:

*2020-2021 SEASON: Most presentational stuff in my paradigm won't apply because of remote debates so ignore those. BUT, the remote nature means you will have to speak more clearly than in an in-person debate.

--

How I judge:

- I consider myself a really basic, no-frills debater and judge, which means I would prefer the typical definitions/framework/contentions debate. I won't understand any policy/LD mumbo jumbo, and will never accept copies of your case/speech doc/etc.

- 80% flow, 20% speaking/presentation. As a general rule, better debaters tend to be better speakers. I have a big soft spot for 'flay' teams and rounds so if going fast isn't your thing, don't sweat it! It'll also boost your speaks for prelims. In elims, I tend to be more flow- and argumentation-heavy.

- I don't flow crossfire, or factor it in my decision. Use crossfire to trap your opponents and expose gaps in their arguments. Elaborate on your team's crossfire discoveries in the following speech.

- I will disclose unless it is too close to call on the flow. I will also give a (mostly) oral RFD after round unless we are running late. If either case occurs, expect a lengthy written RFD. You are always free to talk to me or ask for my email after round.

Other rules:

- I prefer speaking speed to be <200 words/min but can probably handle up to 225. Above 225, I won't be able to flow effectively, and 300+ is considered spreading. If I can't flow something you said because you were too fast, and end up dropping it or voting against it, that's on you, not me.

- No calling for evidence/running prep until both cases are read. Also, please don't slow down the flow of the debate by calling for evidence all the dang time.

- No using prep time before cross.

- Don't abuse offtime roadmaps. Keep roadmaps to 5 seconds if you want to use them offtime. However, ONTIME road maps/signposting are greatly encouraged and highly recommended (see "How to win").

- 5% grace period on speeches to wrap things up. If your opponents are being abusive with time, let me know.

- After the round, I may ask for cards. Keep them ready!

--

How to win:

- The 4 Cs: Be clear, concise, convincing, and confident. That's it. Everything else I say here falls under one of those.

- SIGNPOST! Please make my flow organized. Use roadmaps before/at the start of your speech and number your topics. (Ex. "My opponent's first contention was ___. I have three responses. First...")

- CLEAR, RELEVANT VOTER ISSUES IN FINAL FOCUS. If the debate is super messy, then I may just only factor your Final Focus speeches in my decision.

- Have good posture and delivery. Don't hunch over your paper/laptop in your delivery; look at me as much as you can while giving your speech. Remember, your speaks DO matter to me more than the average circuit judge.

--

How to lose:

- I will instantly give your team a loss and tank your speaks if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or otherwise egregiously exclusionary.

- Be rude to me, your opponents, or anyone else participating in or managing the tournament.

- Slur/mumble/speak in a way that I cannot understand and flow what you're saying. Spreading (talking in excess of 300 words/min for me) will be an instant loss and 25 speaks.

- Bring up new evidence in Final Focus. Only concepts expressed in Summary Speech can be expressed in Final Focus. The only exception is if your opponents dropped rebuttal defense in their Summary Speech.

- Fidget/fumble on or off the podium.

- Break tournament rules.

--

If you think your opponents are breaking the rules:

- Stop the round IMMEDIATELY (not after the round ends) and notify me. I will take appropriate action. I would prefer to have both sides present during a conflict, but if it is something you NEED to speak to me in private about (without your opponents around), please request not to disclose after round.

- The longer you wait until after the round to notify me of any wrongdoing, the less I can do about it. I will NEVER accept claims of a violation without evidence unless I noticed it too.

--

Speaking/presentation scale (updated 11/17/20):

NOTE: This score has NOTHING to do with the quality of your arguments.

25 or less: Rule violation, discrimination, spreading, etc.

26: Rudeness, I didn't understand anything you were saying, frequent pauses, monotony, distracting fidgeting, etc.

27: No droppable offenses, but below average.

28: Average.

29: You're VERY good, and only had a few errors that only minorly impacted your delivery.

30: Basically impossible to achieve from me.

--

Thanks for reading this really long paradigm! Let me know if you have any questions before the round starts.

--

PSA: Spreading, common in circuit LD and policy, is contrary to the purpose of debate because debate's main objective should be to stimulate discourse in forums all over the US and abroad. Spreading hinders any further discourse by strategically and unfairly stuffing arguments and winning off technicalities, making it inaccessible to a larger audience and lowering any chances of real discourse happening.

TOC:

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

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

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

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

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

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

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

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

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge, and am fairly well read on most world affairs.

I prefer clear communication, so please do not go too fast. I also would like decorum, so please be polite and do not speak over each other. I would also recommend that you respect your fellow debaters, and not whisper or talk when your opponents are speaking.

I must be able to understand and agree with your logic to vote for you. I expect you to back up your statements with evidence - any evidence that is not challenged may be viewed as "good" evidence - however, I may ask for evidence in certain cases. An exception to the above is well established, and well-known facts. I realize that this may appear to be a bit subjective, but if someone challenges an opponent on what could widely be recognized as well-known facts, that would not be helpful. Additionally, I also expect that you have a good understanding of the topic, and the arguments you are making - so good preparation will hold you in good stead.

Finally, establishing a greater impact, through a combination of your argument, debating skills and ability to effectively counter your opponents' argument will help you in securing my vote.

Did nat circuit PF and Extemp at Dougherty Valley

I evaluate tabula rasa which means you can read whatever you want and I will evaluate any argument as long as it is WELL WARRANTED. Warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence. TECH > TRUTH (again only if it is warranted well). Don't speak way too fast as you risk me missing things and lowering your speaker points, particularly in the back half of the round.

I won't flow cross so if something important happens bring it up in a speech.

Make sure to have clear SIGNPOSTING of your arguments in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. When doing extensions don't just extend last name and year, actually extend the warranting behind the argument as well. I would say overall I have a high threshold for off case args.

Anything you want evaluated in final focus needs to be in SUMMARY.

Exchanges of evidence between teams are fine as long as they take less than two minutes. I may call for evidence if it ends up being critical in round or if I am asked to call for it. I am unlikely to time speeches and prep time but I expect both teams to keep each other accountable.

To minimize intervention please remember to WEIGH your impacts and/or links against those of your opponents in final focus (or even earlier speeches).

If you are too rude or aggressive to your opponents I will drop your speaks. Please don't say my opponents drop this the whole round if they clearly didn't drop something, expect low speaker points if you do that. I will only drop a team if they clip/severely powertag evidence or act sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

I don’t like to shake hands. I don't care if you sit or stand and wear whatever you want. Try to preflow before the round.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round or message me on facebook messenger, or email me at shaheer.sandhu@berkeley.edu

I am an old policy debater from high school and college. A very successful one at that, although that was a long time ago (yes, I too went to TOC and yes, they had it back then). I do flow and will do my best to render my decision solely on the arguments presented in the round. I have no preconceived biases for or against any position on the topic. It should be your job as debaters to tell my why your evidence is superior or why your position outweighs at the end of the round. If you have a framework, you should use it in rebuttals and/or final focus to frame why it means you should win. If both teams offer frameworks, there should be some clash to explain why I should choose one framework over the other.

I have a strong opinion about evidence: I have been told that the minimum standard for citing evidence in rounds is author's last name and date; if you don't have that much, it isn't treated as evidence, it is just you speaking your mind. If you want something considered as evidence in a round, you have to *read it in the round.* You can't just say "we have a card which says..." and somehow assume that now counts as evidence.

A note on jargon: there are a few terms of art that I have heard a few times in Public Forum and they are not very clear. Frontlining, for example, is used by some people to basically mean what we used to call "preempts" meaning an argument made before the opponent in the expectation that the opponent will make that argument. Like "they will get up here and say sunlight is good but here are 3 reasons why that is wrong." Coaches have told me this is the correct usage. Other teams have used it synonymously with "response" as in "I am going to frontline their case then go to my case." That is apparently the incorrect usage, but if you are going to use the word, explain what you mean by it. Offense and defense are also super overused since your offense is their defense and vice versa so asserting that I "shouldn't give them any offense on this" ends up being confusing. Just tell me why they are losing an argument - if they have lost the argument it is irrelevant whether it is an offensive argument or a defensive argument and for which team; they have lost it. Unless you are punting (granting) something, in which case just tell me why that argument doesn't matter (e.g. outweighed, de-linked elsewhere, irrelevant according to the framework I should be using, etc.). Saying I shouldn't give them any "offense" on that argument is just extra words - you have already explained why it doesn't matter so I can figure out for myself that that means...well, it doesn't matter. Terminal defense - I have heard this a couple of times and nobody has/can explain what it is supposed to mean, including the head of the judges room at Stanford. If you say this, tell me what you think it means!

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

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

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

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

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

I am a “flay judge” so I have knowledge of debate, mainly PF. As for speaking preference you can speak at your pace as long as you enunciate your syllables. Do not expect that I have topical knowledge or understand acronyms, explain them in speech or in your constructive. A couple of simple rules

a) No off-time roadmaps as these don't add value to the debate

b) Asking for everyone ready - not necessary as long as prep isn't running then everyone should be ready.

c) Do not exceed your speech by 15-30 seconds as I will deduct speaker points for that

In principle my preference is not to run theory but if you are going with it, please explain it in a logical manner and do not assume that I know a lot of the debate jargon. Explain it in your speech. Keep it short and do not just run theory to throw off the other team; it needs to be purposeful and rarely used, especially in a lay debate such as PF.

I ask that you use argumentation and back up your ideas with evidence. Logical analysis is okay if you use logic and not assumptions. Respond to your opponent's ideas.

WEIGH!! In your final focus, tell me why your arguments matter more.

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Flanagan in South Florida. I'm currently a junior at Duke University. This isn't fully comprehensive of my preferences as a judge.

Things I like:

- Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be very similar in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you.

- Weighing. You're probably not going to win every single argument in the round, so I want to give me tangible reasons as to why the argument you should win the round based on is more important than your opponents'. Beyond just regular magnitude, scope probability, I really like teams who get more creative with their weighing (ex: Strength of Link, Clarity of Impact, etc). Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost.

- Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal. The 2nd rebuttal should answer all offense, including turns.

Things I don't like:

- Speed. I spoke relatively fast when I debated but hated it. I can generally flow speed but anything close to spreading shuts me off. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

- Theory. I definitely think theory and other types of critical arguments have a place in this activity, but only in certain, very limited circumstances (ie read theory when there is clear, substantial abuse in the round). You don't need to read full shells or anything for me, I'm totally fine with paragraph theory.

- Making absurd arguments. This event tests your ability to gain and disseminate knowledge and that needs to be done with integrity. If part of what makes debate an activity is discerning between misrepresentations and realities of the world and communicating them to the general public (in a forum), then I reserve the right to disregard silly arguments that blatantly misrepresent how the world works in my attempt to tell who has done the better debating. For example, impacting strictly to GDP growth as a good thing would be an argument I could not evaluate (ask me in person for why this absolutely makes no sense).

Going for TRUTH is not as incompatible with the TECH as you'd like to think. It's harmful to think they're unequivocally at odds.

***TOC '22: The activity has evolved to a point where it will be difficult for me to follow and give best decision unless speech docs and cases are sent to me via email so I can follow along. <alexthesherer@gmail.com>

Some notes about my style:

If the round is getting super messy/hard to follow, I tend to default to whoever is being the most truthful. Debates do not happen in a bubble insulated from reality, and I am NOT a tech > truth ideologue. That being said, I only intervene on the side of blatant mistruths/exaggerations. This is not necessary in good rounds.

Calm and collected debaters get the highest speaks from me. Let your opponents talk and don't yell over each other in cross pls.

I am a Software programmer who is well educated on technology and politics

School Affiliations: Dougherty Valley High School

I have judged 4 years of Public forum

I will award speaker points from 29 and will go down based off performance in round. It will be based on clarity and cross-examination. I factor clear contentions with lots of evidence as well as cross-examination in my decision. If you do not have evidence when your opponents ask for it, I will have a hard time voting for you.

I will take detailed notes on the round. If you speak too fast or are unclear I will not catch it.

My preferences on a scale of 1-10

1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Appearance:1- I do not have any preferences for clothing or appearance. All I care about is skillful and respectful debating.

Use of Evidence: 7-I will occasionally fact-check. When extending cards explain warrants not just tags. I do not care for tags unless I find the evidence suspicious.

Real World Impacts:10- I look for weighing. If your impact is bigger I will vote off that. You must show me why timeframe and probability matter against magnitude.

Cross Examination:3- I like respectful questioning. I will give you higher speaks if you allow your opponent to speak without interrupting them excessively. Do not waste time.

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 1- I PREFER TRUTH OVER TECH as I believe debate is an educational activity and making false arguments is a waste of time.

Speed: 8- DO NOT spread I value clarity over speed any day as debate is an educational activity meant to be inclusive to everyone.

Jargon: I DO NOT KNOW ANY JARGON. Explain uniqueness to me in lay terms. Same thing for turns, nonunuq, squo, overview

Extra notes:

Do not disrespect your partner in round. I like to see partners working together not against each other.

If this is a Pufo DO NOT explain the structure to me. I already know this and I will view it as stealing prep time.

Stick to a clean narrative. I will not be following you if you jump around on the flow.

Please be within the time limit for speeches.

Be within the limits for prep time.

I like offtime roadmaps but keep them clear.

Please provide evidence in a timely manner

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach 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 -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

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 kritiks or critical affs.

Updated 10/02/2020:

TLDR: Lay judge who takes notes.

I take notes and evaluate the debate to the best of my ability — I will be fair in the debate. Please extend arguments throughout the debate. If I hear that an argument is not extended through the 1AR or 2NR, I don’t vote off of it. Also, if your opponent drops / does not extend an argument, please point this out in your next speech. Tell me why I shouldn’t evaluate it (as simple as: it wasn’t extended so drop it because the ballot should not consider arguments that aren't extended).

Please add me to the email chain. My email is dheerajswa@gmail.com.

Truth matters because it persuades me more - do what you will with that.

I cannot stress this enough: please refrain from spreading. I don’t have enough practice in understanding super fast talking so I probably won’t understand what you’re saying. You can risk it, but I will dock off speaks for it. If you want, you can ask what an appropriate speed to talk is at before the round starts.

Types of arguments I am comfortable with:

• Stock/lay (advantages/contentions and disadvantages)

Type of arguments that I don't understand:

• Kritiks
• Theory
• Counterplans also risky

I am a parent judge, who has judged a few tournaments in the past. The most important thing to me is talking at a rate I can understand. That means no spreading. If you don't speak clearly then it will be harder for me to weigh you in the round. Make sure to enjoy the debate, but at the same time remember to remain polite and courteous.

I am a former high school debater- I did Policy debate for 4 years and I loved it. I have been judging at debate tournaments since 2012. I have judged Policy rounds, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Parli and Congress.

I flow my rounds, and therefore, I appreciate offtime roadmaps. I am comfortable with spreading. However, I do not like the trend where Public Forum and LD are morphing into Policy debate in terms of speed. That being said, if you wish to speak fast, it's up to you to be understandable and to speak clearly. If I didn't hear your argument, then I can't count it in my evaluation/RFD.

I look for good clash in a round, but this is not to be confused with overly aggressive behavior, as explained below. There is a difference between aggression and hostility. I hope debaters can tell the difference.

I come into every debate with an open mind, as if I know nothing about the topic and have not judged this topic before. However, I do know HOW to debate, so I am looking for the technical aspects of debate. This is to your advantage because if you can make an argument (however outlandish) and support it, and your opponents cannot refute it effectively, then you win that argument. I look for dropped arguments, but I also need the debaters to recognize when an argument has been dropped by the opposing team and to acknowledge it. For Varsity debaters, I expect that your arguments will consolidate down to whatever you think are your most important, win-able arguments.

I look at frameworks and impacts, so I include a comparison of the "affirmative world" vs the "negative world" in my consideration of how to vote. I also need you to weigh your impacts for me- tell me why your arguments are more important than the other team's.

I believe in the value and significance of debate, and therefore, I expect debaters to conduct themselves in a mature and respectful manner. Please be respectful of each other. If you ask a question, let your opponent answer- do not cut them off. No name-calling or shaming (yes, I have seen this in rounds, and it is very disappointing). Do not try to intimidate your opponent or the judge. This hostile behavior is very obvious and it will show up in your lackluster speaker points.

I understand that debaters may be nervous, and I am very sensitive to that. I don't generally dock speaker points for nervousness, but I will dock points for hostile behavior and attitude.

Make logical arguments that are clear and easy to understand. Please speak slowly - I can't handle speed. Be respectful to your opponents and do your best!

I am a parent/lay judge.

I will take notes and try my best to follow the debate and all arguments, but please do not speak too fast or use too much debate jargon.

I prefer well-warranted and logical arguments over card/evidence dumping. Please make arguments easy to follow.

BE RESPECTFUL AND COURTEOUS IN CROSS.

1. Speak clearly. Don't rush. Face me when you are talking, room could get loud at times.

2. Try not to repeat arguments.

3. Provide your case convincingly.

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

Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a real estate agent. I am a judge from Dougherty Valley High School. I have judged public forum debate for 2 years, mostly in the novice and JV divisions.

I will award speaker points based on clarity, persuasive ability, and how easy your arguments are to understand. I’d prefer if you speak at a normal speed, or only slightly fast. Be polite and respectful to me, your opponents, and your partner.

I will only vote on arguments that are extended throughout the debate, and that make sense to me. When making any point you would like me to vote on, clearly explain what it is and why it matters.

I will not be taking many notes during the round, so please point out any concessions, drops, etc. that the opponents make. Keep the debate jargon to a minimum.

How much I weigh the following (1 - not at all, 10 - heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 2/10 I do not judge based on appearance but put some effort into looking professional.

Use of Evidence: 9/10 I will not be calling for cards but make sure your evidence states what you are claiming. When extending cards, explain the warrants instead of just giving the tags.

Real world Impacts: 10/10 Clearly explain why your impact matters more than your opponents, and do the weighing for me.

Cross Examination: 4/10 I will not pay much attention during cross, so if there are any important concessions made, point them out in your next speech.

Tech over truth: 6/10 I will care more about the manner in which the argument is presented, but I will not vote on anything that is blatantly untrue. It is your job to convince me why your opponents’ arguments are invalid.

Additionally, don’t run theory, as I do not have experience with it, and cannot evaluate what I don’t understand.

I'm a parent judge so please don't spread in round.

I competed with reasonable success on the LD national high school circuit from 2008-2011. I also dabbled in BP and Policy for a year as an undergrad. Through weird circumstances I have found myself judging mostly PF and Parli on the west coast.

~Deep~ debate thoughts:

1. Speed is fine as long as you're clear and not using it to overwhelm the other team with blippy arguments.

2. Plans and counterplans are good when they avoid ambiguity. Pease take advantage of POIs/CX to clarify when necessary.

3. Outside of policy, the affirmative burden is to prove the resolution true. So if the negative runs a counterplan that is affirmative ground, the affirmative can respond by adopting the CP instead of the plan. Outside of policy, counterplans should actually negate.

4. I think judges should only vote on theory arguments when they actually believe the theory argument is correct. Otherwise, debate theory just becomes another form of abusive argument and the same people who run abusive arguments specialize in theory. You shouldn't be afraid to run theory in front of me if you think your opponent is genuinely being unfair, and I would prefer a formalized theory argument (even a short one) to an informal argument about fairness. The fact that I think a judge should agree with a theory argument to vote for it does not mean my views on any particular issue are set it stone and unaffected by the arguments in the round. It is just a check against particularly frivolous theory, or theory combined with a shady tactic.

5. Arguments, even dropped and extended arguments, need warrants. Impacts often need their own warrants. Otherwise we end up with a form of debate where people read 10 different iffy links to 10 different impacts and label each impact with the magic word "extinction" hoping one of them will be dropped.

Logistical things:

1. Both teams and the judge should be timing every speech, just for the sake of redundancy.

2. Unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise, I will put all comments on the part of the ballot that both teams can read. You were in the room too and Team A can often learn from the feedback given to Team B. I also tend to think through my own RFD by writing.

3. Please rely on the tournament, not me, for specifics about prep time, and protected time in Parli

4. If you end up with a weird number of speaker points like 28.2, it's because Tab Room doesn't allow ties and only allows the use of one decimal place.

5. Time permitting, on the ballot I may provide some feedback that is separate from the RFD. I may spend time discussing a particular argument not because it was important but because I think it is interesting, educational, intersects with my professional studies, and/or may be important in future rounds. The RFD speaks for itself and you shouldn't infer from the fact I spend a lot of time giving feedback on an argument that it was actually important to deciding the round.

I am open to questions before the round. In fact I encourage it, because when I get a better sense of what debaters are listening for when they're asking about paradigms, I can better adjust this paradigm. If something above is unclear, feel free to ask me what I mean.

I'm a lay judge, so please speak slowly and make your points very clear especially during summary and final focus.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.

PLEASE WEIGH THANK YOU

& preflow before round

and just be nice to each other.

hi!

you can basically do whatever you want, but here are some things to consider:

- i will not evaluate arguments without warrants. warrants need to be extended and defended in summary and final focus

- second rebuttal doesn't NEED to frontline (but i think it is strategically advantageous / easier to vote for you if you do)

- if second rebuttal doesn't frontline, first summary doesn't need to extend defense. if second rebuttal DOES frontline, first summary should extend defense as necessary

- i can only flow up to ~350 wpm

- for me to vote on an argument it needs a 1) warrant and 2) weighing

- if it's in final focus it needed to be in summary for me to vote for it (with the exception of defense from first rebuttal to first final focus)

- i never ran K's/Theory but if you can explain it and its importance, go for it. just be aware that i will be unfamiliar with the majority of the technicalities so u shouldn't depend on those (the technicalities) to win

- if you talk over / cut off womxn or anyone in cross constantly and just for kicks i will 1. be sad and 2. drop your speaks (and if it is really bad i'll just drop ~you~)

- please pull up cards fast and preflow before round

- if you are undeniably problematic about things you know better about, i will drop you even if you won every other thing on the flow by a mile

ask if you have more questions! have fun :)

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Descartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

debated 4 years policy and pf at Archbishop Mitty High School. second year student at Stanford, judged at one PF and one policy tournament last year.

Policy:

-Please put me on the e-mail chain: tejav@stanford.edu

-I am fine with voting for any argument (as long as it is not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.. of course), but I default to a standard util framework if no other one is brought up

-I'm not familiar with this year's topic, so please explain any acronyms/background information

-Most of my debates in high school were DA/CP vs. Case or Framework and I ran policy affirmatives. I'm probably most familiar with evaluating these types of debates, but I'm not ideologically opposed to K affs or kritiks.

-Explain how your K interacts with the aff without using big complicated words.

-I'm fine with spreading, but you might want to start your speeches off a little slower and slow down if you are explaining some complicated kritikal argument.

-Please ask any specific questions you have before the round!

PF:

I honestly know nothing about the topic, so please explain any acronyms.

Below are what I think are what the default rules for PF are. I think a well warranted argument can override any of these rules.

Also, apparently this might be different from other judges, but I think it is up to the debaters to call out new and dropped arguments in summary and final focus. For example, if a team makes a completely new argument in the first final focus and the second final focus doesn't call them out, I will weigh the new argument. The only exception to this is new arguments in second final focus.

- TECH >>>>>> TRUTH

- I will not vote off unwarranted arguments. You must extend the claim and warrant of an argument in every speech.

- please collapse in last two speeches and weigh your impacts

- everything in final focus must be in summary except defense from the first rebuttal that was not responded to until the second summary

- second rebuttal should respond to offense from the first rebuttal

- I strongly prefer carded evidence over paraphrasing in constructive and rebuttal speeches. If you misconstrue evidence, your speaker points will drop.

- I'll vote for theory and Ks as long as they are warranted.

I am a parent. This is my fourth year judging debates, and third year judging public forum. Refer to my judging record to gauge my judging experience.

I know some debate jargon, but am still learning. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself as a 6. I prefer to watch a debate as a civil and intelligent professional exchange of opinions. Be courteous to everyone. Do not mis-interpret any evidences and have your cards ready in case I call them. (Mis-representing a piece of evidence is enough reason to lose a round. So be careful here. )

On speaking style, I prefer well organized and clearly articulated speeches.

Good luck and have fun!

P.S. I don't disclose in prelim rounds unless it is required by a tournament.

P.S. When judging, I base my decision on information presented to me in the round and how it is presented. Use your judgement when deciding how to engage me in conversations.

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

Hello, my name is Wenzhou.

Background

I am a software engineer who works in the Bay Area. This is my first year judging so Public Forum, as well as all other speech and debate events, are very new. As a heads-up, "flowing" is a foreign concept for me so if I take notes throughout the debate it may not be in the format you are used to seeing.

Speaker Points

I will give speaker points from 27-29 if you:

a) Speak clearly and slowly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments as you go.

b) Are polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude/unfair (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I have no background in debate nor in the topic so make sure that you put things in terms that I can understand. This means if you use debate terminology you will probably need to explain what it means for me to actually consider it.

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can. I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me. Additionally, because I'm not familiar with the topic, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

Clothing/Appearance; this will not influence my decision, however, please do respect the tournament dress code. Use of evidence; this will be weighted heavily in the debate, I want to know that your arguments have evidence to back up your claims. If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know. Real world impacts; this is also important to me. If your impacts do not show me why a normal person like me should care, then I will probably be less likely to vote on it. Cross-examination; this does not matter as much to me, although I will be listening. Debate skill over truthful arguments; I value both skill and arguments highly. I do believe that truthful arguments should be prioritized, however, if you lack the presentation skill or argumentation skills to sell your argument, then truthful arguments may not matter as much if your opponent is able to convince me better of their argument.

Good luck

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD DEBATE:

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

Theory:

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

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

Other stuff:

no RVIs on T. just no.

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

POLICY DEBATE: see everything below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF DEBATE:

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

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

I don't appreciate spreading.

I base my judging on arguments that are supported by logical reasoning and extrapolation. Clear speech and a reasonable pace is preferred.

*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!

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

I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.

So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.

1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.

2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow

3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it

4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round

5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.

6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.

7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.

8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.

9) Read #1 again. :-)

I prefer speakers speaking clearly and not too fast;

The fact and data that speakers quote need to be accurate;

From 2020, I will start speaker points at 27 at the beginning of the round, and then score the rest based on their relative performances.

I am a lay judge who has been judging public forum debate for 6 years now. Speak clearly and at a slower pace. Be respectful during cross ex.

I am a parent judge. Don't talk to fast, and make sure you explain your arguments and the warranting clearly. Weigh the impacts in summary and the final focus. Please don't misconstrue the evidence or stretch the truth.

This is Charlie's son Ben

My dad's a typical lay parent judge, so do things like:

Speak clear and slow

Don't use jargon

Don't read like theory or Ks or even nontypical framing that he might not understand

just normal lay judge stuff

Hey! I'm a college student who used to do LD in high school (I debated 3 years of LD); I also dabbled in speech a little in Impromptu and OO. It's been a while since I did debate/speech, but here's my general preferences below:

Debate:

1. NO SPREADING. You may talk fast, that is fine, but if you spread I will not be able to understand your arguments coherently which makes it hard for me to evaluate your arguments in a fair manner.
2. DO NOT BE RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENTS. This includes being rude during cross-fire/cross-ex, cutting them off repeatedly before they are done answering questions, and making up information (i.e. saying they dropped your contention when it was evidently addressed).
3. You may give an off time roadmap.
4. If there’s anything else you are unclear on about my preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts!

Speech:

Honestly not much! Ask if you have questions!

Tabula rasa

I'm a non-interventional judge. Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in a manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge.

Debaters are evaluated based on the quality of the arguments, logic and reasoning, utilization of evidence, clear communication, and flow. Debaters should not blindly denied opponent's arguments. No new arguments may be introduced in the Final Focus, however, debaters may include new evidence to support prior arguments.