Barkley Forum for High Schools

2021 — Online, GA/US

Lauren Berlin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aalif Biswas Paradigm

>28 only if you weigh comparatively

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

sticky defense is bad

1st summary extend offense and defense

2nd summary answer defense from 1st summary

In FF focus on a few voters and warrant them thoroughly

In FF essentially write the ballot for me

tech>truth unless something is obv false

Stephanie Bouchard Paradigm

Former Blue Springs HS Debate 2012

Experience

1. IE: Poetry, Domestic Extemp, Oratory, Congress

2. Debate: Policy, Public Forum

Pref Public Forum and INF and Extemp.

Holden Bukowsky Paradigm

Updated 7/27/20 for no particular reason

Hi, I’m Holden!
Jack C. Hays HS ‘20

The University of North Texas ’24 (Go Mean Green!)

Put me on the email chain please: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

I did debate for 4 years at Hays High School. My first two years were spent mostly in policy, the rest being in LD, where I competed on the local and national circuit and cleared at some bid tournaments. In my time I qualified to TFA state in LD (where I cleared my senior year), to UIL state in policy, and to NSDA nationals in world schools (where I cleared to dubs as 3rd seed, and 15th overall speaker).

For reference, here's my aff and neg wiki from my senior year:

LD -

https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Jack%20C%20Hays/Bukowsky%20Aff

https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Jack%20C%20Hays/Bukowsky%20Neg

Policy -

https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Jack%20C%20Hays/Bukowsky-Wilson%20Aff

https://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Jack%20C%20Hays/Bukowsky-Wilson%20Neg

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater). I am coaching/have coached, or have been contracted by Lynbrook, Northview SD, Claremont GK

People I agree with and have influenced my views on debate if you want to use them as a reference –

Nate Galang, Patrick Fox, Madeleine Stevens, Shawn Moore, and River Cook

TLDR: You do you, just be able to have a coherent argument and don’t be offensive

Tech>Truth

Clarity>Speed

Strike Guide:

High Theory/Stock K – 1

LARP/Policy – 1

Topicality – 1/2

Identity Politics K – 1/2

Theory – 2

Tricks – 2/3

Phil – 3

Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate :)

I flow on my laptop, but am not the fastest typer, so I would put me at a 7.5 or 8/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics please

Respect your opponents pronouns or I won't respect your speaks (I have given out 20's because of this, seriously just respect people)

I flow spark on a separate page, this may not matter to you, but it matters to me. Sign post accordingly

How has he voted?

I have judged a total of 49 rounds so far, and have voted aff 24 times, and have voted neg 25 times.

I have been a part of a split panel 5 times. Out of those 5, I was the squirrel twice.

What is debate?

Debate in my opinion is an educational activity structured as a game. That means there are only two concrete rules, 1. There is always a winner and loser and 2. Speech times are set in stone. How and what we learn is up to the debaters in the room. A tab judge does not exist, and I am no exception, but I try to leave my biases at the door as best as I can.

That implies that none of my preferences matter if you explain your arguments and give me a ballot story that will get you the dub

What do I like?

Clear cut debates where I have to intervene as little as possible. Weighing is key to be able to do that. While I am *mostly* agonistic about content, it is up to you to be able to execute it in such a way that gets you the dub.

That means that you do you, I just want a warrant for why it’s true and it’s implication to the round, if I do not hear that then I can’t give you the argument. Collapsing and explanation is key in this situation since it shows your ability to execute your arguments in a strategic fashion that shows proficiency in the game.

Impact turn debates, no one ever utilizes them, and they can be really interesting to watch/judge.

A framing mechanism that helps me filter impacts that I consider.

Weighing, this is what makes debates even harder to resolve. Most debates are easy to judge if there is a solid job done on weighing them

What do I dislike?

The opposite of above.

Being exclusionary to novices, reading K's, CP's, and DA's is fine but if there's any kind of situation where you ask them about any sort of theory spikes and they ask "what's a theory spike," don't read spikes such as "evaluate the debate after the 1NC" or "no aff analytics." That extremely upsets me and your speaks WILL get tanked

Unclear spreading

Not weighing, if you can't tell by now, weighing is how you win in front of me

What will I never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater in the room (yes, that means shoes theory is a no go).

Arguments that say a form of oppression is good, this is the one that will get you downed with a 25.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX (it is binding folks, just be a good person and don’t lie).

Hot takes?

Arguments warranted by out of round occurrences are cool if they don’t devolve into ad homs (see the strikes K read by Greenhill SK in 2017 NDCA finals).

Self-serving role of the ballots are cool, if you can’t beat them then just get better at answering them.

Now onto more specific things argument wise-

K-Aff’s:

I’ve read them, debated them. They’re healthy for the debate space and they provide educational value that can’t be replicated by any other argument in debate. Being somewhat related to the topic is cool but isn’t necessary (but will impact my evaluation on the T/FW debate).

Please make sure to explain to me what the aff does, because otherwise the presumption argument is very convincing, that mean that you explain the method, and impact it out to where I know what the heck you're doing.

If someone manages to make an interesting strategy that isn’t FW/cap or truthtesing, it’ll make me very happy to do so.

Impact turns to T are absolutely fine, T can be violent in certain instances.

T-FW/T-USfg:

Go for it, I think that I ideologically lean aff on this question but that doesn’t matter if you win your thesis claim of the argument. Make sure you cohere your model of debate to me so I know what the heck is included in it and what debate is like under your interpretation.

I have voted on this several times, so don't let my ideological predisposition think that I won't evaluate this fairly, fw is always a strat that can be taken

Don't just blitz blocks the entire 2nr, they make them feel generic and often miss a crucial argument that gives the 2ar an easy out.

Fairness isn't a terminal impact, but rather an internal link to exterior impacts (IE clash, advocacy skills, etc.), you do you though and I will adapt to whatever you do.

TVA’s are important to me, make sure that they’re well-explained on how they access the aff’s framing. I view these as counterplans in the sense that they try and resolve the offense coming off of the counter-interp and the affirmative method, please conceptualize them as such in the round.

Topicality (Theory has it’s own section):

Competing interps>reasonability. If you’re going for reasonability to have a brightline. Justify your paradigm issues while putting defense on the others.

Topicality is drop the debater, anything else seems silly and incoherent to me.

You need a carded interp/counter-interp. Get out of here with the “your interp plus my aff” BS

Definitions with the intent to define the topic are amazing, but if you really want to go ahead and whip out your Merriam-Webster entries.

Topicality is probably not an RVI but if you wanna go for it you can.

Impact turns to T (AKA it’s violent) are cool too.

Potential abuse is cool.

I do love good T debates though, they’re quite beautiful when executed right.

Nebel can be true if you explain your semantics warrants to me like I’m five, other than that just go for your pragmatic standards.

Slow down on these debates so I can actually flow, if you’re going full speed I often cannot get all of your arguments down proficiently.

Theory:

A bit more up in the air on the competing interps/reasonability debate, but I still err towards competing interps, same justifications still apply here as on topicality.

On frivolous theory (spec status, etc.) I'm lot more lenient towards reasonability. I'll still vote on it if you win it though

Don’t go at full speed please, I need to be able to flow.

I err drop the argument here unless told otherwise.

RVI is a lot more likely to be won here, it’s about competing rules of debate, not a competing model of the topic like T.

Don’t read plans bad in front of me, I hate it.

Condo is good, I lean neg until there are more than two advocacies in the round, in which my leaning goes aff

Disclosure is an intrinsic good, do it or else. Specific methods of disclosure are not my favorite shells. Screenshots are a must.

Shoes theory/water bottle theory shouldn’t be a thing.

I lean neg on counterplan theory unless there isn’t a solvency advocate, then it flips aff.

I lean neg on K theory unless something real sketch happens.

CP’s:

Run them, I like them.

I view them through a lense of sufficiency unless directed otherwise.

Perm’s need to be explained and contextualized in the first speech they’re presented please.

Condo planks are not legit

Having a specific solvency advocate in the context of the aff does a lot for you on the solvency debate

Judge kick is cool, just tell me when to

DA’s:

Read them, I like them.

Politics DA’s are cool, but the link needs to be contextualized to the aff, generic issues like the “education reform wins trump the presidency” link on the standardized tests topic make me sad and angry.

Generic DA’s are fine, but unique DA’s to the aff are better and make me happy.

Reps arguments on the DA are fine and make me happy.

Coherent link chains are also nice, especially if they’re contextualized to the topic.

K’s:

This is where most of my debate experience has been, and the type of debate I am most comfortable judging, I went for the K a lot.

Here’s a list of literature bases I am read up on and know quite well:

- Deleuze and Guattari

- Halberstam

- Hardt and Negri

- Weheliye

- Stock K’s (cap, security, etc.)

- Reps K’s

- Scranton/Ecopess

Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat/am learning:

- Afropess/Wilderson

- Baudrillard

- Agamben

- Queerpess

I may know the buzzwords you’re using but always be able to explain what the heck you’re saying. Don’t run a k in front of me just because you think I’ll like it.

Overviews tend to be too long and nebulous, just explain what your theory of power is and how it operates within debate. Implicit clash is ok, but it doesn’t equate to the best debates or speaks.

Explain what the alt looks like please.

Link’s of omissions=sad but I guess ok

Conditional alts on identity k’s ESPECIALLY when you’re not of that identity group is probably violent, don’t do this if you don’t have to please.

K tricks are cool, just explain them please.

Depending on the K, K>theory/t.

Severance perms can be good in context.

Explain the perm in the first responsive speech please.

Don’t be sketchy in CX of the alt, be straight up or else I give the aff more leniency on theory.

Tricks debate:

So after a bit of judging I’ve realized I’m a lot more agonistic about content than I though I would be. So that means I’m open to tricks, now I do not have a lot of experience with them. That being said, good debaters always explain and implicate their arguments, because that’s how one gets good speaks. This is same philosophy goes here.

The one thing I DO NOT want to see is like a hidden paradox that’s like at the bottom of a theory shell, that’s what I legitimately dislike and will down your speaks for it. It makes flowing harder and is legitimately bad for debate. Please do not do this and just label it separately as a delineated argument

I’ve judged quite a few of these debates now, and have a better understanding of how they operate. I still have much to learn, but tricks have become some of the more interesting and technically talented debates I’ve seen. This doesn’t mean do it because you think I’ll like you more, because these debates can also be extremely messy. Messy tricks debates make me sad, clean and efficient tricks debates make me happy.

Please slow down on your 27 point underviews, yes I think they're interesting, but I need to be able to flow them and I can't do that if you're blitzing through them. That doesn't mean go at like regular talking speed, but go at like 70% speed when you're blitzing through those aprioris please

Phil:

I’m open to these debates, but they aren’t my favorite nor my most confident.

Over explain everything.

Here’s a list of literature bases I know confidently:

- Locke

- Hobbes

- Moral Particularism

- Pragmatism

- Constitutionality

Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat:

- Kant

- Rawls

Defaults:

Comparative worlds>truth testing

Permissibility negates>affirms

Presumption negates>affirms

Epistemic confidence

Speaks:

I've averaged about a 28.4 across 39 prelims rounds, so I wouldn't consider myself stingy or a speaks fairy

A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only one I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges

They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -

29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool

27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Challenges (Max up to 1 point):

- Open up your last speech with "my opponent was bamboozled in their last speech," if you do it and successfully point out why (A.K.A. slam dunk your speech) then I'll give you a full extra speak, if you initiate and underperform, I'll take away a speak

- Bring me coffee with cream and sugar = +.5

- Come into the room and shout "rev up those fryers" loud enough for people outside the room to hear = +.5

- Bring me food = +.1-.5 depending on how good it is

- If you send pictures of your cute pets in the doc, +.1-.5 depending on how cute I deem them

If you have anymore questions about my paradigm, please don't be afraid to email me or ask me in the room.

Happy debating!!!!!!!!!

David Byerman Paradigm

I know a lot of judges pontificate for 1000+ words and detail every element of their judging philosophy. I'm not one of those judges. For one thing, I have a life. For another, my philosophy when it comes to judging is actually pretty simple.

Debate is a competition about COMMUNICATION. It's an argument about ideas. That means that the arguments you make matter and the way you make them matters just as much. I'm a flow judge and will penalize debaters who drop points altogether. Even if it just seems like you ran out of time, who am I to know whether you actually just have no good evidence to refute your opponent? At the end of the day, if both contestants make good arguments but one has points that were never addressed, that debater wins. It's only fair.

But the way you make the argument is often overlooked but SO important. This is particularly true in L/D, which after all is an event steeped in the history of the Lincoln/Douglas debates of the mid-19th century and Public Forum, which traces its roots to Ted Turner's frustration with the deterioration of debate as a contest of communication. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln spreading? Me neither. I respect your ability to spread, but the cacophony of words issuing from your mouth isn't communication, it's a gimmick, substituting quantity over quality. I can't award you wins on arguments if my flow can't keep up with your rate of speech. And if two debaters clash and each make good points, and I can't quite decide who won the argument of ideas, I'll use speaking ability and persuasiveness to break ties and award victories. I also reserve the right to award higher speaker points to the losing debater. After all, sometimes the better speaker has worse arguments.

Professionally, I served for nearly five years as Secretary of the Senate for the State of Nevada and for three years as Director of the Kentucky Legislature. I see facilitating speech and debate as fundamental to the health of our democracy, which let's face it could use more cogent well-reasoned well-informed debates.

I missed my high school graduation in order to go to NSDA Nationals in my senior year of high school, over 25 years ago. Speech and Debate runs in my blood. I love being a part of this and hope you find as much fulfillment out of it as I do. Good luck.

tl;dr Debate is a contest of communications. Speak well, make good arguments, earn my ballot!

Saisinzita Cheruvu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amanda Ciocca Paradigm

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

Hi, I graduated from West Broward and I attended the University of Mary Washington up in Virginia. I did LD for four years and competed on the varsity policy team at UMW, go eagles. If you think you need to strike me you probably dont, I left LD in high school so honestly fresh starts are a thing lol.

Hi theory kiddos- please stop with the blippy extensions of stuff. It's getting really annoying having to do work for yall.

For Zoom: Sign post plz plz plz- I already am predicting that someone won't do this so Im telling you now to just be clear when you are jumping around on the flow because the lag can be so shitty

Quick Rating Guide:

K-1

LARP-1

Theory-2/3 depends on how you explain stuff

Tricks- 4

Framework- 2

Here is a list of things I was always worried about when I debated, Im going to attempt to make this as simple as possible:

1. I was a LARP debater for 3/4 of my years in LD, and then switched over to K's and a more critical debate style. I appreciate a nice fleshed out K, but also I appreciate really good LARP debate as well.

2. I will try my best to evaluate the round in which you wish it to be evaluated, however I need a clear articulation on how to do so. Yes I do prefer LARP and K debates but do not try to conform to my old preferences. Debate how you would like to debate, I only realized that this was important my senior year so I suggest you all just follow your heart.

3. I will adapt to you. If you are a speed demon then go ahead. As long as you are clear I am totally cool with it. If you like theory I'm totally fine, anything you are comfortable doing I will try my best to adjudicate the round fairly.

4. I think respect is super important, this does not mean you can't be aggressive or throw a little shade in speeches but do maintain a level of decency. Please and thank you.

5. I don't care where you sit lol anything you would ask a lay judge in regards to pre-round preferences just read my paradigm that's all I ask. I don't want to be asked questions that are answered here.

Tolerance Levels:

LARP- I'm fine with LARP debate. Any jargon that has grown on you I will probably know unless LARP has changed drastically in a year. I prefer when you explain the implication to me, if not I have no idea what to do with certain args. This was one of my go-to styles of debate so I am definitely going to be able to make a logical decision at the end of the round.

K's- K's are groovy. I read a lot of identity literature during my senior year so I definitely love these kinds of debate. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Over the summer I also dove into a lot of unfamiliar literature to me in order to be able to understand in rare cases I come back to judge high school debate, so I probably am well versed in K debate more than others.

Framework- I love good framework debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant or more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. In every round I expect some sort of framing to help me evaluate the round or else it makes it very difficult to figure out a decision.

Theory- In my old school years I hated theory, BUT policy has changed me and I am starting to appreciate it a lot more. I don't have any defaults on theory besides norm setting> IRA, I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. From experience theory debate can get messy and that's when it gets difficult for me to judge the round without a form of intervention to try to figure out what is going on. So please make things very clear for me since Theory has not always been my go to. Even if you have known me from previous tourneys, I definitely have had a huge paradigm shift so definitely don't assume I am incapable from judging these types of rounds.

Tricks- I've debated against tricks before but never ran it myself, always thought it was a pretty cool form of argumentation. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.

Performance- I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself.

Rachael Harris Paradigm

updated: 6.9.2020 (COVID-19/online update, see bottom)

email: harrisrach19@gmail.com

(Tab Rasa Judge -- I try to be as Tab as possible)

Hi, everyone, I'm Rachael. I debated for four years at North Allegheny, competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate (and intermittently dabbling in Public-Forum Debate). I was mostly a traditional debater, but I have competed at a few national tournaments in my time (I also qualified to States, NCFLs, and NSDAs during my senior year). Currently, I instruct LD at Classic Debate Camp, PF at Beyond Resolved's Summer Institute, and privately coach an individual in LD in the VHSSL league (Virginia) and one in PF in the CHSSA league (California).

GENERAL DEBATE COMMENTS & OVERVIEW:

1. Please don't be rude or abusive. This will not impress me. At all. (If you do not treat your opponent with respect, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks that tab will allow me to give)

2. I believe in inclusivity in a debate. Please try to make the round as fair as possible. Please do not exclude someone from the round because they merely don't have as many resources or doesn't know as much as you. I'd like to watch a debate round, not a WWE smackdown between John Cena and an infant.

3. "'If you define every term in the resolution, I will drop your speaks by the number of words in the resolution' - Frank Li" - Rachael Harris

4. Signpost. Always. (this should be obvious). Speak names and tags clearly.

5. If you think you've gained any offense in CX, please mention it in your next speech. (I do not flow CX).

6. If you're going to extend something across the flow, be sure to impact and weigh it. I will extend it, but I will not do the work for you.

7. A progressive round is only permissible if both teams agree to it. I will try to evaluate it as best as possible. Please do not expect me to be the 'prog' judge on the panel. I am, in every sense of the term, a traditional judge. (Note: I will be able to spot a lax version of a CP, DA, K, etc. Don't be that kid who runs progressive stuff at a traditional tournament, especially if your opponent has had little exposure to it or is relatively new -- "'that's a war crime' - Dan Hepworth" - Rachael Harris.)

8. I reserve the right to call for any evidence I deem necessary to the round. I will try to wait until the end of the round to do so, but if there is a lot of dispute over one specific card, I'd most certainly like to see it. (Please don't make me question your evidence, though). (You should have evidence for a lot of the claims you make. Simply saying that it is a "logical" argument and that you don't "need" evidence to substantiate a claim will not only waste time, but it doesn't satisfy the normative obligations of a formal debate--and it is one of my biggest pet peeves in a round.)

9. I can handle most speed, but if you're going to spread, please email or flash me a copy of your case.

10. (LD-Specific) Please don't get into any dense philosophy without explaining it.

11. (PF-Specific) Realize that PF defaults to util and that is something I will use to evaluate the round.

JUDGING:

I am a fly on the wall. Debate in the style that you want to. It is always good to be adaptable and able to fit the standards of your judge, but it is also good to have a style of debate that is unique to you.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (LD-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

I try to be the best LD-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of an LD debate. Make sure that there is framework clash. Point out the flaws in your opponent's framework and prove why yours still stands, why yours is better, and why your impacts flow through it. If your framework has fallen throughout the debate, try to link your contentions and impacts into your opponents.

For whichever framework that I buy (or still stands at the end of the debate), I will evaluate every argument within it. I will also take into account your voting issues so make sure to flesh them out and make them clear.

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of an LD debate)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the 2AR.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (PF-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

I will try to be the best PF-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of a PF debate. Make sure that you weigh your impacts. (PF defaults to util -- greatest happiness, greatest good for the greatest number). Scope, magnitude, and probability are just a few ways to weigh.

I will evaluate which contentions still stand at the end of the debate and which impacts outweigh (but only through the mechanisms that you provide for me).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of a PF debate)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the FF.

RESULTS:

I will try to give you as many comments as humanly possible. I believe that everyone can always find a way to improve. You can always talk to me or email me after the round if you have any questions about your performance or how I evaluated the round.

I am usually comfortable disclosing (if I've made my decision and I'm allowed) and/or discussing the round. Those usually yield great improvements. With that said, if you try to argue why you should've won when you didn't, I will not hesitate to drop your speaker points to the lowest possible amount that I am allowed to give.

The only W 30 I've ever given was to a girl who clapped her hands and killed a fly in the middle of her 1AR without missing a beat. The bar is set high.

(You can still get a W 30 though. Just try your best and have fun!)

ONLINE ADJUSTMENTS:

I am 100% perfectly okay with students giving a speech again should their connection or audio cut out (or should they be interrupted by a force that they cannot control) at any point. As said above, I believe in inclusivity in a debate, and I would like to maintain that even as we make our transition online. With that said, I do not care how you dress (I'm more concerned with your performance for obvious reasons). If there are any further adjustments that I can make for the round, please let me know.

In terms of sharing docs goes, please use the email at the top of this paradigm. I don't mind an email chain, a shared GoogleDoc, or even a speechdrop.net link. (I would prefer if you wouldn't send cards in the chat, but do what's best for you!)

I ask that you be as respectful as you can during an online round. Please mute yourself while you/you and your partner are taking prep time and especially while your opponent is speaking. I will keep myself muted for the most part, I expect that you will do the same while you aren't speaking.

I don't mind if you keep your camera off as long as there isn't a rule from the tournament admin saying that you should keep them on.

Please keep your own time (prep time, speaking time, etc.). It is a bit harder for me to do these things, especially if I can't see you!

If you have any questions about any part of this paradigm, please don't hesitate to ask!

Lastly, yes, I am the girl who had the Lil Pump K read against her at Harvard 2018.

Good Luck! Have fun! :)

Kelly Hutchings Paradigm

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

Curtis Jefferson Paradigm

Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in high school and college circuits off and on over the past 10 years.

For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.

LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect.

Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will listen to theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.

PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I find I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.

Hanlu Jin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Yasmine Kahtane Paradigm

I am a flow judge. If you want me to vote on an argument, make sure it is brought up in summary and final focus. Make sure you also weigh you arguments! Final focus should explain to me perfectly why you win the round. Thank you and good luck!

Amsh Kasireddy Paradigm

I am a Business student at Georgia Institute of Technology with experience as a CX debater for 6 years. Prior to college, I was captain of the South Forsyth High School team. Throughout the end of my high school years I have judged multiple rounds and was a coach at a local debate institution. Because if my general expertise, what I say is most of the time correct. I'm an extremely flow judge; but I'll vote you up through if your opponent does not know what a flow is. Greater timeframe=Dub.

Other rules that I tend to agree with from Zakharov Paradigm:

1) Please don't make bigoted arguments or do bigoted things

2) If you want me to evaluate something, please warrant it thoroughly (e.g. don't rely on the existence of a card as a sufficient explanation for your argument)

3) Defense in summary is a choice for the debater (as a general rule, if it's important, you should bring it up in every speech, but this is a matter of personal preference for the debater); responding to 1st rebuttal in 2nd rebuttal is a choice for the debater as well

4) Theory isn't really appealing to me, nor do I think it gels well with the structure/intention of PF, but if there is an instance of actual substantial abuse and the theory is not an excuse for not debating and I'm explicitly told how to evaluate it, I'll evaluate it

5) I'll only call for cards if both sides are saying opposite things about the same piece of evidence and/or I'm explicitly told to call for the card

6) I can flow any level of speed, but spreading will reflect poorly in speaks

7) If you don't bring up a certain contention throughout the rest of the debate I will considered it dropped.

For LD, which I judge from time to time, all of the above applies (except 3 obviously, and theory is fine but again needs to be well applied, and you can speak quicker than you would in front of a parent but still don't spread please

Bryan Kim Paradigm

I am a student at UC Berkeley and have competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years and Public Forum for two; it is now my first year judging both of these categories.

Lincoln Douglas Philosophy:

I'm open to any questions before the round to elaborate on judging philosophy. I prefer that you do not spread debate, and I will judge by what I have on my flow sheet. Establishing a clear value and standard is important, and linking your arguments back to it is also critical. I enjoy clash between the AFF and NEG, and I will also jot down concessions and points made in cross examination. Signposting and clearly laying out your arguments are a positive and your final speeches should clarify your position and explain to me why you deserve the ballot. I would prefer not to vote on theory but will do if I have to

Public Forum Philosophy:

As above, I would prefer if you do not spread debate. The quality of arguments and evidence take precedence over the sheer quantity. Don't just read evidence cards but help explain to me why what you read is relevant in the debate. Do the same for your impacts, go step by step when weighing with your opponents' and communicating which one I should be voting for. I enjoy direct clash from both sides and will check evidence if called for after the round.

Lauren Lamar Paradigm

I am a senior in college who has 5 years of experience in both PF and Extemp. I appreciate big picture arguments, especially in the final focus. Weighing is extremely important to me in all speeches, but especially in the rebuttal and summary.

Aaditya Mahajan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jimi Morales Paradigm

I probably don't know who you are and more importantly I don't care as my job is to be a neutral arbiter of a single debate. This is advantageous for teams who aren't relying on rep to win rounds.

I like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless it's explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. the news is your friend. don't assume i know what you mean unless i'm nodding my head.

if you are running ironic positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, I will take you literally.

don't run a framework without actually explaining what it means, that leaves it up to me or your opponent to interpret it.

flashing is prep and you can just send the first card and then your partner can send the rest as the speech is happening

I'm flowing, if you're sp(eed)reading incoherently I (probably) won't vote for you. my facial and physical expressions will give away whats happening in most rounds. I'm listening to cross-x and you should reference it in your speeches.

ask me specific questions and I will happily answer them.

hook me on the chain jimi.morales@gmail.com

Conrad Palor Paradigm

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

General

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

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

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

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

- Please collapse

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

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

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

Theory and Procedurals

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

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

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

- While I am sympathetic to debaters who do not know how to respond to theory arguments in public forum, I encourage debaters to seek online resources, or reach out to myself or others at tournaments for a further discussion as to how to handle these arguments.

About Me

I debated four years in Public Forum in high school at Green Valley, and I have extensive experience and preference for national circuit fast PF.

I currently debate at Notre Dame on the NPDA/NPTE circuit.

Sydney Petree Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marko Petrovic Paradigm

send link chains to markotpetrovic@gmail.com if you intend to spread

About me:

I am a student at Princeton University. In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh with a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make bs arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic to an extent, but that comes with caution; do not make large conclusions and expect me to buy them. I rarely check cards but if there is a massive evidence clash, I will be checking them to make sure that neither side is pulling something funny.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to post mark well and tell me what your attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

Also- Theory has no room in PF.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your impacts; if you drop your framework, you drop your impact

As usual, logical conclusions are ok but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution. period.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

Neal Singal Paradigm

Background:

I debated for four years in Public Forum for West Windsor-Plainsboro South and I'm currently a sophomore at Georgetown University. I will vote off the flow unless you blatantly miscut a card in which case you will automatically lose. Please feel free to ask me anything else before the round if I don't cover it here.

Things I like:

-Consistency between the summary and the final focus. These two speeches should be parallel in that they re-iterate the same points that you think win the round for you. This means proper extension of arguments (ie warrant and impact extension) in both speeches.

-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. Weighing should start as early in the round as possible.

-Cross-fire. I think this really shows how good you are as a debater and not how much you can read off your laptop. Good cross-fires will boost your speaks and if you get a concession please use it throughout the rest of the round (that's what actual debate is about).

-Unique cases. Listening to the same cases for the entire tournament can get boring, but if you have something that's new and interesting I'll boost your speaks by 0.5-1.0.

-Jokes, just don't force them.

Things I don't like:

-Speed. I can handle some speed but I don't write too fast and have always preferred the original PF speed. You can usually get the same quantity of arguments out by just improving your word economy instead of picking up your speed.

-Theory. Despite popular opinion I think debate is about the actual topic and the research everyone gets to do before a tournament. If you read me theory I just think you are trying to avoid debating your opponents. If there is a serious problem in a debate I will take it to Tab anyway (you will win as well), so just focus on the actual substantive debate.

-Off-time road maps. If I hear "their case then ours" your speaks are most likely getting docked.

-Preflowing after the coin toss.

Rachel Thibodeaux Paradigm

Rachel Thibodeaux

Email Chain: r.thibodeaux99@gmail.com

Fullerton College 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater

CSU Long Beach 2020-Present Policy Debater

Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. I lean tabula rasa, but let's be honest, people who say that are liars. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:

I vote strictly off the flow. If I didn't get it down, it doesn't count in the debate. That means your spreading needs to be clear before you try to pick up speed. If I have to say, "clear" multiple times during your speech you're wasting my time and yours. With that being said, you must extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it.

Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. I try to not insert myself into the round, and instead let you tell me what the evidence means in the round. This also means that even if you have amazing evidence, unless you explicitly tell me why it's amazing and effectively apply it, I will not make any arguments for you. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. I do like to see debaters show me they understand they aren't winning all args, but highlight why the ones they are winning are the most important. Try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.

Evidence. Cards must be used effectively in the round. Name the author and extend to make it easier for me to organize the debate - this benefits you the most, that way I don't have to spend time trying to locate what card you're talking about. Having a Parli background does make me more accepting of analytics. I hear a good argument I will acknowledge it and take it into account even without a card.

Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! If you perm, don't drop it. For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic. I'm not particularly convinced by K Affs that don't link at all... makes T go for Neg. In general tho, a T usually goes for Aff. I personally prefer the soft left aff, but that's just what I enjoy to run. Ks are great and I think they're productive to the debate space.

I love strategic and pointed CXs. Be precise in the questions you ask. Use your time wisely. Bring up their answers in your speech for anything to flow. You can be respectfully aggressive. If you're disrespectful it lowers your speaks.

Tech > Truth.

At the end of the day, debate is an extremely enriching and fun competitive activity. Try not to take a loss to your heart or a win to your head. Debate is hard to navigate, but I hope you all stick with it and find your own groove and place in the community.

Zaid Umar Paradigm

Did PF in high school. I'd say I was decent. I do BP at UC Berkeley now (c/o 2023).

GENERAL PREFS

1. Talking fast is fine. I'm also good with spread if I have your speech doc.

2. I am okay with theory (please don't make it frivolous) 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. I'm 100% tabula rasa. 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 (hint, 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.

If you have any questions email me: zaidumar@berkeley.edu