Tabroom.com

Jack Howe Memorial Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Abraam Abdelmalak BCAcademy 8 rounds

Binu Abraham Folsom High School

Raif Ahmed Half Hollow Hills HS East

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:51 PM EDT

Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

Ken Atwell The Bromfield School

Reva Balakrishnan Gunn Sr High School

Last changed on Sat January 21, 2023 at 12:30 PM PDT

Hi! I debated PF for Henry M. Gunn High School for 3 years (Gunn BZ/BB). I am a junior at Northwestern University and I coach for Henry M. Gunn High School.

Generally:

- offense should be in summary and ff

- defense is not necessary in first summary

- you don't have to frontline in second rebuttal (but pls do it)

- you can go fast just don't spread

- if you are going to go fast and the other team wants a speech doc you have to send it before your speech otherwise slow down (if you send it after the other team has to use prep to basically flow ur speech that is not fair)

- i didn't debate theory or k's but if you explain it to me i will vote off of it (pls do not run progressive args on kids that don't know what that is)

- theory: my threshold to evaluate progressive args unless its directed at specific abuse that occurred in the round is really high (don't run it just for an easy win)

- pls weigh (as early as possible)

- if you want me to look at a card tell me to

- i will always presume neg unless you tell me otherwise

- if there's an email chain add me: revareva@gmail.com

-----

Important:

- if you say something problematic and continue to do so I will drop you and give you 25 speaks

- you can call a TKO in round and if it's correct I'll give you a win and 30s, if you're wrong tho you'll get a loss and 25s

-----

Trigger Warnings:

- if you are talking about sensitive issues plz read a trigger warning

- i don't think just reading a trigger warning and then starting to speak does anything to protect someone who may be impacted by what you are going to say

- in my opinion what you should do is say your trigger warning and then give everyone your phone number or do something to allow everyone to say yes or no

- this is the only way that people can protect themselves and also not have to publicly explain their emotions or why they are sensitive

- if they say no have another case or a contention you can swap in prepared

Feel free to message me if you have any questions about anything in my paradigm or after the round if you want me to further explain my decision or give advice! You can email me or hit me up on FB!

Nicholas Balfe Loyola High School

samta bansal The Quarry Lane School

Dylan Felix Barber Hire 8 rounds None

Sime Baskovic Jack Howe None

Darren Bates Prestige Debate None

Avi Berg The Dalton School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:36 AM EDT

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Kayla Bernard Jack Howe None

Swati Bhatia Palo Alto High School

Alessia Bianco Gulliver Prep

Hope Broderick Miramonte Independent

Amber Brooks Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 1:02 PM PDT

Please refer to everyone involved in the round gender-neutrally unless otherwise stated by a participant or judge.

CX TEAMS: START THE EMAIL CHAIN AS SOON AS ALL DEBATERS ARE IN THE ROOM.
Yes, include me. My email is: amber@lamdl.org

high school debate: crenshaw high school ( policy )
college debate: st. john's university ( BP )
currently: i'm usually in someone's tab. as such, i'm not keeping up with current arguments, authors, strats etc. assume i'm used to your evidence at your own risk.

hi i'm amber (they/them) and i want you to have fun and learn new things. debates are for learning, not for whoever gets to nuclear war fastest. tech issues aren't considered prep, but do not abuse this.

on flowing:

I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.
I HAVE TINNITUS AND CANNOT HEAR MONOTONE READERS.

you have GOT to put inflections, emphasis etc in your speeches otherwise i WILL NOT be able to hear, understand, and flow you. if you pick up nothing else from this paradigm, absorb this and invest in practices that will allow you to be a clear and impactful reader.

you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.

i flow args not authors most of the time. EXTEND YOUR ARGS. TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE REPLYING TO. "judge, extend our brooks '03" tells me nothing. where am i putting that? what is it answering? how is it relevant? if i have to answer those questions myself, there's an issue. you want me to do as little intervention in the back as possible-- tell me exactly where you want something flowed, that way at the end of the round we can be assured that my decision is based off of what you all debated for me, not my own opinions or biases.

POLICY basics:

1. I DO NOT FLOW FROM SPEECH DOCS. i flow what i hear, which means speak up, speak clearly, and if you're tempted to double breathe, don't. it's distracting and doesn't actually help you debate better or faster. if you go silent while you spread, don't. i have tinnitus in BOTH ears, i will stop flowing if you become unintelligible. you have one instance of me saying "Clear" in round before i stop flowing.
2. do not read theory at me. your speaks will reflect you reading theory at me poorly
3. keep your flows organized-- the easiest way to do that is by sign posting ("next", "and", "now onto" are perfect phrases for keeping the pace of a speech while still allowing the judge time to switch flows).
4. for neg teams in particular: do not prioritize reading a thousand args in the 1NC over 1-2 actual strategies. i will not reward you for wasting aff and MY time. do not play with me on this.
5. Do Not Read Theory At Me.
6. If you're nonblack and running Black args, 1) your reasoning had better be solid 2) i'm giving 24s and below to whoever does it poorly. using antiblackness, afropess and other Black args as "gotchas!" against teams in rounds IS in itself antiblack, and i'm not going to listen to the commodification of Blackness for a ballot. if your strategy needs to change because of this, you also need to be evaluating why you had those args in your arsenal in the first place.

tldr:
- read clearly and loudly, or i will not flow your speech. don't read theory at me. don't read bad Ks at me. your speaks will reflect you reading things poorly at me. don't read Black args if you're not Black, as 'gotchas' against your opponents; i will break tabroom giving you the lowest possible speaks.

LD BASICS:
if you want to have an in depth, hardcore theory or k debate, i am not the judge for you. don't do it to yourself or to me. generally i'll evaluate most arguments fairly; if a team can explain and convince me to vote for them, and the flow matches, that's all i really need to give a ballot. that being said, i don't regularly judge LD so my ear is NOT trained to y'all's jargon and whatnot. in case you didn't read above, i have tinnitus in both ears and need you to SLOW DOWN THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SPEECH. enunciate anything of importance; no, that doesn't mean your whole speech lmao (unless you're going for high speaks, bc yes i will award higher speaks to whoever enunciates and emphasizes arguments in their speeches).

T: i don't like T debates, but i'll give them a fair evaluation!
larp v larp: sure, go for it
larp v k: i'll be honest, i'll probably lean larp here if the k team doesn't properly explain or defend themselves
k v k: please god do not do this to us. i mean it. it will be an unpleasant round for everyone involved.
disclosure: fairness is an impact but don't take this to an extreme.
no RVIs: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
friv. theory: if it's truly frivolous, no i'm not voting on it. i'll evaluate every argument given in the debate, but it NEEDS to have a basis in truth, or be proven not an absolute waste of debate time.

Stephan Brooks Brooks Debate Institute

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 6:44 AM PDT

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

Donald Broussard Baton Rouge High School

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 9:54 AM CDT

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook

Robert Buscho La Reina

Last changed on Sat September 30, 2023 at 9:30 AM PDT

1. I believe the topic is a hypothesis that is to be tested by argument and analysis during the specific round in which I am assigned to critique. I focus, generally, on line-by-line analysis of the arguments and analysis generated by each team to determine which side did the proverbial "better job of debating." I typically render my decisions based on the positions taken in constructive arguments and advanced through rebuttals. I welcome and invite debaters to provide me with the frameworks and meta-analysis needed to render a decision, but, in the final analysis, I rely on the arguments on the flow and how they are developed in each round. I depend on evidence-based argument as a general rule, but am also open to analysis and strategic constructs which may arise in any particular round. The following may be helpful to in-round participants. I also welcome queries from the in-round participants so long as no attempt is being made to "pre-condition" my ballot.

2. T - When I debated in HS and College, T was "the last refuge of the damned." I have a very high bar for T because I think limiting the topic limits creativity in argument. Also, because I am a lawyer and not necessarily connected to the debate community I don't have the credibility to limit research outside of a debate coach's perogative. In the past, I have rarely balloted on T. I will, however, "pull the trigger" when T arguments are mishandled. With respect to extra-T, I tend to give a little more
"love" to such claims when linked to a specific violation.

3. Counterplans - I tend to be somewhat conservative with C-Plans. I tend to require that they be 1) non-topical, 2) competitive, and 3) provide some net benefit. I perfer that C-Plans are solvent with evidence independent of the affirmative. That being said, I have balloted for topical c-plans, and have balloted for net benefit c-plans. I have also balloted for partial c-plans (not completely solving the aff harm area).

4. K - Affs - I find critical affs interesting and will ballot when they carry the day. To defeat a critical aff, I tend to require specific evidence taking out the authors or positions advanced. As for Neg K, I am generally open to them but usually require some impact analysis - with evidence, please, that overcomes the affirmative.

5. DA - With respect to DA's, I need intrinsic and extrinsic links to some type of terminal impact to ballot. If the links are weak, you need to explain things to me in late rebuttals - althought it's never to early to start this process.

6. I do try to line up and compare analysis and argument at the end of the round to reach my decision, but the more help you give me, the more likely I will find in your favor.

7. The same holds true for LD and POFO debates that I witness.
8. I flow cross-ex and hold teams to the positions they take.

email= rbuscho59@gmail.com

Nicholas Butterly Jack Howe None

Mary Cahill La Salle College Preparatory

Jon-Carlo Canezo St John's School 8 rounds

Gerardo Castellanos Jack Howe None

Darren Chang The Blake School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 2:12 PM EDT

email chain - please start one and use it: darren.ch12@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com. reach out for questions/anything to make the debate more accessible. I respond to emails.

in my 3rd season as an assistant coach at the Blake School (MN) but I spend most of my time working a non-debate job meaning I do a lot less topic research than I used to

cornell '21 - ndt qual

carmel '17 - local circuit pf/policy

excited to watch you debate!

tl;dr: I can keep up with speed (re: policy), but I enjoy clear explanation more. Typically, tech over truth and flow-oriented. Will only intervene if I have to. No racist, sexist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and transphobic language or arguments. Do what you would like. I think judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around.

That said, preferences are below. I hardly ever judge anything that's not PF these days, so paradigms for other events are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RK_g6krFLxB1sblzfjMlo8OsnV5ip4GLnpRgnKlgKdM/edit?usp=sharing

top level:

---non-negotiable rules: one winner and one loser, fixed speech times, and equal distribution of speaking time among partners (unless someone is sick or has to leave the room). Won't vote on what happened before I hit start.

---don't be rude. love sass, but don't ridicule others

---strike me if you are going to engage in sexually explicit performances

---very facially expressive; don't mind me

---slow down for theory

---I know nothing about your rep. I only debated for schools that had 0 rep (and 0-1 coaches). This doesn't make me pull for either the small school or the big school. Arguments are what matter.

---don't steal prep (calling for cards doesn't require speaking to your partner). I do my best to time it. Decision clock is ticking.

---don't clip. L25s if you do. Misrepresentations don't stop a round, but that ev won't count. Fabrication stops a round. Will defer to tournament rules/tab. I dislike evidence that's written by debaters/coaches about debate.

---number and label arguments (turn, non-unique, etc.)

---presumption flows the way of less change from the status quo (but debatable)

---if you want me to catch something in CX, say it in a speech. I'm usually writing comments/reading ev although I'm listening.

---reducing something to 0 risk is possible but very hard. I woiuldn't vote NEG if the 2NR/FF was ONLY case defense.

---line by line > cloud/implicit/overview clash. Won't do work for you.

public forum:

---I only flow off what I hear. I do not read speech docs (of analytics) during the speech or after the round. I will ONLY read evidence. Don't spread what you paraphrase because it's usually incomprehensible.

---care a lot about impact calc (no really like I care a lot). I will always look at frameworks first. Answer turns case/prereq arguments!

---persuasive skills influence the flow (organization, delivery, flowability). I don't care what you wear, etc.

---arguments in the FF should be in the summary. Obvious implication/spin isn't new. No sticky defense. 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline; otherwise, it's conceded.

---to kick a contention, you need to concede a specific piece(s) of defense. Or the other team could still get turns since not all defense gets you out of all offense.

---provide evidence in under two minutes or it's an analytic. Evidence should have full citations, not just a url. Cards > paraphrasing. PF ev often stinks, but it sometimes doesn't come down to ev quality only. If you strike a card from the flow, that's not reversible even if you find the evidence later.

---amenable to arguments that the AFF doesn't have to defend the entirety of the rez in every instance.

---strike me if you're debating for a social experiment/reading a meme case.

---pet peeves: 1) "time starts [on my first word/now]" 2) not timing your prep/cross 3) asking questions about a judge's paradigm during the round 4) debater math 5) kicking community judges on a panel.

---will evaluate all arguments, including theory or a K. Tell me if I need another sheet of paper. See below in policy section. If you aren't comfortable going for theory/K's, don't do it just because I'm judging. Comfortable voting on disclosure. I think the wiki is good. So does Blake.

---theory thoughs:

I don't think debaters need to discuss most (or perhaps any) of the following to have a (good) theory debate. All of the following are negotiable. But it may be useful to know my preferences.

1) default to text of interp and competing interps > reasonability where the standard is gut-checking the interp for in-round abuse. Explaining your standard for reasonability (if you have one) is helpful. Counter-interps do not require an explicit text, especially in PF, where there is no expectation to know the terminology. CX is a great time to ask (the other team, not me). Teams answering theory should forward their view of debate. I am willing to accept spirit of the counter-interp if a counter-interp text is not read.

2) theory experience: witnessed (judged and competed in) more theory debates than I have fingers. "Have you won a 1AR in circuit LD/policy?" No, because I was a 2A. In the 2AR, I have gone for (and won and lost) theory such as PICs bad, condo, PIKs bad, and 50 states fiat bad.

3) terminal defense is sufficient under competing interps. Presumption would flip. I would prefer offense.

4) start theory ASAP, e.g. as soon as the violation happens

5) willing to listen to a RVI in PF/LD because of speech times that could mean skews. Default to no RVIs.

6) "theory without voters?" If the voters are made on the standards debate, that's fine. If there's no voters at all, the team answering theory should say so and then I would vote that there was no impact to theory.

7) will intervene against shoes theory/anything that approaches that threshold

9/13/21 - minor updates post-grad + striking cards irreversible + whole rez

Peter Chow Mountain View High School

Noah James Christiansen Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 5:46 AM PDT

Here's my email - I don't use my personal one for debate anymore - please put me on the chain: noah@modernbrain.com

ModernBrain Coach '19-Present

Valley International Prep Coach '21-'22

Polytechnic Coach '22-'23

Chadwick and Sierra Vista Coach '23-Present

I debated for four years in policy debate at McQueen high school, two years at CSU Long Beach (where I qualified to the NDT twice), and was on the Trojan Debate Squad for two years at USC. Currently, I am a speech and debate coach for ModernBrain which means that at times I have to judge public forum, ld, congress, etc. (although I judge policy most). For all of the non-policy people that I judge - please don't change your debate style just because I did policy debate. I'd much rather see you do what you do best instead of try to spread and read arguments that you aren't familiar with.

Debate is simply whatever you want it to be. Are there specific rules that should be desired over others? Is debate just a game or is it a revolutionary game with potential for change? I think there are a litany of questions that occur in debates that should be left open for the debaters to answer. With that being said, I appreciate all types of debate whether you're policy or kritikal and am open to vote on anything.

Disclaimer: Question to all of the judges that auto-vote FW: If I auto-voted on the K or a K aff would I be a bad judge? I will never ever ever understand how some judges will auto vote framework. I see a lot of these judges and it's ridiculous. Even the judges that say they will never vote on framework. Like, what? We are better than this. We are judging people who are taking time to craft out strategies and you have such an ideological bias for a side that you will vote kids down because you disagree? I coach some K debaters and our pref sheet is at such a disadvantage - this is sad. So, for the debaters, be yourself and read the arguments you want in a debate with me as your judge because that's what I'm here for.

Some specific stuff:

T - I enjoy T debates a lot, ESPECIALLY when the topic allows for great T arguments. The China QPQ T and the Education Curriculum T allowed for some great conversations that were in-depth and allowed both sides to have good reasons for their model of debate. I find it difficult to adjudicate topicality debates when it's incredibly minute (not that I wouldn't vote on it, but the model of debate and potential abuse needs to be EXTRA clear). When judging high school, I see a lot of debaters either a) only spending time on the interp debate, or b) only spending time on the impact level. Clearly, both of these things matter, but if the aff appears to be topical on face then you need to be really clear on this question. Fair warning - I haven't judged a lot on the policy topic, so make sure T is clear...

DA - DA's are always great debates if it's unique and coupled with a great CP. Usually in policy debates, both the aff and neg like to throw around a lot of buzz words and spend a lot of time on the impact level, but I really like to see specific link stories that have a tie to the aff rather than a super generic one (unless the aff itself isn't super unique, then obvi, fair game). If you have a CP that solves the DA, great! Explain why it solves the DA and avoids the net-benefit, but if you don't have a CP or don't go for a CP, then make sure there is some turns case analysis/DA outweighs.

CP - I don't go into debates thinking "I think X CP is a cheating CP" - It should be left up to the debaters what types of arguments should/shouldn't be allowed in debate. With that being said, any CP in front of me should be fine, but please have the CP solve something... I've seen/judged a lot of debates where the CP sounds good but doesn't actually do anything. I won't kick the CP if you don't tell me to. This doesn't mean you have to take forever explaining to me why I should kick it, but there should be some justification. One important thing to note: I want to do the least amount of intervention as possible. With that being said, I don't auto judge kick if you're winning the DA and losing the CP. All you need to say is: "If you don't buy the CP kick it for us." Preferably, you should have a warrant because if the aff gets up and says, "no judge kick for fairness/education" and you don't have a warrant for judge kick, I'll have to default to no judge kick.

K - I mainly went for the kritik, but that doesn't mean I'm a "k hack" by any means. I do a lot of reading now (much more than I did in previous years) and I'm starting to see the nuances in a lot of critical theory. I understand that these theories can be super complex (especially for high schoolers), so I am understanding to the fact that warrants might be not incredibly in-depth. HOWEVER, please try your best to explain k as well as possible. Just because I read the literature doesn't mean you should assume that I know what you're talking about. The judge kick stuff from the CP above applies here as well if you kick the alternative.

FW - I think that engaging the aff is something the negative should do, but I do not think FW should be taken away completely because FW is saying that the neg wants to engage with the aff, but they are unable to. The aff should defend why their content and model of debate is good, so FW is a viable strategy. In college, I went for FW against K affs, but when I was a 2N in high school, I would usually go for a k against a k aff. So, for the FW teams, just because I like the K doesn't mean you shouldn't go T. Good TVA's are always great. A lot of affs that I see don't necessarily need to be untopical, so I feel that the neg can point that out with a TVA. In general, I personally like indicts on case coupled with FW (especially policy-making good, presumption, etc.)

K affs - I love a good k aff that is engaging. The aff definitely needs to defend: Why the ballot solves, what their method does, and why their model of debate is good (applicable in a FW debate). I enjoy k affs with a good topic link if possible. The FW debate is an important debate to be had due to the divisiveness in the debate community. The big problem I've noticed with people running k affs is that debaters don't do enough ballot key analysis. I'm open to any theory and can follow along with whatever you're talking about. I prefer an advocacy statement in these debates because if there isn't one, I don't know why my ballot matters to you. Again, I'll vote on anything, but I'll be especially sympathetic to FW if I'm not told what the endorsing of my ballot does/indicates. I know this is specific to FW (because that's all most people read), but method v. method debates are also fantastic.

Policy affs - Not too much to say here. If the aff is a good idea then the aff wins.

Be yourself. Debate can be pretty exhausting and frustrating at times, but a lot of us forget that it's an activity that should be enjoyed. It's amazing to be in debate because a lot of people don't even have access to the activity. Debate has opened up so many opportunities, allowed me to make some amazing friends, taught me how to be a better person, made me smarter, and made me an advocate to stand up for what's right. I remember being incredibly upset and angry after losses because I felt that it invalidated who I was when, in reality, a judge didn't perceive my argument to be the winning one. Debate is so much more than winning and the TOC. It's a place where you can activate your agency. #AbolishTheCoachesPoll

Lastly, be nice to each other! Make some friends, have fun researching, and don't forget to start your timers.

Matthew Clark Hire 8 rounds None

Cristina Clemons Jack Howe None

Maddie Cook Lakeville

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 2:38 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Alex Cruz Hire 8 rounds None

Ilana Cuello-Wolffe Thomas S. Wootton HS

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

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

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

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

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

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

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

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

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

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

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

Speaking and Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Mohandas Damodaran The Golden State Academy

Huan Dao Hire 8 rounds None

Gabriel De Tuya Christopher Columbus High School

Carol Dembicki Potomac Debate Academy None

Sharon DePrano Prestige Debate None

eddie diaz Flintridge Preparatory None

Haiyan Du Dougherty Valley High School

Steven Dykstra Magnet Academy

Last changed on Thu February 24, 2022 at 9:15 AM EDT

Hey, I'm Steven (He/Him) and I'm a junior at Yale – please go ahead and put me on the email chain (steven.dykstra@yale.edu).

2022 Update: Haven't judged in a while so I have no prior experience with the topic (policy or LD).

Background: I debated at Arroyo Grande High School in California as a 2a/2n, running a mix of policy and K arguments. I knew most debate jargon (from 2019 and earlier) so go ahead and run whatever you want in front of me.

Topicality: Great! I think T is super strategic, however I think a lot of times people miss the "so what" of the debate. You should definitely explain why the specific violation is bad, what it impacts out to (preferably in round/debate) and then weigh their standards/voters against yours. I'm probably not going to vote for a shell that wasn't super developed in the 1nc and is then blown up in the block (1nr for ld).

Theory: Eh. As a debater I ran a little bit of theory but I think it's usually used as a tool to not engage with the aff when there are better options, so if that's your strat then maybe I'm not the judge for you. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. Same as T, debate whatever the violation's impact and show me some genuine impact calc. I have a pretty low bar for answering frivolous violations.

K: Sure! I ran a few K's (mostly PoMo) when I debated and I actually really like these type of debates. I have a pretty rudimentary understanding of "typical" K's but if it's something more unique/hard to understand then do more in-depth analysis and connections. For the aff, I think you can perm most K's in some way so I expect you to be making these arguments. On K-Affs, I didn't have much experience with them but I'm totally cool with you reading one (all the stuff above applies obviously), just know I probably lean towards the neg on these debates if T is read.

DA: Love them! I really love seeing creative and innovative DA's and think they are really underutilized. Try to make the links as strong as possible, as much as I understand the need for generic DA's I would much rather see (and would probably vote more for) specific links to the aff. If you're going for politics (or another time-sensitive DA) then your uniqueness should be pretty new. I like to see good impact calc so tell me why the DA totally outweighs the case!

CP: Yes! Make sure there is a net benefit to the CP (and explain it) or else there's literally no reason for you to waste the time reading it. I tend to think condo (within reason) is good for debate but can be persuaded otherwise.

Case: I'll listen to your stock core of the topic aff, but it's a lot more fun when affs are new and innovative. I find a lot of people repeat arguments over and over again, so be smart with your line by line and group arguments. Impact calc is key, so make sure that's a (big) part of the 2ar.

Speed: I'm cool with fast rounds, but if you start getting unclear I'll yell "clear" once or twice and then just stop flowing (would also like the speech doc if you're spreading). Update for online debates: for the sake of clarity, maybe go a bit below your full speed so that the microphone can pick everything up.

For LD: I started off in LD and love the event. With that being said, I certainly subscribe the paradigm of more circuit LD. Not to say I won't vote on traditional arguments, but it might be an uphill battle against more tech-y positions. Nonetheless, you'll do well if you warrant out your claims and provide substantive clash.

Speaker Points: I liked speaker awards and I'm sure you do too, as long as you don't do anything racist/sexist/homophobic/etc then you'll be fine.

Biju Eappen Lambert High School

Tarun Eisen Belridge

Last changed on Mon May 16, 2022 at 5:17 AM CDT

Howdy, y'all!

My name is Tarun. I did 3 years of Debate for Bentonville HS and currently compete in college. I specialized in BQ and PF and competed in LD, Congress, Policy, and have a base knowledge of Worlds. I also know a lot about speech, so that shouldn't be an issue.

General notes for all styles [PF, CX, LD, WS, BQ]

Add me to the email chain pls(taruneisen61@gmail.com)! I am tech > truth. I will buy any arguments, as long as they are extended, warranted, etc. Make sure to collapse on weak args and extend on the winning ones. I think that while FW is important, it isn't the main attraction. If you're running prog, make sure everyone is okay with it. Please don't run Trix and theory shells just to get that easy dub against a novice. I prefer debates on substance, but if it turns into a technicality debate, make sure it's good. If the round turns into a definition debate, I will give everyone 26's. Please bring up all-new cards before FF. I also will not evaluate new contentions beyond 1st AC/NC. Please signpost as well, and give a roadmap. This allows everyone to keep everything organized and allows a clear mind. All weighing and impacts should start in Rebuttal, but I will buy it in Summary if it's strong enough. Link chains should also be presented in Rebuttal and extended through FF. I am not a fan of judge intervention, so make sure the ballot is crystal clear. I will also keep time, so if you go over time, I will stop flowing. You can finish your sentence, but beyond that, I won't flow anything else. Also, speed is fine, but don't spread (unless policy). Again, don't run abusive args.

Evidence

I love evidence. If you are paraphrasing in your case, make sure you have the cut card, or at the very least, the URL for me to find it. Please warrant cards and show why they are both unique and impactful. I will call for any cards that I need, so please have them handy. I always had cut cards when I competed, so please have them. Make sure the cards actually say what you're telling. If you're going to present more cards in Rebuttal and Summary, warrant them and tell me why they outweigh the other side. Make sure those cards are also cut. If you just say the card (e.g., Jones 20) and give me info, but don't warrant it and show why it actually matters, I most likely won't buy it. If the source is biased or flawed, make it an issue. I won't buy new evidence past Summary, so any significant cards have them before that.

Cross X:

Please be respectful. I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. If you're rude or a bully, I will down your speaker points. I am also chill with flex prep, but make sure your opponents are also okay with it. This time also shows how you flourish with direct questioning, so try your best.

Weighing/Voters:

Just because you say something's a voter does not automatically make it one. Make sure you tell me why this warranted voter is crucial. I will weigh probability, magnitude, timeframe (in that order of importance). Please do all weighing starting in Rebuttal, but I will accept it if you start in summary if it is crazy important. Any beyond that will not be bought. Be sure all voters are fleshed out, warranted, all that jazz. All voters should be in Summary. You can do voters in Rebuttal, but Summary is that last chance. Please show why you outweigh the opponents. It does me and you no good to show weighing A, B, C, but not why they matter more than opp. weighing D, E, F.

Last-minute thoughts:

-I will ave. speaker points at 28.5, but will go up and down accordingly.

-If you make a joke, I will up speaker points, but it has to be good or so bad it's amazing. Any bland jokes will lose speakers.

-Any Eisen cards will raise speaks by 0.5

-If you run Texas theory shell, I will give you L20. So just don't do it.

Otherwise, I am looking forward to seeing y'all debate!

Marawan Elgohry Oxford HS

Last changed on Fri September 18, 2020 at 9:09 AM CDT

Hello, my name is Marawan Elgohry and I am a college student that judges primarily Public Forum. I have pretty good experience with PF, as I did it for 3 years as a high school student and attended multiple national tournaments myself, so you don't have to worry about if I'm familiar with the format or the style of debate. However, I do have a couple of preferences I'd prefer you follow:

1) Public Forum, regardless of a judge's experience, should be primarily about persuading an average Joe to vote for your side. As such, I'm not a big fan of extremely technical win-conditions such as Kritiks or theory shells. I like the occasional overview, but do NOT do it excessively. If your entire rebuttal is overviews, assuming your opponents respond to your primary contentions, I will weigh that heavily in the RFD.

2) By default, I will weigh impacts to decide the winner of the round. If you're looking to win in a way that doesn't revolve around cost-benefit analysis, please make that clear in your frameworks and summaries, and give me voters for why it outweighs all other impacts.

3) Please do not spread. I'm ok with fast reading, but I will not understand policy levels of spreading and will thus be unable to flow anything about your case. Also, keep in mind that we are online and that NSDA campus has frequent outages, so if you're spreading, I will likely miss key context for your arguments during these micro-outages. If you do read fast, try to change your tone or slow down for taglines so I can flow them easily.

Otherwise, that's it! As always, please be courteous and practice decorum -- nothing makes it harder for me to vote your side more than disrespect. We're all debaters, so respect your fellow peers; this includes no post-rounding. At the end of the day, debate is a sport of logic -- talk me through what you want me to understand and explain to me why your side is better. Good Luck!

David Finnigan La Reina

Gilberto Flores Hire 8 rounds None

Jay-Z Flores Jack Howe 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 7:50 AM PDT

About Me:

Bravo '20, CSULB '24, LAMDL 4eva

2024 ADA Champ, CEDA Semis, NDT Quarters, #3 Copeland Panelist

Currently coaching Huntington Park High School

Email: diegojflores02@gmail.com

People I talk about debate with or have influenced me heavily: Deven Cooper, Jaysyn Green, Geordano Liriano, Curtis Ortega, Andres Marquez, Isai Ortega, Toya Green, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward, Jonathan Meza, Jared Burke, Elvis Pineda, Irshad Reza Husain, Tatianna Mckenzie, Khamani Griffin

TOC Update

nothing new, if anybody's interested in debating at csulb lemme know

How I Judge

Judge instruction above all else. Tell me why your argument comes first (framing, recency, more contextualized, etc.) or why winning x part of the flow wins you the rest, and do the opposite to your opponent's framing. A long 2AR/2NR overview that identifies the 2-3 biggest issues to resolve is much more instructive to me than blasting off a pre-written block. I fully believe that the focus of the debate is completely up to the debaters to determine and will decide it only on what the flow says, not what I think it should say.
When resolving arguments for either side, I tend to view it kind of like debate math. If one side has a full extension of their argument (claim, warrant, ev) and the other side is incomplete (claim, warrant, no ev), then I default to the side that has a more complete explanation of their argument. In scenarios where debating is equal, I listen to judge instruction and read evidence when necessary, but this a rarity. I hate having to insert my own beliefs about debate in order to decide which argument is better, which is why direct argument comparison and judge instruction are the most important things to do when I'm judging you.
I flow straight down and heavily decide debates based on technical execution, so responding to the arguments in the order that they come in is preferable to me. However, I am completely fine with you going in your own order as long as you clearly state what argument you're responding to and still directly engage your opponent's arguments.
I don't have the docs open during the debate and only refer to them during cx to read ev or if the debate is really close. I'm comfortable flowing any speed, but will not hesitate to say in the RFD that I could not catch an argument because the analytics were unflowable or the argument did not make sense. Please do not spread your analytics as if they're cards.
Capable of writing a clear RFD for any style of debate, but my advice for improvement is better if critical literature is introduced. I only read K-oriented arguments in college, but was a flex/policy-leaning debater in high school.
Following the above ensures that good, technical debating always overrides my personal beliefs (hate capitalism and psychoanalysis but vote on them all the time its concerning)
No judge kick make your own decisions, inserting rehighlights is fine with me on the condition that you explain what the rehighlight says using quotes from the ev.
Speaker points start at a 28.5 and move up and down according to execution: Rebuttals > Organization > Strategic pivots/ concessions > Sounding like you want to be here > Winning Cross-ex moments is probably my list of priorities when thinking about it
boo being a bad person to your opponents booooo. i'm all for debaters standing on business, petty throwdowns, etc., but i am not for full-on disrespecting your opponents simply for the sake of it. every debate is a performance and you should be aware of how you come off.
Format stuff -- title ur email chains [Tournament Name - Round x - Team A -Aff- v. Team B -Neg-), pls put ev in a doc before sending it out, etc.

Argument Preferences

I appreciate debaters who stick to their convictions and are confident in their ability to win what they're best at regardless if the judge is predetermined to agree with their set of arguments or not. The following is a list my personal beliefs about debate that only matter if there is a complete absence of judge instruction/technical debating by both sides. Anything that is not addressed just means I'm neutral for both sides about the argument and is overwhelmingly determined by the flow.

K Affs - Affs should be clear about the method/epistemological shift from the status quo they defend and why it challenges the impacts/theory of power outlined in the 1AC. I'm better for method-based K Affs than solely epistemological ones because I think the latter is susceptible to presumption arguments since I'm usually unsure about the scale that is required for the epistemological shift to solve the 1AC's impacts and why the aff is uniquely key. Method-based affs should be prepared to debate impact turns.

K Aff v. Framework - I strongly prefer a counter-interpretation than just a impact turn strategy. What it means to be resolutional must be defined in the 2AC through definitions or a different vision for engagement. I also strongly prefer that the counter-interpretation is in reference to models of debate established by scholars in the activity (DSRB’s Three Tier, Elijah Smith’s KFM, Amber Kelsie’s Blackened Debate, etc.). I think there is enough history of debate established for us to have substantive debates over the pros/cons of traditional/non-traditional models of debate.

Framework v. K Affs - Clash/Skills with Fairness as an internal link instead of as an impact on its own. SSD over TVA unless you have a solvency advocate. A combination of limits arguments and no clash turning the case is needed in order to win these debates in front of me. The only "engage the aff's case" I require is defense agains the aff's theory of power and their "ballot key" arguments since those two are usually cross-applied to become offense against framework.

K v. K - The biggest thing to clarify is how competing visions/demands about society structure your offense against each side of the debate. Each form of offense should have a material example of how your theoretical distinctions manifest into real impacts.

PIKs - Affs should always explain that the component that the negative has PIK'd out of is necessary for aff solvency, and that the PIK is a worse version because of it. Offense by the aff is often underdeveloped and I wish neg teams would be less afraid to go for PIKs since its usually cleaner than other flows.

Policy Affs - 2ACs overviews need to explain what the plan does and why it solves the impacts of the 1AC as opposed to just impact calculus at the top. Negative teams should be more willing to go for analytics that call out wonky internal link chains and solvency claims.

Extinction Affs v. K - Affs should defend the representations of their plan beyond "if we win case then reps true + extinction outweighs" by thoroughly explaining why the impact scenario is true as opposed to the 2AR saying "no case defense, flow our stuff through for us". I truly don't understand the new trend for every debater to rattle off "debate doesnt shape subjectivity + fairness is nice" and think that its sufficient to beat the K without addressing the link or the alt. I'd much rather hear a 2AR that substantively defends the case and impact turns the links. I absolutely hate when heg teams say "china evil cus uyghurs" or "russia evil" and refuse to acknowledge their hypocrisy in defending the United States (enslavement, genocide, current support of Israel, just history and today in general.). If you want to win heg good in front of me, I need a substantive impact turn to the link and an offensive push for why the alternative on the K is worse than the status quo, not just "fwk - weigh the aff".

Soft-Left Affs v. K - These are my favorite debates to judge. Affs should spend more time explaining why the case is a good form of harm reduction as opposed to trying to beat the ontology of the K with "progress possible + pessimism bad" arguments. I usually think that these arguments do nothing for the aff since none of the cards are about the case, and they'd be better off explaining why the aff is better than the status quo even if the neg's ontology is correct, and that a perm would resolve the links enough.

K v. Policy - K teams should have a "link turns case argument" even if the 2NR is a huge framework push, but I prefer the strategy to extend an alt that solves the case and resolves the link debate. Case defense is appreciated. I'm not the best for K 2NR's that invest most of their time into the ontology debate because I think its better for neg teams to go for specific links that turn the case or have an argument that the impacts of the K should come first before the aff, and winning a link means the alt comes first before the aff. At most, I think the ontology of a Kritik should be used to frame which impacts matter most, and it usually does not make-or-break debates for me. I don't require "specific" link evidence versus the aff, but I appreciate link contextualization in the block and I think K's are best when the 2NC/2NR pulls specific lines from the Affs speeches and explain how their method's underlying assumptions turn itself.

Counterplans - Neutral for each side about theory/competition arguments. Counterplans that only rely on internal net benefits are less likely to win in front of me since I think a combination of aff theory + a permutation can beat it.

Disadvantages - PLEASE INTRODUCE IMPACT CALCULUS IN THE 2AC/2NC, I hate when the first time I'm hearing it is in the rebuttal speeches from both sides. Direct evidence comparison above all else, i appreciate an overview of the impact scenario at the top of each speech. I'm a lot more concerned by whose impact scenario has more overall risk of occurring than a "turns the case/DA" argument.

LAMDL/UDL Stuff

ONLY TO LAMDL/OTHER UDL KIDS - Email me with questions, speech redoes, questions about debate, and I will try my best to get back to you with advice/feedback. Not having coaches and learning debate by yourself is hard and I can’t guarantee responses all the time but I try to respond to mostly everybody that reaches out to me.
WIKI RANT - have a wiki up by your 2nd tournament or I’m capping speaks at 29. Cites of the arguments/evidence you have read are the only thing needed, not open source. Not disclosing on the wiki diminishes the quality of debates LAMDL produces and exacerbates the gaps we have in resources as UDL schools, and it does nothing to help up and coming varsity debaters who don’t know how to start prep against teams that refuse to disclose. Debate is competitive and we’re all here to win, but it sucks when part of the reason nobody’s prepped to be negative is because nobody knows what anybody is reading.

other thoughts

Highlight Color Rankings - Yellow > Blue > custom light pastel color > any other color is ew
Water > Coffee > any energy drink like Red Bull or Monster is disgusting
Tagline quality. They’re either unflowable (too long/wordy) or way too flowable (no warrant/2 word). The way people feel about highlighting trends is how I feel about tags. I hope for the perfect middle ground.
If you run critical arguments about an identity you don’t belong to, I need you to explain what my/your role as a judge/competitor is to that literature, even if the other side never brings it up. I think it’s valuable to understand how we position ourselves in relation to literature that isn’t about us and see how it affects our decisions to use it as an argument, as well as develop ethical relationships to it.
I think variations of the Cap K (escalante, racial cap, abolition democracy, etc.) are great and the majority of Affs mishandle them. Defending it as a methods debate as opposed to a "cap root cause + extinction ow + state engagement good" strategy is better in front of me and the affs common responses of "racist party + accountability DA + aff theory is root cause of cap" can be easily beat assuming the negative has actually read the literature behind the cap k. Despite the fearmongering by framework teams, the Cap K is a great generic and more teams should be willing to go for it.

Mikil Foss Lincoln Independent 8 rounds

Julius Francis Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Kepa Francisco The Cambridge School None

Alex Frankson Gabrielino Club

Anca Fundulea The Cambridge School None

Julian Gagnon Pu Tai Senior High School

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 11:21 PM CST

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.

from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Paitris Galian West High School SLC

Gordon Galvan Bishop O'Dowd High School

Saikumar Gantla Carmel Valley Independent

Jenny Garcia Jack Howe None

Naomi Garcia Jack Howe None

Natalie Garcia Riverside STEM Academy

Last changed on Wed August 14, 2019 at 10:25 AM PDT

Background

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

General

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

Please weigh. Love that.

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

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

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

Evidence

Preferably read dates

Don't misconstrue evidence.

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

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

Case/Rebuttal

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

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

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

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

Offensive Overviews

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

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

Summary/Final Focus

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

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

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

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

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

Crossfire

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

How I vote

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

Nicholas Genna Campbell Hall High School

Last changed on Sat January 30, 2021 at 7:27 AM CDT

Background: I was an LD debater in high school, and I now coach PF.

Pet Peeves: Please don't ask for an "off-time roadmap", either do it or don't. I would prefer you just say what side you are starting on and start the round than a winded explanation.

Time is very precious, it should not take 10 minutes between each speech to transfer evidence in a google doc and get your timer ready - just try to be punctual.

PF Specific: No sticky defense. That means everything you want to be extended or carried through a speech should be explicitly mentioned. Otherwise, I will not extend it.

Paradigm:

I am a tabula rasa judge. This means I will buy any argument as long as you do a good job of convincing me. I love watching how debaters can utilize the resolution to their advantage and create a truly nuanced argument they can call their own. Watching stock cases becomes extremely boring after a while.

Theory: If you can run it well, do it when applicable. You need to tell me why theory is a voting issue, otherwise, there is no reason to run it. I do not mind you reading while speaking, but if your theory is just a pre-cut block of text that you spread and don't explain, I'm probably not going to flow it. I also would prefer you to drop the case if you are going for theory. Having a theory spike can be abusive on the grounds of time skew. It also just muddles the debate.

Kritik: I think the critical debate is very valuable. I will accept aff and neg K's.

Speed: I can handle up to about 250 wpm, but I really don't enjoy it being that fast. My flow gets messy and so unless you plan on giving me a copy of your case, you might want to slow it down a bit. Also, I will only allow speaking as fast as both debaters are comfortable. If your opponent cannot flow your arguments, there is no clash, and that is no fun. Also, I would just prefer a more conversational pace as learning outcomes are much greater when you talk at a speed normal for conversation.

Flowing: PLEASE SIGN POST. When you want me to extend an argument, you need to tell me. Not just that you want it extended, but why. I will only cross apply arguments if you are very organized, and tell me specifically why you are cross applying. It is pretty rare that I do this, so I would just recommend taking the extra step to tell me why your point interacts with multiple parts of their case.

If you have ANY further questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. I also don't mind giving critiques after the round finishes. Good luck and have fun!

Rohit Ghoshal Archbishop Mitty

Last changed on Mon September 13, 2021 at 1:05 AM PDT

Archbishop Mitty 18

Brandeis 22

Did pf for 4 years and a little bit of circuit ld

2008 Beijing gold medalist in Public Forum

contact my manager at rghoshal@brandeis.edu for any business inquiries

Tournaments are stressful, if you need to take a quick break and look at pictures of cute animals or something I will not hold it against you if you come late to round by a few minutes.

if you hit me up for flows of teams I have judged I will give general taglines but probably no more unless its some sketch stuff.

Preferences:

1. You and your partner must be astrologically compatible. My aura will detect if this isn’t the case and I will drop you.

2. If you incorporate Minecraft or League of legends into your speech/background ill bump up your speaks by 1.

3. If someone uses a framework in their constructive and never brings it up again I will bring out a nerf gun and shoot my camera multiple times.

4. If you do not weigh, I will base the round off of whether or not your vibes are right.

Actual preferences:

1. Don't go fast unless both teams are fine with it (same for K’s/Theory, this is pf).

2. I lean towards wanting second rebuttal to cover your side of the flow, but at the end of the day I won’t drop your case for not doing it.

3. First summary doesn't need to extend defense that is not responded to unless its also offense (turns).

4. Try to pause for a quick second after saying a tagline, a lot of teams go straight from a tag to a card and I sometimes will miss card authors or other important info if u do that.

5. Earlier u collapse the better, preferably in summary.

6. I like good evidence ethics, if both teams are down I am fine with making it so when both teams are looking at evidence it doesn't count towards prep time. That being said if the tournament is running late try not to spend too much time looking at stuff.

7. P L E A S E use cx educationally, I will not be flowing so use it to actually learn about how your opponents case works rather than trying to poke holes in it for the sake of looking good and making cross really boring.

8. I don't care if you tactically drop stuff, if u literally delink your entire case but extend turns ill vote for u. In fact you should probably not be going for everything and should be dropping some stuff, but then again I come from a time of 2 minute summaries so idk how stuffs changed.

9. I may call for evidence after round if its important and has been contested, this is online so idk if there's an email chain throw me on it

10. If u do not weigh I will assume you are calling me fat and be sad

11. Reread number 10

ask any other questions you have. This includes in the middle of the round I would rather you ask late than just guess what my preferences are.

here's a dope card: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tCRQEPeJfypLTmdu3o4YX7YqmXoHrznLgT9g96Jcxqw/edit#heading=h.5t60pvwizdrn

Melissa Glover Claremont

Last changed on Sat October 21, 2023 at 12:38 AM PDT

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers (feel free to share yours in round!)

School Affiliation: I attended and competed at Claremont High School from 2016-2020. I am now a senior at Chapman University with a double major in Psychology and Sociology and a minor in the Honors Program.

I participated in speech and debate for 9 years during elementary, middle, and high school and have experience in a few events. I competed on both the California state and national circuit for Congress throughout high school, but off and on I participated in Parli, PuFo, and Policy. I also competed in other debate events like World Schools and Big Questions. For IE's I mostly did spontaneous events (Impromptu and International Extemp), but I have done a few prepared original speeches and have experiencing judging all types of speech.

With that being said, I don't enjoy most theory, spreading, or K's. I can follow some speed and understand basic theory (i.e. Topicality arguments), but please use that all sparingly with me. Evidence is important to a debate, but so is clash! I would like to emphasize that being rude to your opponent will never be tolerated and speaker points will be docked if you're blatantly bullying others in round (I hope I don't have to remind y'all of this, but homophobia, transphobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc. will not be tolerated in round!!).

If there's an e-mail chain - add me to it! Just let me know at the start of the round and I'd be more than happy to provide my e-mail. If your case is going to involve sensitive topics that could be triggering to others, trigger warnings will always be encouraged and accepted in any round I judge. I also encourage and appreciate people sharing their pronouns in order to create an inclusive environment for all.

Regarding speaker points, I enjoy when speakers are clear and persuasive. There's not much to say there, just do your best! In the end, I hope we are all ready to create a fun, safe, and overall educational round.

Prem Goel Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Raghav Goel The Quarry Lane School

Jeannette Gomez Jack Howe None

Rinki Goswami Redwood MS

Sarah Graff Jack Howe None

Jaysyn Green Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:53 AM PDT

Heyyyyy,

I debated for 2.5 years at Cal State Long Beach. I am now a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I was a K Debater running arguments pertaining to Afro-Pess, Misogynoir, Reproductive Justice (& Feminism in general), sexual politics, and colonialism. During my time at Long Beach I also competed in IPDA and Parli; also having debate experience in World Schools.

Please add my email to the chain: jaysynteacher20@gmail.com

Judging style:

I understand the debate space as an academic site centered on the development and dissemination of knowledge. Primarily a discursive activity, I want to know the importance of theorizing and discussing specific ideas within the space. I am very Truth over Tech and my RFDs will center logic and reason over the technical aspects of the debate (unless the technical is very glaring within the round). I am extremely receptive to historical and sociological theory and use these things to understand arguments.

Things I find helpful within debates: what is the role of the judge? How should I evaluate arguments? What about their plan, methodology, alt, etc. is bad or harmful? how do arguments interact with each other?

K AFFs:Your theory should be the foundation and the background of ALL of your explanations within the debate. You should be using the vocabulary of your 1AC throughout every flow. Please refrain from using buzzwords with no explanation. I like High Theory but don't assume I walk into the room knowing the specifics of your arguments. I expect K Affs to be able to adequately answer generic K's and FW.

Policy AFFs: Because I am Truth over Tech I would like to see y'all interact with such truths. For instance, if your opponents read Set Col and the 2AC extends the Russia/China advantages with generic extinction impacts, this will not move me. I would be impressed to hear how the specifics of your plan affect various indigenous groups or the project of settler colonialism in general. In essence, I would like particular interaction with the details of your opponent's arguments rather than proceed forward with "everyone dies under extinction, and this overwhelms the links"

Go ahead and speak at the speed you are most comfortable.

I flow on paper and I also tend to flow CX paying attention to interesting moments or points made.

I also pay heavy attention to the way power flows through the debate space and I am critical of the space people take up within round. With that said I like it when debates get heated but just make sure to be reasonable with one another.

Tell me how to navigate the debate. Persuade me and you have my ballot.

If you have any questions feel free to ask but other than that, Happy Debating!

Jaysyn Green (she/her)

Beach Forensics

Ellen Guo The Harker School

Last changed on Tue July 13, 2021 at 6:01 AM PDT

Hi! I debated PF for ~4 years at Harker, and now I'm a student at Columbia University.

Pronouns: she/they

Email: ellenguo6@gmail.com

tldr: tech>truth but I never get enough sleep so treat me like a flay judge :))))

For online tournaments: please set up the email chain/Google Doc before the round starts, and share me on it too! My email is above.

Voting

- If it's not in both summary and final focus I won't be considering it at the end of the round.

- WEIGH. I'm lazy, so please do the weighing for me, and be strategic about it. Know when you are losing arguments and instead of just repeating the same non-responsive thing over and over again, tell me why their argument is insignificant (in the context of the round) even if they win it. If you don't weigh, I'll have to weigh for myself and it's probably not going to be in your favor (it also tends to be more truth>tech).

- COLLAPSE. If second summary (and any speeches afterward) are line-by-lines I will cry on the inside.

Technical Details

- Second rebuttal and first summary need to frontline all offense that you plan to collapse on and respond to any turns; frontlining in second summary is way too late. And by frontlining I mean that you actually need to interact with their rebuttals, not just repeat your case back at me.

- Defense is sticky through summary (if it isn't responded to), but if it's on a main voter please reiterate the defense in final focus.

- No offensive overviews in second rebuttal.

- If you're going to run a framework, make sure it actually gives you offense in the round (I don't care for net benefit or util frameworks, since that's basically the default in PF already). Also, responses to opponents' frameworks need to happen in rebuttal, or else I'm flowing them through and evaluating the round under them.

- I'm grudgingly open to theories and Ks, but I have very little experience with them so a) my threshold is rather high and b) you're going to have to explain them to me very well. As a side note, if your opponent is actually being abusive, you don't need theory to point that out.

- I don't flow or vote on anything that happens in cross, though I will listen. If you want it to be important in the debate, you need to bring it up again in a speech.

- Don't extend through ink; give me warrants not just author names.

Speaks

- Don't be rude. I am b e g g i n g you

- If you make racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, classist, xenophobic or generally bigoted/discriminatory/hateful statements, I'll drop your speaks to 25 and you'll most likely not win the round. Same goes for repeated misgendering absent apology (especially if it's pointed out).

Miscellaneous

- I will be disclosing and giving an RFD unless the tournament explicitly bans it.

- If your opponent calls for ev and you can't find it after ~2 minutes, I'm striking it.

- Speed is okay as long it's clear; if you're going to spread, email me the speech doc (ellenguo6@gmail.com). However, I've noticed that moving online has caused a vast majority of debaters to become less clear (re: audio quality, internet inconsistencies, etc.), so please err on the side of caution—go slower, or send a speech doc even if you aren't quite spreading; otherwise, I'll only flow what I hear, and it probably won't be in your favor :(

- If you're reading cases about sensitive topics, please do include a trigger warning and some forum through which someone could anonymously disclose that they don't want to engage in such a topic (Google Forms comes to mind). If you don't provide the latter, I will always ask that you read an alternative case.

- lol this is probably obsolete now because of online tournaments buT if you're flight 2 and both teams are waiting outside the room, please do the coin toss and tell me the results when you come in.

In general, if the round is fun, educational, and cooperative, that'll work out in everyone's favor :) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask before the round!

Abhi Gupta College Prep

Isaac Gutierrez Flintridge Preparatory

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

(Last Updated 6/10/21)

General (read in addition to specific event):

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

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

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

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

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

Policy/LD:

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

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: isaacjgutierrez97@gmail.com

Brent Halliburton Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Thu May 26, 2022 at 9:30 AM EDT

I am a parent judge, my son is a junior in high school. He did not write my paradigm.

And awayyyyyy we go!

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Line-by-Line good, Signposting good, writing my ballot good, progressive good.

I have found the best thing to do from an evidence sharing perspective is to put a link to a google doc in the chat that we can all edit and view. Please do this.

I self-identify as a progressive tabula rasa flow judge.

Tech > Truth. Underdeveloped or ridiculous arguments are hard to vote on (low bar for !truth).

Speed: I will clear you if I feel the need. I like a speech doc as much as anybody, but I feel like it is intellectual laziness on my part or poor speechifying on your part if I rely on it. I should be able to understand and flow what you are saying, right? But I do like to spell an author's name correctly when flowing citations.

Theory and T are fine. I am a bit out of touch with reasonableness vs. competing interps debates. I am a bit out of touch with modern CP theory, so make sure you are clear on your advocacy. I am familiar-ish with K but not up to speed on my Heidegger or whatever. You will need to make sure your argument is extremely clear. Frivolous theory or tricks seem easy to vote against, but you are welcome to try your luck.

I sometimes judge Novice and JV rounds. If I had to identify the thing I have enjoyed the least in these rounds, it would be the technical lack of proficiency most commonly expressed through the cliche “two ships passing in the night”. Good flowing leads to good line-by-line. Good line-by-line leads to a good story. Write my ballot for me. If any of this is unclear, make sure you ask before the round. If this is a novice round or JV, if you show me a good flow after the round, I will bump your speaks.

A common pre-round question I am asked is how I feel about tag-team CX. If your partner is about to give away the farm, by all means jump in. If you have a question prior to your speech that you just really need to ask, jump in. Otherwise, why not just let the appropriate people interact in the usual way? Do you enjoy CX that much? Also, I'm probably not listening.

This is an educational activity and I don't like a hostile environment. Let's keep it fun.

Public Forum:

Everything above applies. If it is in Final Focus, it was in Summary, right? People ask me if defense is sticky and while these terms of art are somewhat confusing to me, my response is that if you want to do stuff in the Final Focus, it should be in Summary, but you can extend dropped arguments very, very quickly. I don't need you to do this (common in PF) line-by-line, card-by-card extension in Summary. You can tell the story in Final Focus.

I expect, starting in Rebuttals, people to answer arguments in prior speeches. I know this makes the 2nd Rebuttal hard, but I believe in you and can think of no reasonable alternative. Happy to discuss.

I see people saying they will bump speaks if you read cards instead of paraphrasing. I am on the train: If you show me before the round that you are reading carded constructives, I will bump your speaks. Paraphrasing may have started as an attempt to increase persuasion, but I feel like it devolves to blippy args. I am considering transitioning to "paraphrase = lower speaks".

I find that with the volume of paraphrasing, people can blur through tags and authors. Please be articulate on the tag and author so I know what you want me to flow. In policy, I feel like I have the time they spend reading the card to write down the tag and author and the tag/citation/card model makes it easy to differentiate between tags and cards. PF seems to be somewhat sub-optimized for flowing by blurring the tag and content via paraphrase. I assume you want me to flow a tag and author if you go to the trouble to say something, but I probably can't write as fast as you read.

After judging several rounds at a recent tournament where I had a problem, let me say this: If your 1st constructive is paraphrased and has more than 20 citations, you are probably over paraphrasing and/or going too fast. I write down your citations. I have seen multiple instances where cases or arguments are so heavily paraphrased that there are two or more citations in a single sentence. I will not be able to write down your argument if you are expecting me to write down two arguments and two citations in a single sentence. And it is probably abusive to the other team. This is a real opinion. If you think this is an unfair standard, I would love to discuss.

Progressive PF is fine.

And I just want to say, for whoever happens to be reading this: It's strange to me that a judge would say that they don't like theory or progressive arguments. I understand if you say you have a bias against tricks, but if people can't feel comfortable making an argument about abuse in round in front of you, that opens the door for off-topic advocacy. Why would we want that? Policy debaters didn't have theory day one, theory evolved to check abuse. I get that people may not have experience with theory, but close-mindedness and a pre-conceived idea of what is acceptable seems super meh and interventionist. Just putting it out there as a check against all the judges that try to actively discourage theory, which I dislike. Happy to advocate for theory before or after round if people want to shoot the breeze.

I have more opinions, just ask.

Ashish Hanwadikar Mountain View High School

Brant Haugh College Prep

Last changed on Sat February 12, 2022 at 6:37 AM EDT

ReUpdate: Haven’t judged a round in a while. I’m rusty and probably can’t follow you if you go too fast. Warrant please.

Now that we got that out of the way:

I debated PF for College Prep for 4 years.

My general views:

1) Second rebuttal must respond to turns or they will be considered dropped.

2) First Summary does not have to extend defense if Second Rebuttal did not frontline the defense.

3) This is a team event so everything else (besides rule 2) must be in summary to be extended in FF.

4) Weighing can be new in first FF but I am must more inclined to vote for a team that has set up weighing earlier in the round.

5) Second FF CAN NOT BRING UP ANYTHING NEW. This includes new cross applications of evidence or meta-weighing. This was honestly one of the things that I hated most in debate. If I see an obvious use of this I will drop your speaks and ignore the argument. Don't waste your limited time and precious speaks :)

Other important things to know about me:

I was not comfortable running theory in high school but I had plenty of it ran against me. I will do my best to evaluate it but understand that it will be easier to acquire my ballot on "substance debate" because of my comfortability with it.

I am very anti-spreading. If you have to send a speech doc then you are doing PF wrong. I enjoy fast debate but spreading is different. I will give high speaks to the team that speaks clearly so for most people this means that slowing down is the best way to get high speaks. I will occasionally also give high speaks if your round strategy was very impressive but this is rare as I do believe that speaker points should be for your ability to speak.

Warrants are key to my ballot. Debate isn't a computer game where you click on the right pieces of evidence and win. You have to convince me. Explain to me why it makes sense to affirm or negate.

Have fun, don't be mean, but also make cross interesting.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Mac Hays Sidwell Independent

Last changed on Thu September 28, 2023 at 10:20 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I now debate APDA at Brown. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable and have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Please send all evidence you read in the email chain (ideally before speeches)

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

Zachary Heintz Madison West High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 4:10 PM CDT

I did PF, Congress, and Extemp at Madison West HS in Wisconsin. Since then I have been debating in college and judging for three years.

PF Paradigm:

If you have any questions or have any problems with my paradigm, please tell me before the round or after the round at heintzzachary@gmail.com. If you want additional feedback or advice, don’t be afraid to email me after the round.

I’m a flow judge but treat me lay for speed. Slow down. Never spread.

I like fewer pieces of quality offense, a strong narrative, and strong weighing in Final Focus.

No entirely new arguments after Rebuttal, no new supporting evidence or entirely new responses after first summary. Cards should only be used when they offer unique expertise, data, or examples to an argument, and I accept and encourage uncarded arguments.

Citation is author, source, date said once and then probably never again.

Don’t use authors, or sources as taglines.

I default to a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis framework. This means you need to provide arguments to prefer your framework over this default and your opponents can defend the default framework. I believe having a default allows for a wide range of arguments and forces debaters to actually engage with their frameworks rather than just try to sneak it in on fiat.

Use realistic impacts with smaller magnitudes and probability weighing over just pretending like everything causes World War 3 or financial crisis.

Please no Debate Theory unless its to address in-round unfair behavior, most especially discrimination. If your opponents, myself, or another judge discriminates against you in-round you should tell your coach and tournament organizers. I may drop you for discriminatory behavior, being excessively rude, or obviously and intentionally lying.

Speaker Points: Unless the tournament offers some sort of scale for judges to use for speaker points, I will award a 28-29 on average and will rarely go below 27 unless you were rude in round.

Paul Hemeseth CK McClatchy High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:58 AM PDT

I am a former high school policy/LD debater. I also competed in many individual events. Now, I am a trial lawyer. I seek to reward the speaking that connects most directly with the professional and personal activities that high school debaters will be performing in just a few short years.

For policy debaters: Debate is a game. And, in my opinion, policy is a place where (almost) anything goes. You can spread, you can run K, you can read a poem. If you've signed up for policy, you know the world you have signed up for. But, note the following: If I can't understand you or write/type/think fast enough, I might miss your brilliant argument. The stranger or more counterintuitive your argument is, the more proof I will need for it. Style and persuasion still mean something to me in policy debate, so if you can spread while being persuasive (yelling is not persuasive), you will have an advantage. Those who abandon speed altogether AND who make a good argument for why they should win even if they can't cover everything -- those people might very well win. As I say, debate is a game.

Public forum: If (almost) anything goes in policy debate, then public forum is its more constrained, conversational, and accessible cousin. My understanding is that it was created as an alternative to what policy has become, and therefore I am less receptive to spreading and absurdist styles in PF. As a result, I will not necessarily vote on dropped arguments. Two minutes is simply not enough time to cover everything in a debate, so it is entirely possible to pick an argument to the exclusion of others and win -- just tell me if that is what you're doing, and tell me why that argument is the winner. Please consider whether your tone, your speed, and your use of jargon are at all applicable to: a class presentation, a conversation with a professor, an informal discussion with friends or colleagues, a courtroom, a pitch to a boss, etc. These are the places in which your debate skills will be applicable.

For all debaters: If you are rude in any way (prematurely cutting opponents off in crossfire, ad homs in speeches, gesturing from your chair while others speak), you will lose speaker points, and possibly the round. Aggressiveness is fine, but I can't abide jerks.

Max Hendrix Loyola High School

Hayden Hennike Jack Howe None

Hayden Hennike Hire 8 rounds None

Alina Ho Torrey Pines High School

Ben Hoham Exeter Independent None

Stacey Hong Crescenta Valley High School

min huang Los Altos High School

Ash Hulewicz Edvic Debate Club

Last changed on Fri February 18, 2022 at 5:13 AM PDT

-Paradigm for Ash-

updated February 18th, 2022

-Background-

As a competitive debater, judge and coach of 8 years, I have experience with:

British Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, Australian Parliamentary, Public Forum, World Schools. I prioritize clear mechanization in case above all else. Explain your links/ mechs and give as much context as you can.

> Off Time Roadmaps are encouraged

> You do not need to make any kind of eye contact

> I may be asking for cards

> I do flow cross fire

>I prioritize substantive rebuttal over metadebate/ tech responses.

> I do not require friendly introductions

> Using your opponents name or speaker position is fine, avoid referring to your opponents in the third person (gendered pronouns are messy!). This includes me. You can refer to me as judge, chair, panel- but do not refer to me as Madame Speaker. I will not reduce any speaker points for this, I'm just not personally comfortable with this.

> I may give low point wins.

On Theory, I value theory to be limited to a K or a potential a priori lens, akin to a model or critique. Theory is a priori, but does not proceed the value of case. It merely is a lens for me to view and understand case, rebuttal, and the rest of the debate. Run theory alongside contentions with arguments.

On Prog, contentions should. a) identify structural inequality, b) explain how it manifests vis-a-vis the debated topic, and c) how policy change meaningfully deconstructs and combats structural inequality in this instance. To merely recognize it is not enough in providing solvency against pillars of institutuionalized violence. If conditions b and c are not met, I will not count this as a Prog case.

TLDR: I am not a tech judge. Spending the second half of a PF round using condensed referential metadebate on tech is a waste of time with me. Comparative analysis should use reference to substance and not floating PF norms as I do not adhere to or even agree to all of these 'norms'. Norms can be made up by students on the fly to their advantage on unsuspecting judges, or be norms in some schools and regions and not others. Debate is not fun when you want to make up rules on the fly in order to gatekeep wins/loses. Just convince me. That's what this sport is about- persuasion- not hidden rules. I don't adhere to any norm you could throw at me in speech. Most judges don't. Most judges in JV don't know what you are talking about. Debate is a worse sport for meta-debate/ tech prioritization.

Please avoid appealing to dogwhistling and overly euphemistic language that demonizes groups of people or other ideological camps.

I openly welcome argumenation or sourcing that may use Marxist critical theory, Libertarian, Socially Conservative, Neoliberal, logic and understandings. Please do not assume my politics or preferences simply based on my education, appearance, gender, or age and try to appeal to them. I find this practice uncomfortable.

GG!

I will deduct speaker points for:

> -.5 speak for: "Good morning/ Good afternoon/ Good evening" as an introduction.

Nora Hussein La Salle College Preparatory

Arul Iyyavoo Cambrian Academy

Tovah Jackson Hire 8 rounds None

Ally Jung BCAcademy

Eshan Kalra The Harker School

Subbu Kalyanasundaram Providence High School 8 rounds None

Chad Kapadia James Logan High School None

Bilal Kapadya Hamilton High Independent

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

TL;DR

I know stuff.

Bio (Completely Irrelevant)

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

Speed/Speaking

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

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

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

Cross-Ex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timing

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

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

Etiquette

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

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

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

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

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

Debate-y Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. I’m cool with overviews.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. ALL offense must be in summary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venu Keshavan Riverside STEM Academy None

Raisah Khan Hire 8 rounds

Deepak Khanna New Jersey Independent

Ted Kim Nova 42 Academy

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM PDT

Background

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

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

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

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

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

General Debate Philosophy

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

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

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

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

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

Structure/Organization:

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

Framework (FW):

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

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

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

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

Regarding the decision (RFD):

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

A few exceptions to this rule:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEED:

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

Irrational Paradigm

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

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

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

Shreyas Kiran Dougherty Valley High School

Subhash Kodnad The Quarry Lane School

Rahi Kotadia Dougherty Valley High School

Last changed on Thu September 16, 2021 at 8:33 AM PDT

He/him

email: rahikotadia@gmail.com

I competed for Quarry Lane for two years and I debated for Dougherty Valley for 2 years, all of it in PF. I've gone to major tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, Golden Desert, etc, and qualified to TOC.

For LD

I did not debate CPs/theory/K's/other similar argumentation and I have little experience with them, but I can vote on it if you explain it well enough.

Go slower than usual because of online. Slow down to emphasize analytics. I can keep up with moderate speed, but keep in mind that all I have done is PF. I have no topic knowledge.

Please put theory into formal shells, NOT paragraph form.

I'm fine with 1 condo. I can be persuaded against it if there are more.

I probably won't vote for trix or Phil.

I don't presume. I flip a coin.

Make speech docs during prep time.

Email or flash cases.

Card clipping and violation of evidence ethics is an automatic loss.

For PF

Tech > Truth

I don't intervene but debater math makes me want to.

Please have a content warning for any sensitive arguments and have a way for debaters in the round to anonymously ask you not to read them if necessary (phone number, google form, etc).

Speed

You can talk as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I will say clear if I don't understand you. You can also send me a speech doc at rahikotadia@gmail.com. Share the speech doc if you have any concern that I will not understand you.

Evidence Ethics

Say the card author and date whenever you want to extend it. Have the cut card if anyone calls for it. If it takes more than 3 min to find a card, I will drop speaks.

Do not paraphrase cards to say whatever you want them to. If nobody tells me to call for a card, I have no reason to.

Arguments

I will buy any argument as long as it is warranted.

Defense is sticky so defense that is not responded to in the next speech flows through.

Turns need to be implicated when they are read. If you card dump a bunch of blippy responses in Rebuttal, I'm more inclined to not vote for you if the warrants are not explained.

Please collapse in later speeches. Please sign post in all speeches.

Any argument being extended into Final Focus needs to be in Summary or else I won't vote for it. I also need to hear weighing in Summary and Final Focus to know who to vote for. Do not make new responses to defense that was not responded to in second Rebuttal. Do not make new arguments in second Final Focus.

If you make a racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist/etc comment, I will drop you and lower speaks.

I will give high speaks unless you give me a reason not to. I will give even higher speaks if you're funny.

Feel free to email me any questions at rahikotadia@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

Murty Kotha The Golden State Academy

Sonal Koul Foothill High School

Triniti Krauss West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Fri September 24, 2021 at 11:36 AM EDT

September/October in LD: If you refer to Africa as a country or participate in creating an ideology that the entire African continent is homogenous, I will decrease your speaker points. Please avoid preaching false stereotypes about other nations/groups of nations or making assertations about a country's access to resources or economic status without knowledge or evidence.

Hi, I am Triniti.

Simpson College (Studying Global Management & Political Science)

Public Forum Coach at Valley High School

Contact: TrinitiKrauss@gmail.com

I am on the Simpson College Debate team and have competed at the collegiate level in Parli, PF, and LD. I graduated high school in 2018 and since then, I've judged many debate tournaments, primarily LD and PF. In high school, I competed in WSD, PF, and LD, and Congressional Debate.

The Short Version: Run anything you want. Know what you are running. Explain and develop your arguments well. Interact with your opponent (pretty please). Don't be a jerk. Favorite debate to watch for LD: LARP. Favorite PF judge to watch: One where people know what they are talking about.

What I LOVE to see:

- Clash. Clash. Clash. Did I forget to mention clash?

- Impacts. Love ‘em.

-Tell me why I should prefer your warrants, impacts, and sources over your opponents.

- Tell me how I should weigh the round.

- Links - crazy right? I want to see the 'how' we get from the resolution to your case to your impacts.

LD Specific Paradigm:

If I have a trad Debater against a non-trad debater: Debate jargon is less important than responding to every component of your opponent's case. Example: If your opponent says "do both" instead of "perm," respond to the argument because I will still evaluate "do both."

Case Style: Run anything as long as you can run it well.

T: Go for it. I want to see a developed T-shell and I will vote on T. However, using T as a strat to time-suck is annoying. Because I think that it is annoying, I am happy to vote on an RVI. I would prefer that T be used when there is a very clear violation.

Theory: I’ll buy a well-developed theory shell.

Tricks: Not my favorite.

Kritikal Debate: Have fun. Show relevance/link to resolution.

LARP/CPs/DAs: Love it. Probs my favorite. Just make sure your links/impacts are there.

Speaking: Just speak clearly. Slow down when you read tags/authors of cards, please.

FOR THE LOVE - know what you are talking about - as in, understand the arguments that you are making.

Just don't be a jerk.

Vivian Kuang Dougherty Valley High School

Satish Kumar James Logan High School

Natalie Lahney Hire 8 rounds

Nathan Leal BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 8 rounds

Clara Lee Campbell Hall High School

Daniel Li Velásquez-Liangyi Leadership Academy None

Jason Lin Jack Howe None

Yiji Lin St John's School

Tony Liu Peddie

Jack Lofwall Henry Clay High School

Esme Longley Exeter Independent

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 9:17 AM EDT

Hello! I am Esme. I debated PF for Durham for 4 years and I’m attending McGill. I use she/her pronouns. really dislike blippy arguments, but I guess I'll evaluate them, I'll just give them a LOT less weight. no warrant = VERY LOW CHANCE OF ME VOTING OFF IT. like near 0.

Ask me questions before round, I don't mind (I know sometimes there's not enough time to read paradigms). Also, please let me know (send me an email/ tell me in round) how I can accommodate this round to make you the most comfortable!

Also please include both members of a partnership. Talking about "carries" and excluding someone who has taken their time to put work into and be somewhere sucks a lot and often hits people already left out of debate the hardest. In round and out, make sure you're acknowledging and supporting work put in from everyone and reaching out to everyone as well. <3

Also don't call speeches "bad" ex: "their summary was really bad" just point out the flaws in it. ex: "they don't extend a warrant/ they never weigh..." etcetcetc

Sexism/ racism/ homophobia/ harassment/ etc. isn't cool. I will drop you and you will get low speaks.

Specifically for the debate, though, here are my preferences:

1. WARRANT AND IMPLICATE ARGUMENTS - by this I mean go one step further to explain your arguments -- tell me why A leads to B and B leads to C and WHY IT MATTERS. IF AN ARG HAS NO WARRANT, I PROBABLY WILL NOT VOTE OFF IT Don't just say "Medicare for All equals less money for pharma companies", explain why (and why it matters) : warranting ex - "under Medicare for All, the government negotiates down the prices of drugs with pharma companies, cutting into their profits". Implication might be - "pharma has less cash for R&D". It doesn't even have to be wordy lol just tell me why your arg is happening and why it matters. I also love warranting for uniqueness in case (People seem to forget to do this often). Essentially, the more you can give me earlier in the round, the stronger your arg will be.

2. WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS - even if you're losing 2/3 of your arguments, if your 1/3 is more important than theirs', the round is not lost! Tell me why I ought to care about that 1/3 and why it's more important than anything else. I will evaluate what you tell me, so if you tell me poverty is more important than climate change and give me sound reasons why and it doesn't go touched/ responded to with warrants, then I will buy it no matter my personal beliefs. You don't want to take a chance and let me do the weighing for you. You have control over where I vote, you just have to do the work and tell me why. On the other side, even if you're winning your arguments, WEIGH! You can tell me that your argument is more probable or has more warranting or has a larger impact, etc. just do the work.

Also, don't just say "we outweigh on magnitude" go further -- explain how, and (preferably) tell me why it matters

Also metaweigh pleaseeeee (if they're talking about their argument being more probable and you're talking about yours being having a larger magnitude tell me why magnitude matters more than probability!!). I LOVE good metaweighing, it makes me so so happy. I also love pre-emptive metaweighing, so tbh as soon as you introduce weighing, ideally I'd love for it to be metaweighed. (i reward hella for it - check the speaks stuff at the end)

If you haven't ever heard about weighing, I will teach you before round, just ask me please. I'd much rather take 5-10 mins to explain it and have a good round than dive into a messy round with no weighing

3. SIGNPOST

i'm happy as long as you let me know when you're moving on to different parts of the arg. ex: "on their link" suffices for signposting.

4. CALLING FOR CARDS AND EVIDENCE ETHICS - Call for cards if something feels sketchy if u want, I don't care how many you call for, it's your prep time. If you find something, point it out in the next speech. I'll call for contested evidence later on if it's relevant, but feel free to remind me. If you don't call for something sketchy, then that's on you (oof), I'll have to consider it even if I don't want to. Sometimes I'll call for a card after the round just because I'm curious, but that shouldn't factor into my decision and usually I only call for ev that's disputed.

As for evidence ethics, I'm totally fine with paraphrasing, but if you powertag or misconstrue evidence, I'm going to be really upset and you will know in your speaks. As a debater, I took evi ethics really seriously. Ev exists for anything, you just have to find it. Also indicts don't mean game over, they're like any other arg, respond, weigh, etc.

5. COLLAPSE - This is SO underrated. You start with 2x 4 minute speeches of args on the topic, then get 4 more minutes. The round can't contain all these args in a 2 minute final focus. I don't want it to. I don't want it to in summary, and often even in second rebuttal! I want you to collapse! Pick strategic arguments and (frontline any offense on them first obviously/ weigh against) but drop the ones that aren't as strategic. Just do the weighing and don't forget/ abandon an arg you drop.

Ultimately, you get control over the ballot, I want to do the least amount of intervention possible as your judge so it is on you to make this a clean round!:)

6. EXTEND - uh this should maybe be obvious but here are my thoughts on this. Obv you can drop case, but if you do make sure you weigh against / frontline offense they put on it and have some sorta independent offense/ default neg/aff strat

IF YOU EXTEND YOU NEED THESE PARTS OF THE ARG FOR IT TO BE A FULL EXTENSION - UNIQUENESS/ LINK/ INTERNAL LINK(S)/ IMPACT (TERMINALISED) if parts of your arg are missing, I will be MUCH less likely to vote on it. If both teams don't have parts of their args, then,,, uh,,,, i'll be uncomfy and stress out about my decision lots and probably look for the path of least resistance. Please don't put me in that situation

You DON'T NEED TO EXTEND CARD NAMES, I'm fine with analysis as long as all the parts of the arg are there. Of course, you're welcome to extend cards, but I find it takes a lot longer and doesn't add much unless you're doing specific evidence weighing. Also, please weigh your extensions! Including turns, like why does your link overpower theirs?

ON PROGRESSIVE ARGS

I believe that prog args are a way to change the debate space and make it a better place for us. This means a) I'm really uncomfortable voting off "friv theory", especially run on opponents who don't know how to handle it, so if it feels like your theory is an EZ path to the ballot to trip up an opponent, I'll usually try not to evaluate it as much as other arguments. basically, the more friv the theory is, the more u need to make sure ur opponents are ok with it. i know that sounds super objective, i'm sorry, but rounds where high level varsity teams who have the privilege of going to camp and resources run theory on teams who don't have those resources are unfair and make me uncomfortable. BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID - b) if there's something that makes the space unsafe/ a violation of something u think is important and you explain that in your theory, progressive args are fine with me. I never ran Ks/ theory as a debater, but I get how they work and can evaluate them, just explain them well ofc. if you're unsure if the thing u wanna read theory on is friv or not, feel free to ask me, i really dont mind.

i dont like tricks much

I'll evaluate RVIs if you want to read them, but u have to warrant why im evaluating them ofc. I'll eval competing interps and responses to "must have competing interps". I'll eval paraphrase theory LMAO but I don't like it! I disagree!!! Paraphrasing good. Anyway.

Other notes

I think every debater should watch this video.

If you're reading an argument about a sensitive topic, please read a content warning. Personally, I'd prefer if these were done anonymously thru a google form or another anon method so you don't have to put the burden on your opponents to ~expose~ themselves if that makes sense.

Put me on the email chain please! You don't have to shake my hand. Please preflow before the round. You can flip without me. Pls give me an offtime roadmap if you can!! won't penalise u if u don't tho! Wear what ur comfortable in.

I presume neg, I guess, but if default neg is part of your strat, prolly include a line of warranting cuz i will be uncomfy otherwise

Analysis> ev if there's an unresolved clash.

Defense isn't sticky, but I give some leniency to first summary speakers, cuz obviously it's impossible to have perfect coverage otherwise.

Second rebuttal should frontline offense, and I'd PREFER it if it frontlined defense, but like,, it's up to u. The later things come, the less weight I give them.

I am tech > truth but obv no one is tabula rasa. I'll vote off what's on the flow like nuke war or LONG link chains if you win them. I wanna evaluate what you give me with as little intervention as possible, so I'll try and stay out of how I feel about it lol unless it's really problematic. idk what then.

I'm okkkkkkk with second rebuttal offensive overviews but i don't love them and if you wanna call it abusive, I'll evaluate that too. Although, ngl I'd like it if you actually respond to it as well. Grouping responses is excellent. I'll give you some leniency, sure cuz time skew.

I hateeee blippy and unwarranted responses. Like, yeah, I'll flow and eval them, but I will give them a LOT less weight. You can go fast I'm down and cool with that, that doesn't mean you get to leave out parts of an arg though:( that makes me v sad. Don't go fast without explaining/ implicating pls.

calling me "judge" is annoying

Please send me a speech doc @ esmeslongley@gmail.com if you want to spread. I can handle most pf-speed ok, but I might miss something. If I miss something, I'll probably just ask you to clarify when you're done speaking or ask for a doc, but that's not an invite for you to go really fast and hope that I'll do the clarifying.

I won't time you, but I'll stop flowing after a bit if your opponents hold up their timer and it's obvious you're over time. Don't abuse it.

Pls don't postround me, but please do ask me questions if you have any!!

Fun stuff

I will give extra speaks (+.2 each) if you

- call turns "no you"s (+.1 per signposted "no you")

- Make me laugh (especially with puns, especially spontaneous ones)

- Reference Beyond Resolved

- Auto 30 if you make a Minecraft arg. Like not an analogy, a full blown Minecraft-based argument.

- auto 29.7 if u metaweigh decently with warrants and i'll boost it if ur phenomenal

- +.4 If you tell me your Subway Surfer's high score and it's higher than mine

- Reference Nick Miller from New Girl/ any1 from BBC's Merlin/ kate bush (I LOVE HERRRR)

- If our star signs are compatible - just tell me urs before round and i'll KNOW.

- Auto 30 if you rhyme your entire case

- Auto-boost to a 29.5 + if you Rhyme 25 seconds or so of your speech?

Don't worry, though. I'm pretty easy on speaks and usually give around a 28+. I'm personally not the prettiest speaker, so I totally get it and that shouldn't be a point of stress. More importantly, people get marginalised by the speaks system in ableist/ xenophobic / etc. ways.

I will take off speaks (-.1) for

- Unnecessary obnoxiousness (basically, if you're very mean. Joking around is totally fine lol)

- If our star signs are incompatible

- If your Subway Surfers score is lower than mine, I'll take off .1 points and I will automatically lose all respect for you.

I love debate this makes me happy. Have fun. Ask me if you have questions before or after the round!!

Tiana Lopez Westridge School

Xinping Lu Richard Montgomery High School

Catherine Lucas-Castillo Jack Howe 8 rounds None

Rachel Luo Edvic Debate Club

Steven Luo Evergreen Independent

Mark Mabie BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 8 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophy of Debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parli specifics:

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

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

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

Public Forum specifics:

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

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

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Kalyani Manian Providence High School 8 rounds None

SHAUNTRICE MARTIN Georgetown Preparatory School

Remi Masarik National Cathedral School

Mithran Mathew Los Altos High School

kimberly mejia Jack Howe None

Melissa Miller Jack Howe None

Anshuman Mittal Leland High School

James Monroe Jack Howe

Baltazar Montoya Westridge School

Steve Moon East Ridge High School None

Bhuva Muthukumar Palo Alto High School

Anais Nam BCAcademy

Venkat Nanduri Chantilly

Badari Narasimhan Northwood High School

Basarajav Narayanappa Lambert High School

Joshua Navarrete Jack Howe None

Richard Nelson Northwood High School

Jessica Nunez Hire 8 rounds None

Pushpa Pamidimukkala Dougherty Valley High School

Harpreet Pannu Evergreen Independent

Rama Rajita Pentapati The Golden State Academy

Donald Peters Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Kitiny Phumchun Honor Academy

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 1:38 AM PDT

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

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

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

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

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

All:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lee Place College Prep

Doug Pocrass Valencia High School

Reddy Pothrai Heritage Middle School None

Bennett Pozil Campbell Hall High School None

Fariha Rahman BL Debate 8 rounds

Sridhar Rajarao Foothill High School

Yatin Rao The Golden State Academy

Charles Rho University Independent

Chloe Ricks The Blake School

Last changed on Sat December 18, 2021 at 11:26 AM CDT

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

LD

Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

PF
- I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)
- I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well
- The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team
- theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
- Provide impact calc throughout the round
- I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
- CLASH IS KEY
- Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.
- Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.
- 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!
- extending over ink makes me very sad :(
Miscellaneous:
- Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points
- Please please please weigh your arguments.
- Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.
- please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time
- Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

kimberly Rios Jack Howe None

Linda Robbins El Camino Real Charter High School

Last changed on Sun February 19, 2023 at 12:35 PM PDT

Vita Roth

El Camino Real Charter High School

English Department Chair

Speech and Debate Coach

v.roth@ecrchs.net

I currently teach Honors British Literature and AP Language and have taught almost every English course possible at the high school level, including AP Language. I have over 8 years experience teaching English at El Camino Real.

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

Although speech delivery is very important for students, learning how to support their argument with facts and passion is just as important, if not more important. With the time constraints imposed on students they often speak very quickly so it is important to emphasize their supporting information very clearly and concisely. What generally helps me is if the student begins with the big picture so I can tell where they are heading, and following that up with line by line details, allowing some time for me to absorb the information and take notes. They should also be prepared for their opposition by stating any known contradictions and addressing them head on. Their final focus should repeat their strongest arguments and why I should vote for their side. Also, remember to repeat these strongest arguments whenever they speak again.

I find that sometimes students try to bring in too many arguments. Then they spend too much time defending these lesser arguments and lose focus on the big picture. Remember, the opposition will try to undermine your support so the fewer you have the easier it will be to stay focused on the facts you have to support your argument.

As far as style, first and foremost, be yourself. Be enthusiastic about your topic. Be confident in your argument, don't let the opposition distract you by hammering on one of your arguments, restate your facts and then reinforce your other arguments. If the other team or person does something you feel is against the rules, don't argue with them during your time. Wait for Cross and then mention it but don't let yourself be drawn into an argument at that time. State your concern and let the judge take it into consideration. I have seen a lot of time wasted as students argue the point during the speech process. Also, a few moments of silence is OK. You don't have to fill the time with "ummm" or something similar. You are allowed to take a moment to think out your answer or your next argument.

Finally, remember, you don't have to prove the opposition is wrong, only that your argument will lead to the best outcome. This should be the focus throughout. Yes, it is a good idea to point out flaws in their argument, but it is more important to reiterate your argument and why your point is the best outcome for the issue at hand.

Jazmyn Rodriguez Jack Howe None

Jasmine Romero Jack Howe None

Zoe Rosenberg Damien High School

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:43 AM PDT

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

Mandie Ross Chaska High School

Last changed on Thu August 27, 2020 at 5:13 AM CDT

When judging a debate, I want to see that you are following the rules established by the National Speech and Debate Association for whichever debate form you are competing in. Honestly, if I catch that you have broken a rule it will not flow kindly in your favor.

Other very important things to note:

I want you to stay on topic: You have a given topic for a reason.

Be respectful: This is an educational forum established for students to benefit educationally and no one benefits from disrespect. How you present yourself and how your treat your opponent(s) will be considered when choosing a winner.

Presenting a solid case that is backed by credible resources is also imperative. Furthermore, there should be plenty of evidence to back up your claims especially in the rebuttals. You the debater are not a credible source. Logical arguments are great if you can back them up

Plans/Counterplans: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions (Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

“Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.
2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.
4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent upon request in a timely fashion.
(Direct quote from the National Speech and Debate Association.)

Another note to consider, I do not support the blending of the debate styles. LD is not Policy debate, nor is PF. They are all unique styles of debate with their own educational value. Trying to make LD or PF like Policy Debate will not be voted on favorably.

Mai Rubin Winston Churchill High School

Last changed on Thu July 27, 2023 at 11:42 PM PDT

Updated for April 2023.

Tabroom has the option to specify pronouns for a reason. If a debater specifies certain pronouns by which they identify in a live update, ensure you know them. I have ZERO tolerance for deliberate misgendering because it makes the round unsafe. If you object to this, strike me.

A note on content warnings: I have seen the proliferation of potentially triggering arguments being tagged with content warnings before rounds. This is great. If someone doesn't read such a warning, I would be extremely receptive to claims about why that should mean I drop the debater immediately. However, I notice the execution of such warnings leaves much to be desired in some cases. A CW should have three components:

A. A clear indication of the general topic which will be discussed and whether it is graphic or not.

B. A google form wherein the competitors and judges in the round can anonymously indicate discomfort. Do not ask for someone to say whether the content is triggering or not aloud, it is extremely traumatizing and difficult for survivors of trauma to have to out themselves for the sake of your debate argument. Asking for this is immoral and at best will be met by me tanking your speaks and at worst lead to me dropping you immediately.

C. If someone does indicate discomfort, simply say you understand and will read a different argument. Do not pressure or guilt trip anyone for being unwilling to discuss these arguments. Regardless of how important these issues are to debate discourse, safety is definitely more important.

Put me on the email chain: rubinmai@gmail.com.

If there's any way I can make the round more accessible, feel free to email me before the round and I will do my best.

TL;DR: Tech>truth, first speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense unless it's frontlined by second speaking rebuttal, in which case you have to respond to frontlines if you wanna go for it in FF. Second rebuttal does not have to frontline defense, but does have to frontline turns or disads. Defense isn't terminal unless you tell me why. I've been scarcely involved in debate for a few years and am rusty, adapt accordingly. Don't be more tech than you are. See point 5 if you're reading an anticapitalist argument.

Hello. I did PF for three years at Boca Raton High School ('17) and currently coach/judge circuit PF. I went to FSU until spring 2021 and am currently a third year law student at ASU. I’ve been around the national circuit, so I’ve seen my fair share of debating.

I have been much less involved in debate since 2021, however. Take all of the components of this paradigm with the caveat that I might have issues keeping up with overwhelmingly tech rounds due to being rusty.

I disclose, so if you have any questions about the round, be it the specifics of the flow or your performance as a speaker, feel free to ask me either during the disclosure or after the round if time permits on my part. If you have any questions about my paradigm or an RFD, feel free to ask before or after round (tournament permitting).

As for the paradigm:

1. Debate is a game (unless you compellingly argue otherwise in-round), call me tech>truth. I'll vote on any warranted argument insofar as it isn't unambiguously, maliciously offensive. In the latter case, you'll get an L0-20. I think intervention assassinates pedagogy and fairness because the round is decided by factors outside the control of debaters. To minimize intervention, I will presume the status quo in a scenario in a policy topic where: A. no one is accessing offense, or B. both teams are accessing offense without literally any analysis as to which args are more important and it is impossible for me to resolve the debate without intervening. In short, I presume in pretty much any scenario where it is impossible for me to resolve the round without having to introduce any of my own analysis that wasn’t in it. DO NOT ABUSE THAT. I presume first on non-policy resolutions. On that note, I believe defense is NOT terminal unless you tell me it is and why. I presume defense is mitigatory by default, and give very little weight to it if it is not implicated. This ensures people don't lose the round on presumption because of one piece of mitigation that was dropped and lacked implication.

2. First speaking summary doesn't have to extend defense, unless that defense is covered in second rebuttal, in which case, it must be frontlined in first summary and extended if you intend to go for it in FF. Likewise, if you're second speaking and frontline in second rebuttal and your opponents drop the frontline in first summary, you can extend the frontline straight to final focus without mentioning it in summary. I do not require second rebuttal frontlining for defense, but it is required for turns. However, it is probably strategic to do because defense is a lot harder to access if frontlined early. Beyond that, no new in the two. That includes new weighing in the 2FF, unless there was no prior weighing. Any argument must be responded to in the speech after it is introduced or else it is conceded, with the exception of first rebuttal defense that is not frontlined in second rebuttal. However, I do believe.

3. Regarding new applications of certain args, the way I handle them is that the part of the arg itself that was read before cannot be responded to if dropped. However, the new application can be responded to because it was never read before in the round and the other team had no way of knowing they needed to frontline. Too many teams keep pulling this super sus strat of reading entirely new applications of frontlines or defense to dropped args in the backhalf and reading entirely new implications that weren't in rebuttal. This is effectively a new argument because this articulation of the argument wasn't earlier in the round and the other team couldn't respond to it. There are two exceptions. Those are if 1FF is answering new arguments from second summary and/or if 2FF is refuting those answers. Second, if you're making a theoretical argument about some abuse committed late in the round. If it's the latter, you better spend a VERY significant chunk of your FF on the argument and warranting why the level of abuse is big enough to outweigh the fairness skew of an arg that is new in the two.

4. The only new frameworks that I feel comfortable with being introduced after summary, absent some argument telling me otherwise, are voters and reasons to prefer/weighing frameworks. Clarity of link weighing is fake news 99% of the time, I am not fooled by new attempts to read defense in FF.

5. Cool w/ progressive arguments if done properly and am tangentially familiar with stock K lit. I notice a lot of judges try to ascribe specific purposes to these types of args, like only being for checking back abuse. I think this is intervention. YOU decide and argue in round what the role of a progressive arg is and how that affects the round's outcome. Also, tell me why your args/standards are voters, especially for theory/T. Disclaimer: I have a college policy background, but a limited one, and I was also bad at it. If you're someone reading these types of args, I suggest dumbing them down by spending more time explaining/implicating them.

(NEW AS OF APRIL 2023) As an addition to the above, I have become more versed in anticapitalist literature since taking some distance from debate. With this, I have also grown disillusioned with how a lot of PFers read arguments based on that literature such as capitalism kritiks. Saying I should reject something solely because "it perpetuates capitalism" is oftentimes meaningless in the greater scheme of things within anticapitalist theory. That's not to say I won't vote on those args, because I will if they are accessed and weighed. But it is to say that I have an unavoidable internal bias against that variant of anticapitalist argumentation. However, I love capitalism arguments in PF when they're accompanied by rock solid uniqueness (i.e. reasons why capitalism is gonna collapse and the aff prevents/delays that, or reasons why the aff causes capitalism to collapse). I will do my best to restrain this bias, but it is there, and it is fair you be made aware of it.

6. Good w/ speed but notify me if you're gonna outright spread so I can flow on laptop. Send speech docs if spreading or I will not be happy. Slow on tags/authors/analytics. I will clear you.

7. Issues in CX need to be mentioned in a speech for me to evaluate them.

8. If a link turn links to a different impact than the argument it's turning, that impact MUST be weighed for me to evaluate it because these types of arguments don't inherently prevent or hijack impacts, meaning it doesn't function as defense either. Treat it like an impact from case.

9. If a card is disputed throughout the round or has something in it that spikes/responds to another arg, please extend the card name in summary and FF for clarity and signposting.

10. Please warrant new cards/arguments in summary, don't just read a claim that only ever gets warranted in FF.

11. Please weigh because it makes the round clearer and easier for me to judge. Line-by-line is important, but weighing is absolutely necessary. Most teams I've judged haven't weighed, or done so poorly. Weighing doesn't just entail saying why your link/impact is big. Tell me why it's comparatively greater than everything else in the round. Arg interaction is key. Clarity of impact/link weighing is fake news 90% of the time just because people throw those buzzwords at me and just say “we outweigh because our arg is true.” Just saying you outweigh because you access an arg is not weighing. Strength of link is fine with very good COMPARATIVE warranting rather than being a poorly veiled attempt to read new defense in FF.

12. Absent being told otherwise, I default to evaluating the round on several levels. In descending order: framework, comparative weighing, weighing, offense access. I'm open to some theoretical alternative to evaluating the round if it's proposed to me, I.e. procedural args like theory coming first.

13. If you plan on conceding an arg for strategic purposes, I like that because it’s smart. That said, such can be abusive if used at a point where it is nigh impossible for the other team to respond. I do not wanna intervene on this issue, so: it is fair to make strategic concessions, but only in the speech immediately after those args are made. For example, if someone reads terminal link defense alongside a ton of link turns in first rebuttal, your concession should be in second rebuttal. I won’t take this into account by default. This only comes into play if you argue why it’s abusive. If this happens and you do not make an arg about it, I evaluate it normally. I am VERY receptive to theory arguments on this issue, even in the final focus if and ONLY IF the abuse in question happened right before it.

14. As an extension of the above, I don't enter the round with any preconceptions about certain args being abusive. There are no abusive args unless you: A. tell me why the arg is abusive (most people are blippy on this), and B. why that means I shouldn't evaluate them, preferably grounded by some standard like education or fairness (often entirely absent). Or you could read theory, which is fine by me.

15. I tend to evaluate evidence as arguments, unless some arg in round is made that I should eval them otherwise or there is REALLY excessive abuse. That means a few things:

A. Just as I only evaluate arguments as you present them to me, I only eval ev as you present it to me. This means that the claim you present from the ev is how I eval it, and if I call the card and see some other application of the ev that wasn't articulated in round, I'm not gonna consider it.

B. I prefer not to call for cards unless I am told to. In fact, I ABSOLUTELY HATE having to do evidence comparison myself. Please do it for me, it likely won't end well for you if it comes down to this. There are exceptions to this rule for cards I deem important enough to call, and I will admit that metric is somewhat arbitrary. I think, however, that most would agree that such arbitrariness is fine if it leads to accountability. If I call your ev due to an indict, and the specific parts of the ev in question are problematic, my default response is to just drop the ev to minimize intervention. This, of course, can change if your opponents make some argument as to why this should impact the outcome of the round. I also might just call cards for clarification.

C. The only occasion in which I drop a team with the lowest speaks tab will allow for misrepresenting ev is if it is REALLY terrible and malicious, and the abuse is obviously super extreme, i.e. fabricating ev, distortion, or obvious clipping. I haven't had to do this in a round I myself have judged yet, so my threshold for this is very high, don't be alarmed.

16. The Jan 2019 topic has taught me that there are some parts of economics that I do not understand. Explain economics to me in round like I'm five, for both our sakes.

17. I evaluate embedded clash to an extremely limited extent in the absence of analysis/implication in the round itself, and I only do this when it has to be done to resolve the round. My standard for evalling embedded clash is that if the analysis/extension you read is 100% there and just not signposted in its application or is on the wrong part of the flow, I eval it. By 100% there, I mean I could literally cut and paste that verbatim statement on to the arg it clashes with and have zero issue. If I can't literally just add the phrase "On this argument..." to the analysis/extension that's there, I won't eval embedded clash in the absence of analysis. PLEASE do the analysis properly, I hate evalling embedded clash and your speaks will suffer.

18. In terms of theory, I default to competing interps, no RVI, and drop the debater, open to otherwise if argued in round. Likewise, if you read a theory shell instead of a PF-y argument about why a certain thing is abusive and shouldn't be evaluated, I will hold it to the standard of a theory shell. Extend the interp verbatim. The shell line-by-line doesn't need to be extended in rebuttal.

Speaker Points

To me, speaks aren't about presentation. I tend to give speaks based on one's strategic decisionmaking and argumentation in the context of a round. Cool strategic moves and good efficiency (especially in the backhalf) are the key to my heart. I’m not a fan of giving speaks based off stylistic performance, mostly because those tend to be informed by some pretty bad norms that disadvantage non-cishet white men. If your strategy is good, I don’t care how you speak, I will give you good speaks.

Here’s the breakdown:

30: You made the best possible strategic decisions and arguments in the context of the round.

29-29.5: You made smart strategic decisions and arguments. Only a few things you could have done better.

28-28.5: Solid argumentation and middle of the line strategic decisionmaking. What I give to the majority of decent rounds I judge.

27-27.5: Passable argumentation with several mistakes, and a noticeable absence of strategic decisionmaking. Round was way more unclear than it should be, and improvements are definitely needed.

26-26.5: Below average. Major mistakes or problems with the debate, definitely needs immediate improvement.

25-25.5: Very below average. Completely mishandled the round. Significant work needed on how the debate is handled.

<25: You probably said something quite offensive or tried to spread cards without sending a speech doc.

Helena Sagara Jack Howe None

Nicole Sahagian Flintridge Preparatory

Sandeep Sahni Livingston High School 8 rounds

Jerico Sarmiento Jack Howe None

Subha Sathiam Foothill High School

Timothy Scheffler James Madison Memorial

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:14 AM CDT

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.

Charles Schletzbaum Milpitas High School 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

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.

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/

Christian Schock Stockdale High School

Blayne Scofield Union Catholic

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 1:36 PM EDT

For the chain: blayneatbloomberglaw@gmail.com

Are you a K PF team? Consider striking me! I am probably not the judge for you. See below for details!

I judge for Union Catholic in New Jersey. I judge 20 or so rounds a year, mostly PF with some LD and Policy. I was a policy and parliamentary debater. I've been judging for around 20 years.

Event specific info follows below.

I strongly prefer resolutional debate given the purpose and current state of PF. I won't require the other team to know clash debate, debate methodology, framework, or topicality. I have a strong preference for resolutional debate.

What does that mean for you?

Do you have a soft left case? That's fine! I'm looking a strong link to the resolution, then an impact. I can work with any impact. Structural inequality, structural violence, racism, sexism, ableism -- these are all great things to talk about.

Are you're running a K-alt or a progressive case? Those are tougher. I will not know your literature. Please slow down and simplify. Use ordinary language. Be clear about the alt/role of the ballot. If your advocacy is "resolutional debate reinforces existing power structures (and that's bad!), rejecting the resolution is activism, activism is a better methodology for change", say that. Then, in your framing, explain as directly as possible how the ballot constitutes an act of activism.

Speed is fine, but please don't spread. What's too fast? If you adjust your breathing to accommodate your speed, that's too fast.

If you're familiar with truth v. tech, I'm in the middle. I vote off the flow, but I don't have to vote for "bad" arguments (i.e., arguments lacking warrants, evidence, analysis, and/or impacts) even if dropped. Presentation matters. Line-by-line is great, but by the end of the round, I need a clear sense of your position and why it wins.

Use the flow to structure speeches. Let me where you're at on the flow, provide helpful labels for your arguments, tell me when you're cross-applying. If you're kicking an argument, it helps if you tell me.

I will not vote on disclosure theory absent a mutual agreement. If both teams consent to disclosing prior to the round or to flashing files prior to the round, then, during the round, one team breaks the deal, i'll listen to theory.

Nothing is sticky. 1st speech = case, 2nd speech = case, 3rd speech = respond to 2nd speech, no need to extend case. 4th speech = defend your case, attack other side; anything not extended in this speech is dropped.

In rebuttals, please collapse. Make choices; don't go for everything. Focus on your best offense and defense.

You can lose arguments and win the around. Don't be afraid of conceding, just mitigate or outweigh. If you write an honest ballot for me, you are more likely to get a favorable decision and high speaks.

In crossfire, be a pro. Share the time. Ask brief questions, give brief answers. Be friendly, be helpful. I dislike leading questions in cross. Make arguments in your speech, ask about them in cross. If your opponent's answer is "I'm sure you'll tell me," you've asked a bad question.

Last thing: don't run "as many as 900 million people could fall back into poverty in the event of an economic shock like the Great Recession," unless you have a card showing that 900 million people fell into poverty between March 2020 and today.

Policy

Don't spread. I can't keep up. If you want the ballot to address your arguments & strategy, slow down.

I prefer policy arguments to critical arguments, substantive arguments to theory, and real world impacts to terminal impacts, but argue what you want.

On Ks, I won't know your literature. Start simple. Tell me your thesis, make your alt clear, and build up from there. If you dive right into the evidence, I will be lost. I am more likely to vote for your K if I understand what your alt means in the real world. Good alts specify an action that's being taken, who is taking the action, and when they take that action. If you provide examples, that's very helpful.

For T, I default to reasonability.

Collapse in rebuttals, don't go for everything. I prefer depth to breadth.

I know this sounds very conservative, but it's not that bad. These are preferences not requirements. My comfort zone is traditional policy, but I'm up for whatever. I've voted for Ks, K affs, and CP theory. If you go this route, you'll just need to invest more time in explaining how it works. It'll be fine.

For circuit LD, I’m a lay judge.

You could do worse. My background is policy. I flow, I’ll listen, and I’m open-minded. Brave tournament directors put me in LD/PF bid rounds. Plus, I enjoy debate. I want to buy your argument.

Even so, let me emphasize: I AM A LAY JUDGE.

We all want an awesome round.

However, I’ll be frustrated if I don’t understand what’s going on. You’ll be frustrated if you get a weird decision.

That’s definitely not awesome.

Keys to getting a good ballot:

* Slow down. If you spread, I will get lost.

* Talk about the resolution.

* Go easy on theory. I’m the wrong judge for RVIs. I’m okay for T. There are better judges for condo/fiat/counterplan theory, but I can get through it.

* Use plain language. I will not know your lit or your jargon. Walk me through it.

* Clash. You don’t need evidence. Understand the arguments. Put some thoughtful analytics on the flow.

* Talk about details. Is your framework utilitarianism? Tell me what’s good. Tell me how to figure out whether it really is for the greatest number. Is your T intep reasonability? Give me a way to measure reasonableness. Is your theory impact fairness? What is fairness? How is it measured?

And last of all, in LD, I prefer to truth-test the resolution. Aff talks about why the res is true. Neg talks about why it isn’t. Framework matters some, case impacts don’t really matter, and the question at the end of the round is: who did the better job of proving the truth or non-truth of the resolution?

That said, you give me a plan, I turn into a traditional policymaker policy judge.

If you want me to use a different standard, give it a shot. To do so, I need rules for applying your standard.

Jacob Senghas Wayland High School

Vani Shah Westwood HS

Zoey Sheinberg Rowland Hall

Last changed on Sat January 21, 2023 at 5:53 AM MDT

Hi guys!

My name is Zoey and I debated PF on the national circuit for all four years of high school at Rowland Hall in Salt Lake City Utah. I qualified for nationals two years in a row and have made it pretty far in some high skill national tournaments, such as Alta, Jack Howe, ASU, etc. I love debate and know a lot about debate so no need to be worried about me being a lay judge in any way.

As for what I would like to see in rounds. First and foremost please please please be respectful. If I see or hear any homophobia, xenophobia, racism, or ignorance of any kind, wether in arguments or in cross, I will nuke your speaks if not drop your entire team. Abusiveness in arguments or presence is not welcome in the debate space. Additionally if I see debaters, specifically female or nonbinary ones, being spoken down to, interrupted, or made uncomfortable I will, again, either injure your speaks or drop you depending on the severity.

Okay, secondly, I am totally okay with progressive debate, speed, theory, K's, tricks, etc. If you are planning on speed, I would prefer you just speak at a pace where I can flow on my computer or, if needed, send me a doc. I am pretty good with theory and K's and tricks, but please if the other team is not do not use it as a cheap way to win, I will view that as bad debate.

As for speeches in general, I am tech over truth, but don't push that, lie, and be abusive. Framework is cool but not necessary. PLEASE FRONTLINE! Frontlining starts as early as second rebuttal, and I expect extensions to be from resolution to impact, do not just extend through ink. Additionally please collapse, taking on too many arguments at once makes for bad debate. I expect summaries to be the best speeches in the round because you have the most to do in just three minutes so make use of your time and learn what matters in a speech. Final focus is pretty simple, weigh weigh weigh, impact impact impact. I believe that weighing should be brought up in rebuttals, but I also understand not having enough time. That being said if one team weighs in rebuttal and extends through FF, and one team waits until FF to start, there will be a large advantage for the other team. Honestly just debate well, weigh, extend resolution to impact, collapse, and be respectful :)

Cross will in no way impact who wins or your speaks but if there is abuse that can change. Please make cross fun, yes use it as a way to answer questions you need answered, but also the best part about cross is making your opponents get flustered and feel behind. Use it to your advantage, it can help in speeches. If you bring up something said in cross during a speech I will flow it but in general I will not be flowing cross.

As for evidence, I have high evidence standards, I am cool with paraphrasing don't worry, I think it is needed in PF, but please have everything carded and ready to show your opponents. I will only call for cards if it is contended or seems sus.

If I am forgetting something feel free to ask me before the round starts! Also please be on time to rounds :) have fun, debate well, be kind, and good luck

May Shi Troy High School None

Daniel Shih Hamilton High Independent 8 rounds

Mehar Singh Archbishop Mitty None

Nathan Smith The Cambridge School None

Thadeus Hagan Smith Interlake HS 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 8:03 AM EDT

TL;DR

Be kind in all that you do.
I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.
I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.
I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.
Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.
Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.
For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

Nellian Solaiappan The Quarry Lane School None

Sundar Solaimalai Brookfield East

Last changed on Fri December 2, 2022 at 4:16 AM CDT

I debated for 3 years on the national circuit at Brookfield East. I won a couple nat circuit tournaments.

If there are 4 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

3. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

4. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

Other:

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Keerthi Soundarajan Astor Redhead Academy None

Nick St. Onge Half Hollow Hills HS East

Sophie Stankus Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:39 PM PDT

World Schools note for Cal -First time judging this - still figuring out the point system & norms so to be as fair as possible here's how I find myself voting so far:

winning team will be the team who had better argumentation / framing. Don't use this as an excuse to do things that would not be in the norms of world schools tho, like excessive speed / more theoretical stuff / anything exclusionary to teams that aren't prepared for it. Also since no low point wins, a killer reply speech can't save 3 bad constructives. If it's close enough though, the team who I think won on paper will win on tabroom. Surprising myself with who the winner is by just adding up the points speech by speech made me too sad.
High style points = good sign posting, clear extensions, creative arguments, confident responses to POIs. I don't care as much that a speech is perfectly polished so much as that it is creative and effective and doesn't waste time. To honor the vibes of WSD, if you're confident / funny, your score will be higher. If you're rude / make excessive POIs / read word for word off a paper, your score will be lower. That being said, your performative ability will most likely not be what determines the round for me.
High content points = I like the stuff you put on the paper. A good mix of defensive and offensive responses (not just cross applications of your own case). Having flushed out substantives (rather than blips that come out in later speeches). Creative arguments that aren't all US-centric. Stats aren't as important in world schools as clear logic, so make sure everything has a claim & reasoning & impact of some sort.
Strategy points = Good extensions, good framing, good time management, and consistency across each speech on your team.
IMO, POIs are more for you than for me. Get clarification on their case / get the other side to say something you can use against them / catch them in a double bind to use later. I'm probably not going to flow anything new from a POI unless you bring it up in a speech later and tell me why it matters. Making them probably won't impact your score much unless they're really good or really bad.

TLDR as of Feb '24: Will listen to almost anything, preference for case since I'm much better at judging it (imo), and my ability to comprehend speed is not great these days and I for whatever reason am incapable of flowing on a computer so if you go too fast for me to be able to actually pen to paper write it down I may miss stuff. Wouldn't object to being classified more as flay than flow at this point, but a unique / interesting round is better than a boring / recycled round - take that however you want. And full disclosure idek what a trick is unless it's that grains of sand stuff - that I definitely do not like pls I will have flashbacks to the worst rounds I ever debated lol

- debated in high school parliamentary debate for four years (2015-2019) for Campolindo and Mountain View / Los Altos (won a few things, went to TOC x3, but also it's been a long time and the circuit has def changed)

- coached PF for a few years and a lil bit of parli

For Parli

For the record, I will in fact listen to and vote on anything you read so long as it's done well, below are my preferences but of course they are not hard and fast rules; you do you - it's your round not mine.

- I haven’t competed in years and mostly coached slower events such as PF, so spreading super fast is probably not in your best interest, and in a limited prep event like parli with 8 min for a constructive if you're saying the right things you probably don't need to go egregiously fast anyway.

- I prefer the structure of case debate solely because I'm better at judging it - if you feel like going for critical impacts that is fine but I would much rather hear a well warranted critical advantage or disadvantage than an over rehearsed and framework heavy kritik

- If you do decide to read a K I won't hate you but here's my disclaimer: I did not read Ks except like 4 times ever. I studied philosophy in college so I'm relatively familiar w most stock K theory & I read some satirical stuff / Baudrillard. But also I hate misinterpretations / butchering of philosophy to better suit your case so if you read a K it better be good. And regardless of my knowledge if you read a K still assume I do not understand, and be as clear as possible. While I'll do my best to place it in the context of the round reading a K in general means there is a marginally higher chance I will make what more k-oriented judges would consider the wrong decision. So bear that in mind.

- if reading more complex or identity related kritiks be especially sure you actually understand what you are talking about and the implications behind it. I'll probably hold you to a higher standard of explanation on these

- I don't like frivolous theory so if you're reading it at least make it ridiculous and fun lol. Theory is important when an action a team has taken has changed the course of the round. Theory is less important when the shell itself is what changes the round. But I guess at a certain point it becomes satire and then it loops back to maybe being important again?

- Justify your impact framing. Magnitude is probably overrated. What would make the world actually better is if people thought about probable and structural impacts of their actions. I'll definitely vote on magnitude if given reason to though.

For PF

- I don't really flow cross cause I'm not abt that many columns on my flow but I promise I'll listen :) Bring up any important cross developments in a speech as well and I'll definitely flow it then

- Sticky defense (unless you give me a reason otherwise) so long as you mention it in FF, so you can ignore through summary if conceded

- If you plan on going fast to the point where you go beyond the average person's flowing capabilities, you should email me & your opponents your evidence. But also I'm fine with more speed in PF because a 4 minute constructive just seems so short to the Parli side of me

- not a fan of paraphrasing & if you do make sure citations are clear

- if you are reading norm-setting theoretical arguments or critical identity args look to my parli notes

Chris Steveson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 5, 2020 at 10:26 AM PDT

Hello,

About Me: I am currently a policy debater for CSU Long Beach and primarily run K focusing on Afro-Pess, Anti-Blackness, and Security. I've judged quite a bit this year, but in terms of policy, I have more experience competing than judging.

My paradigm will be from the perspective of policy and may be geared as such.

What is Debate?

Debate is whatever you want it to be. I believe most arguments have some place in debate and as long as you are able to clearly and effectively defend your argument of what debate is, I'm down for it.

I pay close attention to the language used in the round to defend points, I also love a good CX so that usually goes on my flows.

What you say in round, you must defend!

I like a good T debate, but I am more familiar with the college topic than HS, so make sure you can clearly show me how it isn't topical. I do believe that the burden falls more upon the Neg to show how it does violate the topic, but doesn't mean the aff can go without addressing the argument.

CP:

CP must be able to solve some part of case as well as answer/address some part of the issues or advantages of the plan. Perm also is fine, but the neg must clearly explain to me how a perm could not work. It will definitely help if your evidence is specific to the aff.

DA:

I can get behind a well made DA and that you are able to have uniqueness as well as a good cp. Overall I just need a clear impact and link to how the case perpetuates the disad. Impact comparison and framing is also key to convince me.

As stated I am primarily a K debater, so I may have a slight bias towards these. This does not mean I will automatically vote for the K though, especially if they cannot properly link their K to the case or explain how their impacts outweigh. Just because I run this does not mean I will fill in anything missed in the debate, it is your duty to do so. This also must be explained to me how it can materially make sense. If your neg make sure you are able to explain how your impacts are weighed and make sure your engaging with the aff as close as possible. If your aff, please have a perm. Please be able to contextualize your thesis in the level of the K. Aff also must remember that they have a plan and that they cant get lost in the K.

FW:

I can get behind a good FW argument, however be sure that there is a clear impact and how it must be weighed. I feel that there is a space for FW to be ran and that neg can make this arg, however this does not mean you will get an automatic vote on it. I also believe the aff should be able to defend their content and their idea of what debate is.

Ballot:

Tell me what my role is as the judge, tell me what arguments your winning and why they are important. Explain to me clearly what the primary clash is of the debate and how this weighs.

Speak at whatever speed you are comfortable with, I won't directly link your speed with speaker points. For me its about how you explain your arguments and how you can persuade me to vote for you.

Big Things:

I do not abide Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Transphobic, etc. rhetoric used against people in round!

Small Things:

- I will flow on Paper (mostly).

- Be clear on any OV, Plan Texts, Interps., and Analytics.

- (Online Debate) Cameras on for people who are speaking please.

Always:

Have Fun! We are all likely here because we have some enjoyment of this activity and see it as an arena where people can advocate for their agencies and bring their passions out into a public, educational space.

Georgie/Patricia Brigitte Anne Suico Hire

Last changed on Fri October 28, 2022 at 3:16 AM PDT

A note: I've been out of policy for two years so please take the time to clearly articulate your arguments, as I have little prior topic knowledge.

It is somewhat difficult for me to flow due to hand/wrist problems, so if you speed through your arguments with no inflection or change in speed, I might not catch them. That doesn't mean that you can't spread - just please take a second to pause between analytics or cards.

tl;dr - Run what you want, don't be rude.

Add me to the chain: frogvillages@gmail.com. I go by Georgie.

General

I've run planless affs, hard right policy strats, and a range of off on the neg, so most arguments that aren't "racism good" are fine; I prioritize offense.

I give out good speaks and judge based on how well you debated, but am also not willing to reward anyone for toxicity. Be kind to each other.

If you need a particular accommodation for a disability, sickness, etc., let me know and I will try my best to ensure the debate is more accessible.

Case

Tie case args to the bigger picture - the more specific your arguments are to the aff/how your plan interacts with the neg off-case, the better. Case arguments shouldn't exist independent of your off-case - how you apply them is important. Case turns are under-utilized, as is extending case all the way to the 2nr.

Counterplans

Most CPs are legit unless the aff does a good job of debating why they aren’t. The more specific your ev is to the aff and the higher the quality of your cards, the better the debate will go for you. While I don't require a solvency advocate, having one can only help you, especially if the CP is questionably legitimate.

Disadvantages

I like these debates, but “extinction outweighs” means nothing if you don’t explain why. I appreciate solid impact comparison and framing.

Neg - If the aff is mostly winning the DA debate, having a few "DA turns case" arguments can be very convincing. Links about the plan are great, read them.

Aff - I believe 0% risk of the DA can exist. Internal link chain takeouts are a great and underrated way to decrease the chances I vote on a risk of the DA- as are good analytical reasons why the DA doesn't make sense- and they usually don't. If you have a framing page, don't forget it exists.

Critiques

Engage with each other, please.

If you’re neg, link work is actually important- do it. Interact with the aff as much as you possibly can and please don't rely too heavily on buzz words. Don't assume I understand all of your terms - explain and don't be evasive in CX. In the instance that I don’t understand what your k is (which happens a lot in high theory debates), I’ll probably default aff if they win a risk of their impacts.

If you’re aff, don't get lost - remember that you have a plan that you can get offense from. Your stuff is probably really cool - defend it. I find myself voting neg in debates where the aff's offense is not directly contextualized to the thesis level of the critique - concession of their theory, for me, lets the neg problematize most parts of the flow for the aff. Don't move too defensively.

Make framework a thing. I generally believe that the aff gets to weigh their stuff, but that's up to y'all.

Critical Affs

I try to operate strictly on what is said in the round, so how you frame the debate is key. Debates that just complain about how critical affs are "obviously cheating, judge" are not especially persuasive. Framework is a question of competing models of debate - you need disadvantages to your opponent's model and advantages to yours to win.

After being on both sides of the framework debate, I'm open to different interpretations of what debate/the ballot/my role as the judge is. I'll vote for you if you run framework, and I'll vote for you if you don't - just do it well.

On the neg: Procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you have a good reason why. I tend to like TVAs as internal link defense to the aff - especially if you have cards. Yes, the aff's DAs and case arguments mean something - don't drop them. Try to clash with the aff as much as possible, which includes how T interacts with their offense. 0 defense to the aff's theory/offense = harder debate for you.

If you prefer a k aff v k debate, the same thing I said about critiques above applies, but try to establish competition early in the debate or the perm will be very convincing.

Presumption arguments are vastly under-used and persuasive 98% of the time.

On the aff: Feel free to run whatever. If I don’t understand what your aff is, I’d be more willing to vote neg on presumption if they go for it. Have external offense on framework other than "the discussion is important" and a methodology that you can defend. Give me a reason why you need to exist outside of the topic or the resolution. I definitely need a reason why the ballot resolves your offense/what my role as the judge is. The perm is usually a good option in K v K debates. Try to clash with the neg as much as possible, which includes how T/the K interacts with your offense. A few good disads to T/the K are better than 30 oddly named and often unexplained ones.

Topicality

I find that T debates are unfortunately a lot of block reading - engagement with the other team's arguments has to be a thing. Make an impact about what you want me to care about - “limits” or “ground” isn’t that big of a deal if you don’t tell me why. Impact comparison is important.

As a warning: Don't expect me to fill in the gaps for you in these debates because I have 0 pre-dispositions on T. Even if an aff "obviously explodes limits, judge," a lack of actual analysis and some decent aff defense probably means that you will still lose.

Misc about content and theory:

-Slow down. Please don't spread through your theory/analytical blocks as quickly as humanly possible. Theory debates can get techy and can be difficult to resolve when I have no idea what you said in ____ speech.

-More than 3 condo and I'll get annoyed - not enough to vote you down automatically if the aff makes a theory argument, but more sympathetic

-A well-developed 1-5 off strategy is much more effective than your 10 off 1nc shell - your primary strategy should not be predicated on you making sure the 2ac gets like 3 arguments on each flow. I won't reject you for it, but I will be very sympathetic to new 1ar spins/pivots.

-Do I enjoy theory debates? No. All judges have some biases, and this is one of mine: You'll win it if you win it, but I tend to evaluate substance first unless the other team has made some heinous mistake like forgetting to answer condo.

John Sullivan Bishop O'Dowd High School

Yan Sun Northwood High School None

Jacob Tamkin Loyola High School

Lena Tang Brooks Debate Institute

Liu Tang The Cambridge School None

Patrick Tapia Cabrillo Independent

Naren Tarikere Desert Ridge Middle School

Daniel Tehrani Westwood HS

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 6:59 PM CDT

I debated PF for 4 years at Westwood High School and now Attend UT Austin. I am tech over truth. if you prove to me that the sky is made of dogs I’ll believe you.

Email: danieltehrani110@gmail.com

General:

Go line by line not big picture

Evidence:

If you paraphrase that is fine. However, if you're falsifying evidence while paraphrasing and it’s a piece of evidence I call for or your opponents tell me to call for, I will drop the argument.
The same goes for cut cards if you're falsifying that then I will drop the argument.
I have a high threshold for evidence quality, spend the time to get good evidence
For online tournaments I want speech docs. That includes your case doc and any speech after that if you read off a doc. It helps me ensure I don't miss an argument that could be pivotal in the round.

Progressive Arguments:

You can run them if you want but make sure to go slower and ensure that I understand them and why they are being run. I never read progressive arguments in high school so keep this in mind before considering reading something
If I perceive that you are just reading something to win a round rather than trying to fix an issue either in debate or society then I will just drop the argument and lower your speaks

Speed:

I’m good with any speed, other than genuine spreading.

Speaks:

You start with good speaks and good strategy, speaking, and argumentation will bring that up further but sexism, homophobia, racism and other similar issues will earn you a 25

Offs/Dissads/overviews/underviews:

You can read as many as you want but make sure to keep the Warranting for the argument

Prep Time

Don’t steal prep
Keep track of time yourself

Constructive:

The only thing I’ll say here is to sound alive. Try to not sound bored out of your mind.

Cross:

Be kind and courteous to your opponents i.e. have basic manners.
If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic, or any similar thing then you will get the L and 25 speaks. This is really for the whole round not just cross

Rebuttal:

1st Rebuttal should respond to their opponents case, introduce any new offs, weighing, overviews etc.
2nd Rebuttal should frontline their case and respond to all offense your opponents put on you. You can concede a NU or delink to get out of frontlining an argument.
2nd. Rebuttal should respond to all responses or otherwise it is conceded

Summery:

There is no sticky offense or defense
Make sure to crystallize
1st Summary should frontline the offense you are going for while extending the link chain. 1st summary should also extend and/or frontline all responses that they want to extend. Since there are 3 minutes in summary now make sure to weigh if you don’t the round becomes much more difficult to evaluate
First summary should interact with defense to the extent that the second rebuttal frontlined (so, if the second rebuttal frontlines, the first summary should interact with that frontlining
2nd summary should frontline and/or extend any offense they are going for and explain the link chain. They should also frontline/extend any response they want to extend. Also weigh
Every argument (that is offense) needs to be explicitly extended (claim, warrant, impact) to be evaluated. For defense, a claim and warrant extension is enough. Extend what you want me to vote on.

Final Focus:

Summaries and Final Focuses should match in content. Don’t introduce any new responses (like new NU and Delinks) at this point of the round. If you want me to evaluate an argument it must be in both SUMMERY AND FF
Make sure to extend the claim warrant and impact and weigh for all offense you are extending in the round. Make sure to integrate frontlines to the responses they have made
Implicate everything and do comparative interaction on the warrant/link/and impact level

Jon Telebrico Sage Hill School

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 7:22 AM PDT

About:

Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
Do evidence/warrant comparisons
Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.
STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.
The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.
Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.
I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.
I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.
Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.
Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.
Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.
Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.
For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)
Any and all spec is fine.
Read and pass texts to your opponents.
Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.
I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.
I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.
I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!
I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.
Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.
When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.
I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.
The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.
Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!
Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.
I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.
Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.
Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

Rounds Judged: n = 170
Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to find me in Parli Prep and ask me before the round!

Durai Thirupathi Northwood High School None

Lessly Trejo Villagrana Hire 8 rounds None

Isabella Vasiliadis Jack Howe None

Rahul Verma Saint Francis High School

Last changed on Thu September 17, 2020 at 7:54 AM PDT

Howdy! I see that you are interested in contacting me or I may be judging you! If this is the case you are in the right place!

He/Him/His
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain (r.rahul.v [at] gmail [dot] com)

tl;dr - You do you! I can follow you as long as you are clear, and I will make it clear if I can't. Have a fun debate! Debate is supposed to be an enjoyable, educational activity, and I am disappointed in people who make it otherwise. I will not accept ANY argument that is racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

Update for CJR - I have not done work on this topic over the summer so please do go easy on the acronyms, especially if you plan to go for T.

If you want the more long-winded version of my background and methodology for adjudicating a round, read below.

I competed in policy debate for Saint Francis High School in Mountain View, CA for 4 years, and I am currently attending Cornell University ('24). I am not currently debating in college. I qualified to the TOC in my senior year. My debating style varied over the years but my junior and senior year I was going for the k on the aff and neg.

Critics that shaped the way I debate and view arguments include the following: Tony Hackett, Sam Haley-Hill, Eunice Jung, Daryl Burch, Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, and Amber Kelsie.

Tech vs Truth - I think that Sam Haley-Hill says this best in his paradigm - "I think that the phrase 'tech over truth' is just as vacuous as its inverse." I do believe that a dropped argument is conceded. That being said, I do think that the concession of an insignificant, blippy argument is trivial when a team does more work to advance a more compelling, well-developed argument that outweighs it.

Kritiks - I would say this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, do not go for a k just because you think I will vote for it - I would much prefer a nuanced counterplan and disad debate over you going for a k you do not understand. I was a 2N all through high school up to my junior year, and I have mainly gone for the K on the neg and generally 1 or 2 off in debates as a whole this year, but I have been more flex in years past. Will I know your specific k author? The answer is probably not, but I’m willing to put in my best effort, and I’m hoping you will too! The point is I cannot vote for a k that I do not understand at a thesis-level because I am also less likely to buy your link. Winning the thesis is not the same as winning the debate. The more contextual the k is, the better the debate will be.

(If you are interested in what type of Ks I went for in high school, the authors I probably understand the best are Warren, Wilderson, Puar, and Spivak. That being said I have also read a decent bit of set col, cap and psychoanalysis. I was last a 2N in my junior year of high school so here is a link to that: https://hspolicy18.debatecoaches.org/St%20Francis/Verma-Borde%20Neg)

K Affs - I am down. I was a 2A my senior year and strictly went for a planless aff. I am good with a performance debate as well. The only caveat is that a kritikal affirmative should at least have a solid link to the resolution, not just reading the same literature on every new topic. That being said, I think that framework is still a solid strat against k affs (or other ks!). Answers to framework on the aff should be substantive (that does not mean just going for structural fairness outweighs). While I would prefer a more substantive strategy against a k aff, I think that framework is still a strategic move in a debate on the neg (especially if the aff is new to you are from a small school with a small research base). I think it is fair to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. I also think that, if you have one, you should defend the performance and use it as offense, especially against TVAs that claim to solve the aff.

Case Debate - I think that people underestimate how much offense comes off of the case debate flow for both teams. Do it please!

T - I used to think that T debate was trivial, but after going for a planless aff and also seeing some outrageous things that policy teams try to get away with, I think that this is a genuine tool that the neg possesses. I think that topicality debates can be really good debates if teams do the proper work. Explain the internal links and do not just read down your blocks - be contextual! Also! Tell give me some external impacts! I think that T debates should have minimal judge intervention - that being said I will most likely only look at the evidence in detail if it becomes the center of the entire debate, otherwise, I will just be looking at the flow.

Theory - I am not here for your tricks debate or your RVIs or TKOs. I will vote on genuine in-round abuse though.

CPs/DAs - I would love to see a nuanced counterplan/disad debate any day over a trashy kritik debate (see above). Give me a plan specific link on the disad and good defense on case. Make sure you handle theory on counterplans! People get away with pretty sleazy counterplans and I think that theory is valid here.

Still want more information on what I went for? Here are the wikis from my senior year:

AFF - https://hspolicy19.debatecoaches.org/St%20Francis/Verma-Shen%20Aff

NEG - https://hspolicy19.debatecoaches.org/St%20Francis/Verma-Shen%20Neg

Overall, just have a fun debate and do what you do best!

Roberto Villagomez Honor Academy

Last changed on Sun January 17, 2021 at 1:22 PM PDT

I am a Varsity Policy Debater for Southwestern College. I am currently a Psychology Major going to SDSU (No I don't compete for them, I like policy more than Parley :/ )

However, please do not change your style of debate to make it more policy debate friendly, DO YOUR THING! I will do my best to keep up!

So, with that said, I can flow pretty well. You are more than welcome to run any single argument you would like in whatever performative method you find best! Trust that I will be able to keep up and give good feedback!

I have judged for many high school tournaments. I have judged speech, impromptu, parley, policy, LD, PF, and Congress.

Below I am going to give my opinion on several argument types, however, while I may like some argument types more than others, I will always remain unbiased during rounds. So as much as I love K debate, you can still lose to framework or T.

T- I find T debates FASCINATING. They reveal the nuances behind the debate give debaters a chance to really show their intellectual capacity in being able to debate abstract concepts and articulate them in their own manner. I do however find T to be a little lazy. especially when against a K aff, because they are more often than not untopical, but a good T debate on a policy aff is always exciting to see, a good impact calculus on fairness can definitely win my ballot. Also,TVA's are one of my favorite arguments (I never run it, I just find them hilarious), so if you can manage to win why being topical is good, what it prevents, and how a TVA solves any of the 1AC's impacts + does not link to T impacts, you get my ballot.

DA- No strong opinions on DA's. I run them very often because turning a DA into a K creates a debate around the alt and whether or not it solves the impact and sidesteps the discussion of the link and the impact, which is pretty boring. Nonetheless, love a good DA with strong links and clear and succinct impact calculus.

CP- I LOVE a good counter-plan debate, its essentially an affirmative vs affirmative debate, except the neg team has more offense on the aff team, but suffers a lack of case solvency and defense. It showcases whether the affirmative can articulate its solvency whilst also creating offense on the spot in the debate, whilst also highlighting the negs ability to not only make good presump arguments, but also the 3rd option for me to prefer which, albeit, makes my job harder is much more enjoyable to watch.

Framework- My feelings to framework are similar to T, I find FW debates against K affs lazy, but sometimes I understand that is what some debaters are comfortable with and genuinely believe and are passionate about. I don't auto-vote framework and do not auto-vote on K's, I won't fill in any blanks for you on framework arguments so make sure you are CLEAR and ARTICULATE about what your interpretation of debate should be, why I should prefer it, why it's best for debate, what the other team did to violate it, and (in my opinion, the most important aspect of FW argument.) WHY I SHOULD CARE. Give me a clear argument as to why I as a judge matter, what my ballot signifies, and what happens if I don't vote for you. Framework is a particularly difficult argument to run, it takes a very skilled and well-rounded debater, but if you fit the above criteria then I will more than likely vote for you.

K- My absolute favorite argument style in the te. K's are incredibly informative about the way society functions in one-dimensional ways and how the assumptions we make about everyday activities should constantly be under strict scrutiny. K's are incredibly difficult (especially for a high schooler), they require a vast knowledge of the literature, well-articulated link arguments, clear impacts, and an alternative that is viable, solves, and does not link to aff offense. I love running K's and going against K's but that does not mean I will give you any leeway. I don't auto-vote K's much like I do not auto-vote FW or T.

Policy Affs- Not much to say here, good policy debaters have won NDT. Trust your case, extend it, show me why I should vote for you, and make sure to answer line by line so that nothing is conceded that may implicate the aff plan.

K affs- I run a K Affirmative as a policy debater, so I already know you are more than capable of answering T and FW, however,you can still lose to them so make sure you answer every aspect of the argument not just why their interpretation is bad. K affs are always very engaging (and if performative, all the more enjoyable to watch and learn). Trust your case, explain to me how you solve itnd why my ballot is important, especially when having FW, T, CP's, and TVA's thrown at you. You need to tell me why my ballot means something and how that translates to your harms being solved and why it's important that we debate about this. Bonus points: K affs are difficult to run at this level, but if you manage to describe to me why your K aff is important, why you as debaters performing the k aff is important, and why the debate that you are having right now with my ballot pushes us int he right direction, you will more than likely get my ballot.

Voter Issue arguments- If a particularly egregious event happens in the debate round, I typically give 90% leeway to the team that suffered the action, so it does not take much, but you still need to explain to me how it was bad for debate and why my vote is going to stop it (saying "the negative team misgendered me and this is bad for debate because _____ and your vote prevents this because _____" will work fine.)

Speaker points are given based on performance whilst giving speeches and during Cross-Examination. Nothing you say before or after rounds will affect your score. Charisma, effort, and conviction are preferred over bravado or aggression.

LASTLY: Do your thang. Be yourself. Do you boo boo. I will be able to keep the flow as organized as I can, signposts and roadmaps are always helpful. Trust yourself as a debater, you are here because of the work you have done, and win or lose your performance and courage in debating is more than enough. GO YOU!

Diggory Waddle VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Madeline Walker Lincoln Independent

Clarissa Wang The Harker School

Weiwei Wang Mission San Jose High School

Raghav Warrier BASIS Scottsdale High School

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:44 AM MST

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Jeffrey Webb Flintridge Preparatory

Last changed on Fri January 21, 2022 at 4:25 PM EDT

I debated in high school and college, and I also coached both high school and college. Decades ago. I flow, and I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate and don’t slur your words. I will judge the round based on what you argue.

Be kind. Don’t be obnoxious.

Since I’m old school, I have little patience for kritiks and theory. I expect topical debates. Don’t waste our time with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. Turn your argument into a disad, and you may have something I’d vote for. If both sides agree on a framework, I will likely apply it unless it is completely silly. I will not adopt a framework that asks me to vote for the team who says “banana” the most times in the round, even if both sides ask me to do so. If there is no agreement on framework, I will likely apply utilitarianism, even if nobody asks me to do so. Do not read me a poem, or tell me a story, or try to win the round by letting me know how the other side’s arguments make you “feel.” Not gonna work. High speaks go to those with great, on topic, clash.

I don’t like planless affs because I think they are abusive. The aff should always have a plan that relates to the topic.

I will of course consider voting for a counterplan. But be careful. I am voting on the resolution, not the plan. If the neg gives me a topical counterplan, I’m inclined to vote aff.

Do not speak in a monotone. Vary your pitch, pace, and volume. Make eye contact. Use cross ex wisely. If you are going to ask for cards, I expect you to do that in cross ex or using prep time. If the other side has a better argument, you will not win the round if you just repeat the argument they already blew out of the water. I only extend arguments that are unrefuted.

If I have to flow the aff arguments and the neg arguments on separate pages because they are talking about completely different things, that's not a debate. I like a round with lots of clash that forces me to weigh the arguments the aff won against the arguments the neg won. That's a good debate.

Tom Wen Montgomery Blair

Apryl West Riverside STEM Academy

John Wiley Westridge School None

Yani Williamson Jack Howe None

Hyman Wong James Logan High School None

April Wortman Hire 8 rounds None

Chengliang Wu Seven Lakes High School None

Xifeng Xiao La Cueva High School None

Liu Yang Jasper HS Independent 8 rounds

Stanley Yang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM EDT

Email chain: syangedgemont@gmail.com

Debated PF at Edgemont HS in NY for 4 years, currently a first year out.

Basics:

As long as you are willing to risk me missing a response/argument, go at any speed you’d like as long as you are clear, but don’t spread. Tech > truth. If an argument is dropped, the link is true for the purposes of the round. Walk me throughout the entire link story to win the argument. COLLAPSE and WEIGH. I may actively call for evidence at the end of the round to discourage any misconstruing of evidence. If it's not in the final focus, it won't be in my ballot either. I look for the easiest path - the cleanest link with the most important impact. The cleaner the link, the more of the impact/weighing that I grant you. This means that winning the link debate should be your highest priority with me (ofc don't forget to do comparative weighing if both sides end up with offense).

Specifics:

- I’ll say "clear" if you are going too quickly/I can’t understand you. If you can't understand your opponents, you should also shout "clear." I will expect both teams to accommodate the speed/comfort level of both me and the other team.

- I've never had any experience with theory or Ks. Don’t run any progressive arguments in front of me.

- Tech over truth. If you have good warrants and good evidence, I'll buy just about anything. It is YOUR responsibility to call the other team out on BS arguments. That being said, the crazier the argument, the more my threshold for responses will decrease. Debate is educational, and I should be hearing arguments that are primarily realistic. I try to be as noninterventionist as possible - even if someone is reading an abusive argument you have to call them out on it.

- Signposting is important to help me keep my place on the flow. I like numbered responses.

- Extensions: I don't evaluate things that aren’t extended in both summary and FF. People are super lazy with their internal warrant extensions. Every single link in the argument must be extended. If both teams don't have a completely extended argument after FF - I will default which argument has a more "complete story"

- Terminal defense is sticky if not frontlined in summary for both sides. Turns that aren't extended in summary but in FF act as terminal defense

- 2nd rebuttal needs to be at the very least a 1-3 split. There needs to be time spent frontlining. 2nd speaking advantage is so large that I prefer a 2-2 split. Turns must be responded to in 2nd rebuttal or they’ll be conceded.

- If something is conceded or you want to bring up an important point from cross, blow it up in a speech.

- if both teams want to skip grand cross that's good with me

- wear whatever you want to online rounds

Evidence:

- I HATE misconstrued evidence. I will tank your speaks if you read intentionally misconstrued evidence (e.g. One team I judged literally added in a word to change the meaning of the evidence). This may also result in an entire argument being dropped – meaning it could cost you the round.

- While I am noninterventionist in big picture argumentation, I may call for multiple pieces of evidence. This is to encourage educational debate that is built on actual research and discourage mishandling of what qualified authors say. This is not to say that evidence is more important than warrants, but evidence is used to magnify the claims you make and make the argument much more convincing. Misconstruing evidence attempts to circumvent actual argumentation. No, this doesn't mean throw cards at me in rebuttal - I still value responses that are logical.

- Warranted evidence > warrants > unwarranted evidence > assertions

- I’ll boost your speaks by 0.5 points if you read non-paraphrased cases. Just show me beforehand.

- I call for evidence in a couple scenarios:

o Someone tells me to read it during a speech

o There is substantial time spent in the round over what it says

o Something sounds super fishy

o The way you portray the evidence seems to shift as the round progresses

- You have one minute to pull up evidence your opponent calls for

Lastly, remember to have fun and don't stress! I'm a chill judge, and you'll be fine if you screw up a little bit. Let me know if you have questions after round and you can shoot me an email at syangedgemont@gmail.com or message me on FB.

Peter Yu The Dalton School 8 rounds

Yesenia Zavala Jack Howe None

Eric Zhang Montgomery High School Independent

Lynn Zhao Mission San Jose High School

Kelly Zheng Fairmont Prep

Last changed on Mon April 19, 2021 at 3:02 PM PDT

Hello!

I did PF and International Extemp for four years for Miramonte High School both on my local circuit and on the national circuit. If my paradigm doesn't cover something, please feel free to message me on Facebook, email me (kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com), or ask me before the round.

IF YOU SAY THINGS THAT ARE SEXIST, RACIST, ABLEIST, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, EXTREMELY RUDE, ETC. I WILL DROP YOU AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST POSSIBLE SPEAKS. If some form of abuse or violence occurs in round and I don't immediately react, please feel free to FB PM me or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com. [I say this because as a cis het woman, I may not be able to pick up on certain types of violence and I believe debaters should determine their level of safety and/or comfort

General Stuff:

- You should read trigger warnings if you have the slightest inclination your argument could trigger someone

- use people's pronouns or gender neutral language in the case pronouns aren't disclosed

- Signpost. Please. If I don't know where you are I'll have a really hard time following you.

- I'm not a fan of offensive overviews in second rebuttal

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At the very least, you should respond to turns. I find making new responses to turns in second summary abusive

- Be nice

- Preflow before the round (I will be really annoyed if you don't, especially if you're flight 2)

- I don't flow cross so if something really incredible happens make sure you tell me in the next speech.

- If you need accommodations, I am happy to accommodate you. Feel free to FB message me before the round, come up to me privately, or email me kellyt.zheng28@gmail.com

Summary/ FF:

- Summary and FF should mirror each other

- Defense that is frontlined in second rebuttal needs to be responded to first summary now (it always should've been), but defense that is unresponded to doesn't need to be extended into first summary. First summary should frontline turns

- Make sure you extend both warrants and impacts

- If you don't adequately weigh, I will do my own weighing and things might get a little wonky if I do that. On that note, please, please, please weigh! Judging becomes so much harder when you don't.

Speed:

Feel free to go pretty fast as long as you enunciate well. That being said, please speak at a pace at which your opponents can understand you. If your opponents obviously can't understand you (regardless of whether or not they yell clear) your speaks will likely take a hit. I'll yell clear if I really need to. But even if I don't, pick up on non-verbal cues that I can't follow you (not writing, looking confused, etc.).

Evidence:

I will call for evidence if: 1) you tell me to, 2) the evidence is key to my decision

Progressive Argumentation:

I did not do policy or LD in high school and I do not consider myself a technical debater in the slightest. I quite honestly do not really understand theory or Ks, but if some form of abuse occurs in round or you feel unsafe, please feel free to use these forms of argumentation. Just explain your argument well. But PLEASE try to save theory/ K's for when it's absolutely necessary (hint: probably don't read disclosure theory). This does not mean I will not vote on theory or a K.

Overall, I'm here for a fun time and I hope you have a good time too!

Brian Zhu Centennial High School

Last changed on Fri November 27, 2020 at 6:56 PM EDT

Debated for Millburn for four years on the national circuit, was fairly successful

General stuff:

PF has gotten faster but my speed has not. Please have mercy. If you’re going too fast I’ll clear you, and if you don’t slow down it’s no longer my fault if I make the wrong decision
You need to signpost. I will not flow if you do not signpost. A roadmap, while appreciated, is not a substitute for signposting

Tech>truth but the more ridiculous your argument gets the lower my threshold for what counts as a good response to it becomes. Please don’t test the limit I think debate is much more educational if you’re reading realistic arguments
Warrant your arguments. "This is not warranted" is an acceptable response if true. Do not card dump

I think of weighing in layers, beginning with probability. You need to have a certain amount of probability your impact happens before you access the other layers of weighing like magnitude, timeframe, etc.
Any offense not responded to after 2nd rebuttal is considered conceded, you can only weigh against it. This means 2nd rebuttal MUST respond to turns
I am not very good at flowing author names. This means when you make extensions you cannot just say "the X evidence" you need to state what that evidence says. This also applies when you tell me to call for evidence

Read author qualifications/institution when citing cards. Otherwise you could be citing Joe's blog, and as much as I like people named Joe I don't know how qualified they are

Much like my good friend Sandeep Shankar, if you do not do this your speaks will be capped at a 28.5

You don’t need defense in first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines. You do need it in second summary
Fiat means the resolution happens. Debaters don’t get to pick the method in which it happens
If your opponents didn’t read the date of a card and you want to know what it is, just ask. It will not count against your prep. This solves literally all of the abuse of date theory
If neither team has anything to ask during a CX you can end it early. But this should probably never happen
Cross is binding, mention concessions in speeches
I don't really get this new age default first thing. If you don't convince me we should pass a policy, we shouldn't pass the policy. I default neg

If you are offensive, you will lose. If you do not trigger warn, you will lose

Things I like:

I think it’s strategic if you frontline all responses in 2nd rebuttal. Not mandatory but recommended
Good warrant extensions, not just card tags. In the wise words of David Mason: “Extend warrants before impacts in both summary and final focus. It is far more interventionist for me to extend your warrant for you than it is for me to just drop the impact that you went for without a warrant. If you are winning the warrant debate you are probably winning the round.”
Smart, well-warranted analytics beat blippy, poorly warranted cards every time
Please weigh and interact with your opponents weighing. Number comparison is not compelling
Make me laugh!

Things I don’t like:

Probably the most abusive strategy is reading new contentions in rebuttal and disguising them as overviews. This will make me very unhappy. My unhappiness is amplified if this occurs in the second rebuttal.

I will flow these but will not cast my ballot off them unless there is NOTHING else on the flow I can vote off. I am looking for reasons to not vote for these: my threshold for what counts as a good response is extremely low

I do not evaluate the 3rd final focus. If you know, you know.
You cannot read defense to your own arguments in order to kick out of turns. It's unbelievable that I even have to say this

You can concede defense to kick out of turns, but you cannot read defense to your own arguments

Don’t like calling cards because I don’t like intervening. I will only call a card if:

You tell me to in a speech and give me a reason to do so
I actually just can’t make a decision without seeing it
Your representation of the card changes as the round progresses

Indicting a card may lead me to drop the card, but does not replace actually responding to a warrant
Cost benefit analysis is not a framework
Please don’t call me “judge” that's weird
Don’t post-round me. Feel free to ask for critiques but don’t waste my time trying to convince me I botched

Progressive args:

I miss when this section would not have to exist in my paradigm. I will not evaluate any theory, tricks, Ks, etc., unless there is a violation in the round that hurts or excludes someone. Even then, I would prefer you point it out to me in paragraph form with a warrant and explanation. Jackie Wei put it nicely: "Not only am I uncomfortable with my ability to seriously evaluate these, I don't think they should exist in an event designed with as low of a barrier of entry as possible."

Debate the resolution. I will treat your frivolous argumentation as though it does not exist on my flow. Paraphrasing and disclosure are both friv

If you read an Orientalism K when you aren’t Asian I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks the tourney allows
If I suspect you are reading progressive arguments against a team that doesn’t understand them for the purposes of getting an easy win, I will drop you on the lowest possible speaks

Speaks:

Please don't read 30 speaks theory on me. I will decrease your speaks if you do

If you spin around 360 degrees every time you say the word “turn” I will give you a 30
If you bring me a Manhattan Special espresso soda I will give you a 30

Daniel Zhu Valencia High School

Wei Zhu Mission San Jose High School

Yong Zong Foothill High School

Login to Tabroom

Jack Howe Memorial Tournament

2020 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges