PF: I did PF for the last year and a half in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I did LD for the first 2 and a half years in high school. I am okay with any argument as long as you sufficiently warrant it. I won't down you for running any argument, I try to be as Tab as I can. If it comes down to it I evaluate framework over contention level debate. That being said just because you win framework doesn't mean you automatically win the round. 

Speed: Don't spread. 

Past Experience: Four years of PF and Extemp at Clements High School, competed at the State and National levels

Currently attending UT Austin (Class of 2019)

PF Paradigms:

I was more of a traditional PF debater, so I'm not as well-versed or receptive to progressive arguments, so avoid abusive arguments and complicated theory. That being said, I'm fine with most arguments as long as you provide clear and reliable evidence, explanations, and impacts. Just remember this is PF, not LD or CX. I will vote strictly on the flow, so be sure to signpost and make your arguments/extensions very clear. Provide me with a weighing mechanism and some parameters as to how I should evaluate the round. If you impact your arguments but don't tell me how to evaluate them or why they matter more than your opponents arguments, it's hard to make a cohesive case for your side. Line-by-line attacks are super helpful and encouraged. As for speaking, a little speed is fine, but absolutely no spreading. Annunciation and clarity are really important, as it's hard to evaluate your side if I can't understand what you're saying.

I evaluate rounds with an offense/defense paradigm, meaning that I will vote for the team with more offensive arguments on the flow; however, if a team runs terminal defensive arguments against the other team's offensive arguments (i.e. no risk of a disad link), then I will not evaluate the offensive arguments. I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I will also evaluate kritikal arguments if they are ran. I expect to see clash, and would like to see debaters not only mention arguments that were dropped by their opponents, but also explain to me why those arguments matter. I do not flow cross-ex, so arguments made in cross-ex must be made in speeches for me to flow them. Lastly, I do not mind spreading as long as it is clear, and the debaters read tag lines to evidence slowly

Evidence is only as good as its internal warrants and weighing, along with clear impact framing, is a must. Speed isn't an issue as long as you aren't incoherent/sloppy.

I'm an international teacher and former debate coach.

6 years judging at local, regional, and national tournaments

General: I'm a traditional judge. I like to evaluate stock level issues of the topic. Just make very clear weighing arguments and argument interaction. Please do not read any off position cases that are adapted from policy debate.

Speed: Please don’t spread. Moderate speed is okay, but I will not tell you clear. If I miss an argument, that is on you. So be conscious about your speed.

Specifics:

PF: I prefer to judge this style of debate. What was said above basically applies here. I will vote on offense with the best impact weighing.

LD: I will vote on the offense to the winning framework. Generic frameworks i will understand (ex: Util/Structural Violence. Remember, STOCK. So no progressive arguments like K’s. Plans/CP and DA i am ok with. General above applies here as well

I am a Tab judge, so tell me how to vote and why what you said was the most vredible in round. I am a visual type so please let your words paint a picture of why it is imparative to vote for you.

I competed in highschool in PF so I am familiar with the event. I was a very progressive debater so naturally I am open to hearing most arguments. I try my best to interfere as little as possible. You might have a winning argument but if you don't tell me why it's important it doesn't do much for me. We can have an extremely progressive CX-like round or a traditional round - it's entirely up to you how you want the pace of the round to be.

This is your platform to voice your opinions and arguments, so I don't believe I have a place to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. I only ask you to respect your opponents. If in any instance I feel that you are offensive or rude to your opponents, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks possible. I appreciate humor and personality so just have fun debating and we'll all have a good time.

Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round begins.

I do my best to be a traditional, stock issue, tabula rasa judge. I was a CX debater, coached debate, and am a law student. I'm fine with speed in CX. K arguments, theory arguments, and other progressive arguments are fine, as long as they are topical.

PF: I did PF for three years in high school. I've gone to Nationals and broke at TFA state. I am okay with any argument as long as you warrant it. I won't do any work for you so be clean with your extensions and weigh for me. 

LD: I have little Ld judging experience however i will buy anyargument as long as its warranted and extended throughout the round.

Speed: I can understand the spread but im not a fan of it.

I am a very traditional judge in all formats.  Clash, clarity and logical arguments are my most important expectations.  I prefer that the speaker’s road map /sign post well.

In LD I place a lot of emphasis on value and criteria and most of the time I do not believe that plans, counterplans or kritics have a place in LD. 

In PF I expect to see conversational speed speeches and very few specialized terms.  I expect evidence but weigh heavily quality analytical arguments.   

In CX I am a policy heavy judge. I carefully flow the round but at the end of the round it is the impact calculus that will carry the most weight.  Do not waste time pointing out that the opponents dropped an arguments unless they really dropped the argument.  When using DAs and Ks the link has to be there, especially with Ks. If using a counterplan make sure to show how it fixes the aff’s harms and how it clashes with the aff’s plan.  The net benefit needs to be proven.  I am not a big fan of Topicality or Kritics however will vote for them when warranted.  I expect any topicality argument to be extremely strong before being used.  I will not vote for a kritical affirmative without a plan text.  All the stock issues are important however solvency carries the most weight with me.  At the end of the round I want the aff to prove that the plan will work or the neg to prove either the plan will not work or that the impact of the plan will be worse than the status quo.  In CX am okay with speed just short of true spreading as long as you slow down for the tagline and citation.

Impact calculus. Don't spread. And if you are going to even though I told you not to, just be slow and clear on the tag lines and warrants or I wont be able to flow it all.

About Me: Ishaan Kurji

High School: Clements High School

Experience: PF for 4 years, State Qualifier

General: I'll vote on what arguments are followed across the flow throughout the round. Don't forget to address something in the rebuttal and bring it back up in the final focus. I won't flow it. Make sure to use impact calculus and weigh your arguments against your opponent's. Establish parameters and let me know how I'm supposed to judge the round. Don't use any abusive framework. Try to clash with your opponent's arguments, and tell me why yours are better.

Speed: Speaking in PF should generally be moderately slow, but speaking a little fast is okay as long as you're clear. BE CONFIDENT.

Clements (TX) '15 | Georgia Tech '19

4 years in PF;

I really encourage original/non-stock arguments, as long as they are reasonably linked and warranted; framework in my eyes will be as important as the debaters make it. I was a traditional debater with minimal exposure to progressive debate, so I strongly discourage running anything really progressive.

• Don't spread
• Signpost and go line by line; remember to make extensions, and give big picture in the final focus
• Do the weighing for me
• Be sarcastic and sassy without being an asshole

I'm a flow and impact judge.  Clash is obviously important and im not a traditional judge in any way.  K Affs are cool and basically anything goes with me.  I dont flow CX questions/answers and spreading is a plus. But if you do, slow down to 1 mph on tags and sources. Most importantly, however, is to be organized in your speech and delivery because if you dont even know where you're going, then how will I? 

I love framework arguments in a debate round it makes both sides of the debate to think further in their education and clash is always important so keep that in mind. 

Experience:

High school (Clements '15) LD for 3 years and PF for 1. Went to TFA two years for LD and once for PF (Octos). 

UT Austin '19

Argumentation:

Open to mostly anything if well warranted and weighing mechanism (especially in PF) is indicated and used to evaluate. Don't assume I know anything about the topic

Not a big fan of theory arguments, but will vote on them if need be. Critical arguments must be very clearly warranted and impacted - if I don't understand it I won't vote on it

Don't forget that PF is not LD so there's no need to introduce such argumentation unless it's your whole strat then go for it.

Weigh (framework can be used to your advantage or not used at all), crystallize, be nice (but make CX memorable)

Make meaningful extensions throughout the round

Speed:

Clarity before speed. Slow down for tags/author names and important parts of evidence if you want me to flow well.

Based on quality of content as well as communication skills

I'll say clear

Please don't do it if you don't know how to maintain clarity

General:

Be open to providing your opponent with any evidence you read 

Ask me questions before the round if you have any 

I mainly judge Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas. I've coached a small team for about 5 years. I have strong beliefs: 1) Debate should be resolutional. Making up ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with the resolution will count against you. 2) Your case should have good organization. It should be easy for me as a judge that flows to follow your logic and argumentation. 3) Any good argumentation will have not only logic, but 2 or 3 solid pieces of evidence to back up your position. 4) You should be able to have solvency under both your framework and your opponents. Finally, and most importantly, 5) You should show your opponent respect. At no time should you use language intended to intimidate, insult or disrespect your opponent. I have no issue with speed. However, there is a difference between spreading and speaking quickly.

Policy Debate

Framework
This is very important in a debate round so should be prioritized. I like framework arguments if they are held through the entire debate round.

DAs
I like DAs. I think good DA impact weighing is a lost art. I do hate when a disadvantage has that generic impact of nuclear war or exctintion I rather have a team who is able to present a real impact that can be caused by the affirmative.

CPs
I will vote on them if presented well. I do not like when teams just run a topicality and expect to win.

Topicality
I will listen to them but a topicality is not a real voter for me. These are more lke time skew arguments.

Kritiques
I love Ks if executed properly I love a debate round that has a K cause it opens everyones mind to a new type of arguement that was not expected.

Speaker Points
I like when you are able to speak to the judge and present to the judge why I have to you as well as voters have to be clear. I dont want a debate round with all reading but I do want to hear your speaking skills.

Public Forum

I am very experienced in this style and I guess the only issue that will help you ar kind of bring you down is that if you run a framework or an observation please make sure you talk about it, if you drop it it will hurt you in the long run.

I judge both LD and PF debates. My paradigms are slightly different for each one.

For LD:
Ok with speed, but don't spread unless absolutely necessary. If you go too fast, I'll let you know to slow down. If you know you're going to go fast, be sure to slow down/be clear on taglines. I'm ok with most progressive arguments, but I'm not too familiar with K debate so if you're going to run something like that then you would have to explain it very very very very very well.

For PF:

I don't think you should really need speed in PF, but if you go a little fast I'll be perfectly capable of catching it all. If I can't keep up with you, that probably means that you're going way too fast for PF debate. Obviously be respectful in crossfire and such, but I'm not going to make a big deal out of anything that isn't a big deal. I'm originally an LDer, so most "progressive" PF arguments are fine with me.

I'm a flow and impact judge. Clash is a must in debate rounds. I consider myself to be open to pretty much any arguments. K Affs, Plank CP's and crazy DA's will all be flowed. I spread as a debater so i can understand most speed. Organization and structure in speeches with roadmaps is a must. Cross examination questions wont be flowed, any arguments brought up in cx must be said in constuctive in order to be flowed.

[February 23, 2024] Quick update, more later: I have primarily judged Congress and World Schools for the past 8 years. I was preparing for a Congress event tomorrow. I will return after that to update my CX/Policy Paradigm and add paradigms for other formats.

Relatively speaking, I am a old school Policy judge-Stock Issues, Slower Presentation (if you are gulping for air, especially the double gulp, you are speaking far too fast) and most importantly Topicality (PLEASE debate the Resolution in its entirety, don't pick one of 2 words and head off to left field). CPs are welcome, Ks not so much (always interesting but MUST relate to the topic and ultimately result in a policy/solution. Closed CX please.

Experience: 

4 years of debate at Clements High School.

Qualified for State in Both LD and PF 

Current: UT '19

Argumentation:

I am open to all arguments as long as they are made well with logical or concrete evidence to back them up. Unique and complex arguments are welcome. Weighing is extremely important in the round. Impact your arguments. Framework is as important as the debaters make it in the round; if nothing is presented I will default Util. Voters are extremely important. Tell me where you are winning the round. If an argument is not atleast mentioned in the final speech I wont vote off it. In CX: Dont be rude, but be aggressive. Sarcasm and humor are fine and welcomed as long as it doesn't become rude. 

Speed:

Sure

General:

I vote on the flow, but perceptual dominance is important.

Please signpost.

Have fun. Make the round interesting. 

     I am very expercience in Public Forum. I like it when the debaters speak to the judge, not just reading off a piece of paper. Sign posting, cross applyig your oppoonents arguments to your case, being able to give the judge clear voters to why you have won the round. Framework argumaents and Observations are great and important, however they should be upheld throughout the round. I like clash during the debate, especially during CX. I believe that is a great time to get answers from your opponent. Dropped contentions or arguments can bring you down, so make sure you address them. 

Clements High School '15, University of Houston '19

Conflicts: Clements High School

Background: I did LD for two years, PF for two years, and FX and Congress all throughout.

Speed: Don't speed.

Arguments: I'm fine with any argument as long as it's explained clearly and backed up well.

Biggest Pet Peeve: DO NOT FORCE ME TO MAKE EXTENSIONS FOR YOU. I will not vote off of new arguments made later in the round, so you better be making extensions in your first rebuttal and weighing throughout the round. I make it explicitly clear every round that the debaters should make it clear who's winning the round, and yet every time, someone will forget to extend and drop a great argument that could've helped them win, but that I can't vote off of because they dropped it. DO. NOT. DROP. ARGUMENTS. Extend, Extend, EXTEND.

Langham Creek '13
UT '17

Background: I debated for Langham Creek High School and I am now a student at the University of Texas at Austin. I competed in PF, in which I qualified to state in. Don't let my background stop you from doing what you would like to do. I always do my best to keep my own personal ideologies out of judging and understand the arguments you choose to run. Btw this paradigm is mainly written for LD but I mainly judge PF so feel free to ask me for paradigms before the round in PF but the general philosophy, speaker points, and other stuff sections probably have some relevant information in them.

General Philosophy: I think debate is a fun and interesting activity, in that it provides a unique forum for students to discuss a variety of topics in an educational manner. I will vote off most types of arguments as long as they are well-warranted and impact back to some sort of weighing mechanism. A clearly articulated weighing calculus is a very easy way to my ballot. It is your job as the debater to do the work for me. Keep a clean flow i.e. roadmap, signpost, etc. I use the flow as a tool to help evaluate the round but ultimately I must be convinced of the argument to vote off it.(I think my PF background heavily influences me on this) This means that I probably won't call for evidence after the round unless I really really need to come to a decision. I find that it's always best to do what you do best. Ultimately, just be nice, be funny, be you, and have fun. 

Speed: Speed is usually fine. Clarity is always more important than speed. I will yell clear twice before docking speaks and also before I stop flowing. I ask that at the start of your speech, you don't go super fast, but rather give me time to warm up and adjust to your speaking. Emphasis and ethos really help me not tune you out and understand your arguments better. Also, please slow down for tags, authors, and dense material(I actually really mean this. SLOW DOWN A LOT for tags and authors or I will miss them). Remember that if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. Also, don't spread through speeches needlessly. Just win the round. 

Theory: I haven't seen enough theory debates or have enough background in it to default to a certain paradigm. In the rounds I have judged in which theory was run, I find myself only buying theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than reject the team. Theory read just as time suck for your opponent will cost you speaks because I think there are far more educational ways to win rounds. Given that, if there is clear abuse, I will evaluate theory. However, if you were to just make an abuse argument to throw out that argument, I would also buy that assuming it's not a huge argument that you're claiming is abusive. Feel to argue against my view of theory, I will certainly listen and evaluate your arguments. However, I would make sure theory isn't your only offense in the round. If you choose to run an RVI, make sure there is actual offense linked to the RVI, which means "I meet" arguments would not justify an RVI. Also, be very clear explaining the RVI and the impact of it on the round and give me clear weighing analysis between the standards to minimize the amount of intervention that I have to do in the round. 

Policy Arguments: These are generally okay given that each has all the necessary parts. Don't read recycled DAs or CPs that don't have specific links to the resolution. I won't vote off them and will lower your speaks. Weighing through a clear impact calculus is a must to these arguments. Don't be surprised if at the end of the round I find a lot of the debate here a wash because there was no evidence comparison and weighing. Also, be sure to spend more time explaining links to extinction scenarios and make sure they're reasonable. 

Critical Arguments: I haven't read any critical literature, but I do find them to be interesting so I will vote on such arguments. Because i'm not familiar with the literature, you're going to have to slow down a little and spend more time making sure I understand it especially the alternatives. I prefer Kritiks with specific links to the AC with an alternative, as opposed to generic Kritiks that can be recycled on every topic. 

Speaker Points: I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. The easiest way to win speaks for me is through humor, strategy, and confidence. Making the round easy to flow and follow will also win you higher speaks. I don't want to be the guy who stops you from clearing because of speaks, so after the round tell me and I will grant you speaks accordingly (somewhere between 29.5-30). Other than that my range is typically from 28-29. If you make racist, sexist, or straight up asinine comments in round, I will give you a 20-25. Debate is fun and educational. Don't make it a hostile environment or I will tank your speaks and potentially drop you. 

Other Stuff: 
CX is important. I will listen to CX. It's an easy indicator if you actually know your case and what it's saying. Use it wisely. Ask questions, don't make speeches. 
Be sure to impact your extensions. I give the AFF leeway for this in the 1AR but the 2AR should clearly explain the impacts of the arguments you extended and how they function in the round. 
You don't need to be winning everything and you're more than likely not going to win every issue in the round. That's okay. That is why it's important to weigh between what you're losing and what you're winning to make sure it's clear what the biggest arguments are at the end of the round. Thus, framework becomes important. I don't think I do a good job deciding on which framework is better mostly because my personal, subjective beliefs become more relevant even though I try to stay objective. So just make it clear on why you're winning the framework. Also, typically framework and pre-standards aren't really voters. They mostly tell me how to evaluate the round in terms of the actual offense. Framework has offense that's linked to it that are voters. But just because you win framework usually doesn't mean that's enough to win the round. Make sure you're still winning the actual offense linked to the framework. 

Arguments, I will reluctantly vote for (with low speaks): 
1. Skepticism
2. Presumption
3. Unwarranted Pre-Standards
4. Unnecessary (Time-Suck) Theory
5. Arguments read just to confuse your opponent (and potentially confuse me)

Tl;dr-
Just do what you're comfortable with and do what you do best. Be smart, be persuasive, and use your common sense. If you think that it might be a bad argument then it probably is. Have fun. Don't be a jerk. You should be fine. 

As always, this is just basic information, but if you have any more specific questions feel free to ask before the round. Thank you and good luck!

I debated PF in high school.

I'm okay with anything type of argumentation (Disads, CPs, Plans, Ks...etc). I'm okay with speed. I like direct clash and want a very explicit impact calculus.

Framework is huge for me. As a judge I want to do as little work as possible so by having a very explicit framework, I'm able to evaluate the round very easily. Moreover, if there are conflicting frameworks then I encourage a framework debate. 

Line by line works well for me, but in addition to that, I enjoy a big picture debate. Overall I think great arguments derive from simple truths. There's this horrible focus in PFD to run weird, unheard of arguments in attempt to scare the opponent. I think that the best arguments in PFD come from just simple truths. You can't prove the truth wrong so if your argument stems from a very logical, true idea, then it's very easy for me to vote for you as a judge.

Logic by itself isn't enough though. You need to provide empirics to supplement your logic. If you have both then I become very happy.

Extend your arguments, I won't extend for you.

Good luck to everyone and have lots of fun!

Any style of debating is fine with me, and I'm also ok with speed. When I decide, I start with the FW (so have one) and work my way through the rest of the arguments on the flow.

I did Congress/Extemp/PF at Kerr from 2011-2015, and taught Congress and public speaking at Harvard Debate Council's Summer Workshops in 2015 and 2016.

Feel free to ask me questions you may have before the round, and remember: the real ballots are the friends we've made along the way.

My paradigm is pretty simple. If you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. 

-Weighing. is. crucial. Please do not make me do extra work - this is super risky for you.

-Any extensions of offense made in the FF should have also been made in the summary if you want me to vote off of them. This includes turns. That being said, do not extend through ink...

-I don't require defense in summary and, if you are giving the first summary, you definitely shouldn't be extending defense. (I will be incredibly frustrated if you do.) However, you must respond to turns. If you're giving the second summary, I think it's strategic for you to extend 1 or 2 pieces of key defense. 

-Please collapse on a couple of voting issues in the summary and FF. Don't try to go for everything. You should be going for the arguments that win you the ballot, and you should be weighing these arguments in the context of the round. 

-Please don’t misinterpret your evidence or make silly oversimplifications. I do call for contested evidence.

-To ensure clarity, please signpost!!!! If it’s not on my flow, you’ve wasted your time. I’m fine with speed, but I am not fine with disorganization and/or a lack of clarity. This is a big pet peeve of mine, especially in the summary.

-I enjoy good puns. 

Most of my experience is in Public Forum, but I have debated CX, LD, Worlds. Please signpost. I mainly look at the impacts. I want to see clash. I DO flow CX. If your opponent concedes to definitions, observations, or arguements in the CX I will note that. If you opponent refuses to adequately defend a point I will note that. Speed is not a problem, but dont spread. Its PF. 

I am a flow heavy judge but I look at the impacts of each point differently. If your opponent drops a point please tell me why that dropped point is so important. 

Also if you can please bring an extra copy of your cases (Hard Copy or USB). This makes it easier for me to follow contentions and all the subpoints you may have. 

TOPIC SPECIFIC: Topic simply comes down to which side can better respond to International Conflicts. The burden of proof is not entirely on the Aff side. Con must show how the US is better equiped to respond to International conflicts by not SIGNIFICANTLY increasing military spending and vice-versa. 

Experience: Klein High Debate 2011-2015, graduate of Johns Hopkins University, BA in Public Health Studies

Speaking: Speaking quickly is fine, as long as you're clear.

Weighing: If two arguments/ pieces of evidence are directly in clash, you need to explain why I should weigh/value your evidence or argument over your opponent's.

Extensions: Make sure you extend dropped arguments through the final focus-- too many debaters extend arguments in the summary and forget about them in the final focus. Warrant your arguments as well. If there's not a reason to buy your argument, I won't.

Arguments: Impacting your arguments is key, as is weighing those impacts with your opponent's. I am willing to evaluate any argument I hear in the round.

Overall, weighing your arguments and extending them throughout the debate is the way to win my ballot. I vote strictly off the flow, so as long as you do what I mentioned above, you'll win my ballot.

I like clean, clear, concise, warranted arguments and responses. Speed is not an issue as long as you are organized and coherent.Slow down if speed interferes with the flow of ideas.I think conditional arguments are abusive and cause me to intervene. Theory can be a voter if arguments are developed and applied. Generic theory arguments are a waste of time. I appreciate debaters making logical arguments that are specific to the round instead of reading prepared responses. A sense of humor is appreciated. Crystallize issues in rebuttals. Tell me how you want me to weigh arguments in the round and which arguments are voters. Use CX time to clarify issues and to establish your strategy.

Performance events should be polished. Characters should be engaging and have definite vocal and physical characteristics. The piece should have different emotional levels. Movement should make sense.

I did PF for four years in high school.

I prefer the line by line and I will try to not do work for the debaters.

MAKE SURE YOU EXTEND ARGUMENTS, AND DO SO CORRECTLY

Weigh your arguments - tell me which arguments matter more and why. Tell me which arguments come first.

Accept policy style arguments - Plans, CPs, DAs are ok

Fairly tab judge. Won’t vote for arguments that are explicitly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Ask me any further questions before the round starts