Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2018 — Tempe, AZ/US

Bhaskar Aavula Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Cory Ackerman Paradigm

4 rounds

If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

Raghav Agrawal Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Akhil Aji Paradigm

6 rounds

I competed in Public Forum Debate for four years at Leland High School and graduated in 2017.

This means:

- I will be able to understand speed so some degree. As long as you are not spreading like a policy debater it should be fine. Keep in mind however that I haven't flowed in two years now.

-I'm going to vote of arguments only presented on the flow and this is especially true since I have minimal experience with the topic

- most of the time I will call for evidence only if I'm asked to do so in round

- I don't flow cross, if something important was said you should probably restate it during speech time

Please provide overviews/off time roadmaps before speeches if you are going to be discussing both cases in your speech.

Bonus points if you signpost, mention what kind of response you are making and distinguish when you are talking about a link or impact.

Pratyush Ambadi Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Jaya Atluri Paradigm

6 rounds

I have judged many tournaments before. Nonetheless, you should speak slowly and clearly and explain all your arguments well. If you have complicated link chains make sure you explain them thoroughly and impact them out. At the end of the round, I shouldn't have to do work for any of the teams in order to vote; towards the final speeches I expect you to weigh and tell me why your arguments matter and are winning you the round. Please keep debate jargon out of the round as I likely won't understand. Also, please be respectful towards one another.

Sritej Attaluri Paradigm

6 rounds


- PF 2nd speaker for 3 years

- Policy 1A/2N for 1 year

Speaker Points:

- Contextual puns and seamless jokes will raise you

- Explicit sexism/racism/bigotry/etc. will ruin you

- Have signposts so you can get as much ink as possible

- Have your evidence ready for your opponents

Public Forum:

- I won't flow CX

- You can go as fast as you'd like; I'll yell clear twice before I give up on your clarity

- After the round, I will look at any evidence that you ask me to call for BUT you must have told me what's wrong with the evidence yourself

- I regard framework highly; you probably shouldn't let me do my own calculus

- IN THE CASE you let me do my own calculus, you should know that I've found myself weighting impacts that affect people; you should be linking your econ impacts back to how they affect people; it's more work but I'd rather you talk faster/more efficiently and explain why things are important

- In both Summary and FF, you should make time for all the offense you want to keep

- Finally, I'll consider ANY paradigm that you offer so just let me know if you want to try something new with this round

If you have any questions, feel free to reach out after the round:

Lauren Barney Paradigm

Background: I competed in LD for four years in high school and now compete for ASU policy (this is my second year on the team). I now am mainly a critical debater but will listen to anything (anti blackness/queer theory). Please don't abuse flashing/prep. Also when you extend arguments say the warrant and don't just repeat the tag. Please add me to the email:

I will probably not be super familiar with PF/CX topics as I coach LD.

If you say anything offensive/racist I will probably dock your speaker points if your opponent points it out. I will increase speaker points for smart arguments/strategic decisions on your part (like collapsing down in the last speech to arguments you're ahead on).

Theory/T: Clearly explain the abuse/why the interp is good. Slow down for interps, I want to make sure I catch it. Make sure to answer a TVA. Please don't run frivolous theory in front of me- these are my least favorite rounds to judge.

Ks: I am a critical debater and understand K debate well that being said articulate a clear link to the affirmative and what the voting issue is. I will vote for progressive affirmatives and think you might want to make an argument about how the K is a shift and reframes how I should view a "traditional" round. That being said don't assume that I am familiar with your specific literature base.

K Affs: Please try to limit the buzzwords you use and clearly explain your impacts materially. I think framework is incredibly important when Ks vs Framework or Ks vs Policy aff arguments happen. Think about the implications for debate that your interpretation has and explain it. You should be able to defend your model of debate.

Nitisha Baronia Paradigm

6 rounds

Competed in Varsity LD five years ago (no PuFo debate experience), and okay with spreading but prefers if you try to avoid spreading and just speak fast instead (lay is welcome too). Looking for solid argumentation — respond to your opponent's contentions; building Ks or general arguments on Topicality will not fly unless they are well founded. If you can respond to your opponent's contentions with at least two counters to each, then feel free to add a layer of philosophy to the debate. If you are unable to do so, do not fall back on a K. I will see that as a weakness in your case, not some sort of philosophical superiority. Really important that you DO NOT ask me if I'm ready for the next speech during the round. Once the debate starts, I'm always ready and you don't need to waste your time asking if I am. If I'm not ready, I'll tell you that.

That being said, do not dumb down the debate. I expect for your arguments to be complex and multi-faceted. Oh, and be respectful and humble. That matters to me, it matters to your opponent, and most importantly, it matters in the real world.

One more thing: I am extremely strict about going over time. If the timer goes off, you will be cut off in the middle of your sentence. No "completing my thought" — it's only fair that both sides receive the exact same amount of time. I do appreciate off-time road maps, but make them brief.

Jordy Barry Paradigm

6 rounds

I am the Head Coach of Millburn High School in New Jersey. I have a bachelor's degree in Economics and Political Science and a master's degree in International Relations with a focus on International Law and Institutions.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know that students like reading judges paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to giving you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, one of the things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments is having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds). You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- I am really open to hearing most any type of argument. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to the in the round. Sign posting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you. It's your show, not mine!

- I don't require front-lining in the summary, but if you feel as though it is necessary, do it.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask!

Diana Bates-Marks Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

Brian Borders Paradigm

6 rounds

I am a parent judge. No preferences

Heidi Burt Paradigm

4 rounds

-Speak clearly

-Be conscious of timing

-Be respectful to opposing team/show good sportsmanship

Sim Butler Paradigm

2 rounds

Coaching Experience

University of Alabama: Graduate Assistant (Individual Events) 2003

The Altamont School: Director of Forensics 2004-2008

Colorado College: Director of Forensics 2008-2011

University of Alabama: Alabama Debate Society Director 2016-present


I competed as an individual events student in high school and college. As a professor of argumentation and rhetoric, I believe that individual events help students master delivery skills and debate helps students master argumentation and analytical advocacy. Thus, delivery skills will not factor into my decision. Even speaker points will be awarded based on clarity of argumentation, strategic decision making within the round, and the ability to contextualize evidence within the framework of the debate. I've been coaching debate for about 15 years on both the college and high school circuits. The best debate for me is heavy on the analysis. I want to hear how evidence interacts with the arguments you are making, and how it fits contextually. I can flow quickly, and will interject (once) with "clear" if I can't understand you. Even though I flow it, I am much more apt to decide on arguments that are explained to me, so don't fly through the analysis in an attempt to cover as much as possible.


1. Evidence: Evidence must be accessible without delay during and after the round. If I call for evidence, I expect you to show me what you showed your opponents in round, with the card in context and the original source available. I will intervene if I determine the evidence is miscut, misreferenced, or misleading in the context of the round. This intervention typically means I disregard the evidence in my decision-making. It can have an effect on speaker points as well.

2. Overviews: There is a growing trend in Public Forum to run terminal defense and overarching turns as overviews in rebuttals. In most cases, this seems like lazy debating to me. I would much rather you put this on the flow where you want it to be, in response to your opponents specifics arguments. For me, this represents a depth of analysis that comes from listening to your opponent and making good strategic decisions as opposed to hoping their arguments fit your favorite blocks. It would be unwise to leverage these "mini-contentions" or large offensive overviews, particularly in second rebuttal, as voting issues in front of me. On the flip side, I will happily vote on well positioned turns that specifically address arguments on case.

3. Consistency: The summary and final focus are what makes Public Forum a uniquely educational debate form. Having to pick the most important arguments and address them in two minutes means highlighting the critical thinking necessary in advanced argumentation. Thus, I appreciate consistency in strategy from summary to final focus. Doing less extension and more weighing in final focus is always okay, but I do not want to vote on things in final focus that were not in summary.

4. Crossfire: I love to see debaters use crossfire strategically. No one wins debates in cross, and the best thing you can do is try to understand where your opponents are weak and strong. Being smart and civil will help your speaks.

5. Voting: In terms of defense, I'm sympathetic to the first speaking team, particularly if no indication is given in the second rebuttal as to what the second speaking team is going for in summary. Don't extend through ink, and don't extend cards if your opponents "drop" it but still answer the argument your are using it to make. In my favorite debates, teams weigh well and tell me how to evaluate offense and terminal defense in the context of the round. If I am left without this analysis, I will vote on the most offense within a net benefits paradigm. I enjoy impact analysis that evaluates magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Of these, probability is the most important. If left to my own devices, I will vote to save 20 people for sure over 20 million from an improbable (ie. with lots of defense) nuclear scenario.

6. Alternative Advocacies: Kritiks are valuable additions to debate education. If you want to run a K in PF, I am happy to listen to and evaluate it, but you must have strong links to the resolution, the activity, or your opponents' actions. While I will vote on a priori theory, I prefer you engage your opponents case within their framework if you wish them to engage in yours. In my experience, judges (myself included) tend to intervene for the sake of fairness in framework debates. But for me, unexpected argumentation is not unfair or abusive. It makes debate a worthwhile educational tool.

*I'm always happy to talk over my flow and RFD with debaters after I've turned in my ballot.*

Jessica Carter Paradigm

6 rounds

I competed in LD throughout High School and I am currently doing Policy in college.

I will be more familiar with an LD topic than any other form of debate so if I am judging you in PF or CX so if you have very technical things in the topic you will need to explain those more in your case.

Clash is my favorite thing in a round - Don't be two ships passing in the night say something and do a debate


LD is a theory and morality based debate so I expect a focus on the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The debtors need to tell me why I should care about their V-C and why their V-C is better than their opponents and should be preferred for the round. I will not do any work for any side you have the responsibility of stating the impacts of your arguments and why this impacts are better than your opponents. You also have to extend your own arguments throughout the debate for them to matter. I'm fine with CP's, Theory, and K's you just need to explain it well and make sure the impacts and analysis is clear.


I'm fine with any type of argument as long as it makes sense and you explicitly state the impacts. For Topicality you need to make it clear what the violation is and how the other team has violated. You also need to give me a good reason why to prefer. My paradigm is generally the same for CX as it is for LD you need to extend your stuff and make the impacts clear.


I'm fine with speed just let me know at the beginning of the round if you're going to be spreading.

Flashing/Email Chains should not take forever if it becomes excessive I will make you use Prep

I'm fine with flex prep

Read analytics slower if you want me to flow them

Please do not pref me for PF

Kristin Cervantez Paradigm

1 rounds

Not Submitted

Aamirah Chisti Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Kyle Chong Paradigm

3 rounds


Tanzil Chowdhury Paradigm

Update 1.6.2020:

Seeing as how we're in a new decade, I'll take this as an opportunity to update my paradigm. I think I've come to the conclusion that much of what's written below is not particularly useful to debaters, so I'm going to try to simplify here -- the "old" paradigm is still about 90% true, but what's up here should overrule anything down there if there's a direct tension.

Functional Tidbits: Prep time ends when the email is sent out or the flash drive leaves the computer, unless you are a novice, in which case please just do your best to be speedy with your technology. I will not disclose until your wiki is updated. My speaker point baseline is 28.7, which means that if you are somewhere between 3-3 and 4-2 and sounding pretty alright that's the sort of score you'll get. I won't look at your speech doc/cards during your speech, and will not look at them at all unless i am a) explicitly asked to and/or b) feel as though I cannot make my decision without looking at them because some unresolved question about the evidence remains at the end of the debate. I generally flow straight down an excel sheet on my computer and do the work of lining things up as I make the decision, unless something is very clearly flagged (which I do appreciate). I make decisions quite quickly in many situations, though this usually is not a signal that the debate was not close -- it's more that I am constantly evaluating the quality of arguments at every point in the debate, and usually things clear up re; argument quality well before the 2NR/2AR. Please do take notes as I give my RFD, there's not really a point in my spending time to explain my decision and give feedback if you won't write it down. I love to hear questions from the debaters afterwards. Send speech docs and questions to

Actual Paradigm: I don't think that I believe anything that is radically different from any other competent policy debate judge out there, so for the most part I'm good for you on most any strategy or style of argumentation -- everything except that which is outright offensive is equally valid in a vacuum. There are a few specific places where my opinion may differ from others, so I'll try to outline those for you below.

a) I have a very hard time voting for fairness as an intrinsic impact on Framework. Winning that debate is a game does not automatically make you win that fairness is an intrinsic good; "debate is a game" is a descriptive claim that very well may be true, but framework is a debate about competing models, meaning that the prescriptive claim "debate ought not be a game" will almost always beat that. Given that every (competent) 2AC to framework will say that, you're better off just defending why your model of debate is a good thing if you're the negative, usually meaning that it is a more educational model.

b) The thing I appreciate most during the rounds I judge is the ability for teams to make clear decisions and then communicate those decisions to me. It shows me that you have the ability to understand the debate as more than just a series of disconnected arguments and that you have considered the strategy of what you are saying before you say it. As such, I am very much against the concept of the judge-kick. This is usually a big problem during Kritik debates; I will never kick the alt "for you", and in a situation where the alternative is not explicitly kicked, I will evaluate the debate as Aff v. Alt. This means that even if you win a significant risk of a link and impact, I will still likely vote for the affirmative in the absence of an alternative which can resolve that link. The reasoning behind this is debate 101: the alternative exists to provide uniqueness for the link, and I cannot vote for a non-unique DA. To be clear, I'm totally for you kicking the alt and establishing the uniqueness in some other way, if you think that is the best strategic move.

c) For K debaters, being "wrong about the theory" is offense, assuming there's at least a bit of impact work done on the consequence of being wrong about the theory. What this means is that in debates where there is a high-level theoretical basis for your opponent's arguments (i.e. for certain flavors of afropessimism, "anti-blackness is ontological"), you ought draw clear lines of comparison between your theoretical disagreement with that claim (i.e., your analysis of anti-blackness concludes that it is not-ontological and is instead [insert position here]).

d) Ethos and Pathos matter in my decisionmaking, the former generally moreso than the latter, though not by much. I'm a big believer in the idea that the way you choose and execute your arguments at every point in the debate is constitutive of your "ethos" as debaters. To be clear, I don't mean this in the sense of a personal judgment of the debaters, but rather in the sense that your ethos and ethic(s) are inherently intertwined. It shouldn't be a controversial statement that judging is done based on the way the debaters formulate ethics, so obviously one's ethos must then also play a role in the decision.



the tldr: i'm fine with pretty much anything, debate(d) a mix of k and policy in hs and college, won't do work for you, don't do anything explicitly racist/sexist/etc. or ill ruin your speaks/drop you. For Varsity, prep ends with the email is sent or the flash drive leaves the computer. For Novices, I won't count it as prep, but PLEASE learn how to use your computers so we don't run into nonsense. other than that, im an open book in the open-est sense. objectivity doesn't exist, so don't underestimate the power of making me want to vote for you using non-logos appeals. don't be boring if you don't have to be.


Background: i debated @ chandler high (go wolves) for four years and currently debate at arizona state (the university rated number #1 in innovation by the US News World Report, ahead of Stanford and MIT, forks up!). I've pretty much always been a 1A/2N, was a 2A/1N for a while, and now I have no clue what I am. Around 60% of the affs I read in high school were non-topical K affs (though never anything that was high theory), and the rest were a mix of middle-of-the-road and straight up policy affs. In high school I usually took T, DA's, CP's etc. in the 2NC and usually gave my partner the K, but that's the opposite of what I did in college as a 2N. Against K affs i was the guy that always went for Framework x Cap, and against policy affs i went like 7-off. Basically, just a lot of proof that im fine with everything. Currently (un)interested in Alain Badiou, nanomaterials (am I just writing this to convince myself that I enjoy my major? you decide), and why my daily commute is so goddamn alienating.

Speaker Points: I start at a 28.3 (3-3 quality if that helps) and I go up and down from there. I'll never go below a 27 unless you do something that's either breaking rules, being ridiculously mean, being an asshole to me (please don't post-round me, i'll tell on you).

DA's: Anything goes, not much to say here. Probably won't vote for a DA by itself (i did this once and it was a bad idea) unless you have some real good turns case arguments.

CP's: I read a PIC in high school that replaced "USFG" with "United States politicians, bureaucrats, and military personnel". I'm okay with anything.

K's: I like K's, as long as you can justify why you're reading it -- though I suppose that should be the case with every argument. Link explanation is TANTAMOUNT. If it's clear to me that your link is the same generic link you read against everything, and you dont do any contextual explanation work, I'm gonna have a hard time voting for you. My biggest pet peeve about K debates though (and about a few other judges in particular) is that I WILL NOT DROP THE ALT FOR YOU. If you get to the 2NR and you want to go for the K as a case turn, please explicitly kick out of the alt. If you do not, I weigh the round as Alt v. Aff, and if you do like 10 seconds of alt explanation at the bottom of the 2NR, well, you lose. The 2NR is all about decisions, so please make a decision with how you want the K to look at the end of the debate, and make that decision clear to me. My personal thoughts on the K are outlined well here by the Mustachio'd Menace himself. Do yourself a favor and read it.

T: T's cool. T in my mind is the same as any other argument just with different terminology, meaning that the violation is just a link and the standards are just impacts. Slow down on uncarded things/tags though, just so I can keep my flow clear.

Framework: "When I walked into my first debate practice, they didn't hand me a rule book" - LaToya Green. Debate does not inherently have any rules, so theoretical framework is just an argument trying to convince me as a judge to adopt a rule for the debate round. If you don't do a good job telling why debate should be constrained to whatever definition you want me to constrain it to, I will default to the interpretation that debate has no rules and the aff will stand. Know the difference between theoretical framework arguments and substantive ones (theoretical being things like fairness, decisionmaking, simulation good, policy education good and substantive being policy debate good for x movement of the aff, institutional engagement k2 solving aff etc), and clearly delineate them so your framework arguments as a whole are cohesive. All that being said, if the aff doesn't make sense to me, my threshold for voting on framework goes way down, but probably don't count on that as a way to win framework. Personally, I prefer the substantive framework args, especially if you do some tricky stuff with cross-apps to case or with TVA's/CP's. I'll listen to most anything, though. In most recent debates I've been in where framework has featured, it seems like most teams really think that "debate is a game" is enough explanation for why fairness is an intrinsic impact; it very clearly is not. Even if you win that debate is a game, you have not necessarily won that debate should be a game, and because framework is a question of what debates should look like, well, you lose. It could just be that poor quality of debating, but I can't remember the last time I voted for fairness as an intrinsic impact -- you can try to buck that trend, of course, but it's probably more strategic forget fairness and talk about other impacts to framework OR that fairness is the internal link to something else.

Theory: Generally cool with theory. Condo's fun. You can probably keep the same reading speed while going through your standards, but being clear with a short pause and/or a loud "AND" when switching to the next standard makes it much easier for me to flow, and thus less likely I'll miss your arguments. Becoming increasingly fond of wiki/disclosure theory (still not my favorite thing in the world), and I'll be quick to vote if there's some hijinx going on with how you disclose before the round to try and give yourself a competitive advantage. RVI's are a no-go for me, pal; I get them in LD, but in Policy you have more than enough time to actually answer stuff that there's really nothing you're losing that you couldn't fix by just being a bit more efficient. Sorry.

Other: debate is meaningless in the end, so please don't take it too seriously and get too competitive. the only bad experiences i had in debate were when people thought they were superior for whatever reason and let it show; don't be that person. it's a place to learn and have fun with some cool people, so i try to maintain that in every round that im judging. have a good time, this is a rewarding activity regardless of if you win or not. for my sake and yours, try your best to not make the round boring. while I try my best to judge rounds in the way debaters expect me to (whatever that may mean), i thoroughly believe that the way judges decide are fundamentally random (i.e. I could have sat in shit earlier in the day and that changes the way I decide since im mad that I sat in shit). If your strength is the technical/traditional way of debating, all power to you, but don't underestimate your opponent's willingness to be experimental. logical appeals aren't the only way to convince someone something is true, and if your opponent does a better job convincing me to judge based on how i feel rather than how i evaluate things "objectively", don't be upset that I go in that direction. Conversely, if you're that type of debater, feel free to do some weird shit as long as you think it'll work (don't make me cringe lol); it's a high-risk/high-reward move that I encourage you to try out if you want something fresh. I've gotten in the habit of flowing each speech straight down since nobody does particularly clear line-by-line anymore, but I'll match things up on the flow when I'm deciding (idk how this changes how you give speeches, but do with this info what you will). I also do not have a good poker face and make a lot of odd faces while judging, sorry if that freaks you out but i can't particularly control it; read the faces at your own peril. For speaker points bonuses you can do one of two things: 1) Make a *good*, contextual reference to bob dylan and/or young thug, 2) make a *good* joke about one or more of the following people: izak dunn's mustache, manav sevak, nikpreet singh, jinnie xie, alyssa hoover, elyse kats, or rohit rajan. I don't write much on my ballots (unless it is an important round that I force myself to evaluate for longer than may be necessary, or a round that actually does warrant a longer, written-out RFD) but I give very thorough commentary after the round and I want you to ask me questions and write down the things that I say, or else there's really not a point to me or you being there.

For the other debates:

Having had to coach one lad in LD for the past year, I've developed some thoughts on the activity that may be relevant to you, if for some reason you have to deal with the perils of having me as a judge. For what it's worth, if both of the debaters have agreed to run the round as the mutated, gross, slug-like abomination you all refer to as "progressive" (it really means anything but! words mean things!) debate, then effectively everything in the above section applies to you. Everything in the "Other" section likely applies to your regardless of how you debate. If not, the following is what you should keep in mind: LD's value lies precisely in its form, and while that form may shift (I certainly am not some sort of reactionary that believes you ought to lose if you don't tell me your Value, your Value Criterion, and remember to say "Thus I affirm/negate" at the end of your speeches), we ought to understand why that form existed in the first place, and how such forms color the way we debate things. What this means for you LDers is that you should not shy away from the central question of your event: ethics. It is upon the question of ethics LD (and all debate, really) lies, and to act as if you don't have an ethic (you most certainly do), or to obscure your ethic (which you all seem to have a great penchant for doing), is to shy away from any of the value of this activity. And this is precisely why the form of LD has existed as such (it's my view that what we call "the K", or at least its central questions, has existed in LD since LD's inception), with defenses of the whole resolution, with the Values and Value Criterions, with every case beginning with a Framework etc. I know you may feel that it is strategic to treat this as a one-person policy debate, and it very well may be in many cases, but that is just because you decided to make the switch before truly getting a grasp on why the activity has been as it is for so long. Tell me, what is the value of reading the K as an "off-case" position when the traditional case-structure already has the in-built mechanisms for making the criticisms you want to make? Of course this is rhetorical, and the answer I believe to be true is that it is cowardice. Stop being cowards. Take a stand upon your ethics (even if they are the conventionally boring ethics of our Kants and our Humes and our Benthams, that purely English phenomenon himself [speaker point bonus if you know who called Bentham a purely english phenomenon]) and tell me why I as a judge should stand upon the same grounds you have chosen to stand on. And I bet (after a year of teching unsuspecting folks down on this very question when they did not expect it) that you will find competitive success in doing so.

I really don't understand this activity. I don't think it's possible for me to have any sort of stable, objective, or predictable method of judging PF because I'm not really sure if PF debate exists (I suppose I'll decide to explain what I mean by this as I'm writing the rest of this section, or maybe it will just become evident, though it likely does not mean what you think it means). To be fair, I don't think I have that for any form of debate really, but it's especially erratic when dealing with your lot. I suppose you should just do what you do, but I really have a low, low, LOW tolerance for inane stupidity, which is what I've had to deal with in the PF rounds I have had the displeasure of judging thus far (except one, which was surprisingly very good for a novice debate). If Policy and LD suffer from an over-reliance on the logical appeal, PF has the opposite problem where the logical appeal is so rarely used (and I know you all believe yourselves to be making such appeals, you just aren't actually doing so) that the debate is just nothing-speak for whatever ridiculously short amount of time (the only redeemable aspect of this activity) you all are allotted to torture me with. So, all I ask is that you speak of something, and when you speak of something, you are referring to something that is not totally positioned in a fantasy dreamt up in the empty space of your brain in that moment. As such, do not say things like: "Islamic Terrorism kills millions of people every day", or "THAT IS YOUR BURDEN TO ANSWER" when it is clearly not, or [insert overtly racist comment about Black people here that you, for some reason or another, do not believe to be racist]. Instead, make significant reference to the authors that supposedly (I write supposedly because more often than not, there is absolutely no care for evidence in this activity) provide the warrants and data for your arguments, and by reference I mean that in the direct, verbatim sense, because in all likelihood they know far more than you do about whatever it is you're talking about this month, and they can say it in a much better way than you can. There is a reason the other forms of debate are so reliant on the "card" (pieces of evidence cut as needed), and it is because they realized a long, long time ago that having vague name-drops and out-of-context quotes plopped into a poorly-written 10th grade English paper does not a good debate make. All forms of communication require a mutual intelligibility, some level of stable ground upon which those doing the communicating can stand upon and hurl their signs, and hopefully that which those signs signify, at one another in the hope of arriving at some new sign, which hopefully also signifies something that was previously not signified. And this is why I believe PF does not exist as the other debate forms do: I do not believe you all have such a ground. You all speak but the words are not meant to transcend themselves, they are words for the sake of words, and in this sense maybe it is best to call PF a form of collaborative literature rather than debate. Anyways, this is not a problem that cannot be fixed, and really the fix is quite easy: develop a common point to stand on (reference to evidence), and then draw out the consequences of such references. If you treat your "debates" like this, you stand the chance of having actual debates (and the chance to win my ballot, which is likely what you care about the most as you finish reading this unnecessarily long section about an activity I will probably a judge a total of 2 more times in the rest of my life, and I don't really blame you for wanting the ballot).

Congress: In the words of Rolling Stone's Greil Marcus, reviewing Bob Dylan's 1969 album Self-Portrait, "what is this shit?"

Chance Christian Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Spencer Coben Paradigm

i don't want to shake your hand.

it's flu szn baby

Chris Conrad Paradigm

3 rounds

The need to speak, even if one has nothing to say, becomes more pressing when one has nothing to say, just as the will to live becomes more urgent when life has lost its meaning.

My actual paradigm:

Johanna Crowl Paradigm

4 rounds

I'll be voting off the flow. Please extend warrants, impacts, and evidence. WEIGH your impacts, if you don't then I have to try to weigh them myself and I don't want to have to insert myself into the round whatsoever. Do the work for me. Your final focus should write my RFD for me. Be respectful towards each other and engaged in the round. I'm a pretty standard flow judge. Hopefully you read this before rounds, but if you don't, feel free to ask me a couple questions at the beginning of the round.

Alexander Daniel Paradigm

6 rounds

* I am a former PFD competitor from the Arizona and national circuits who graduated in 2011. In the six or so years since graduating high school I've dabbled in coaching and judging, but for the last few years I have attended one or fewer tournament per season to judge. That being said I don't expect many overwhelming changes in style.

* As for a paradigm, I'm not sure I can give much. Arguments must be responsive, which is often an issue for teams late in the round when it devolves into a rehash of bullet points from each side. Cards should be given context and analysis; do not bomb me with research. Be prepared to show me a card during breaks in the action (prep or immediately after the round) even if the other team doesn't ask for it, especially your strongest cards that your case hinges on.

* There is no type of argument I prefer or disfavor. Stats are great. Qualitative analysis is great. Historical analysis is great. Make the arguments you prepared to make and don't adjust on my account. I'm not looking for anything specific.

* Speed probably won't be an issue. On the off chance it is I'll likely blurt out "clear" or "slow down a bit." I'm not trying to be rude or docking you for it, but you aren't putting points on the board if I don't understand you.

* Decorum won't win or lose you anything but speaker points. This is not a reason to be rude.

* At the end of round I will disclose and give a brief RFD. If you have questions you can ask, but I will try to keep it brief intentionally to give you as much time as possible to breathe between rounds.



Caitlin Fagan Paradigm

Public Forum:

I sadly only had the chance to debate public forum for two years during high school, but ended up competing at UKTOC and Nationals in both Alabama and Utah. From those experiences, I learned what national-circuit tournaments look for and expect, so that's how I will be judging.

1) Tell me a story. Make sure your arguments flow together. Weigh your arguments; it is your job to tell me why yours are more important than your opponents.

2) Along with weight, make sure you set up your framework adequately and tell me how I should be looking at the round. 

3) I will judge with the philosophy of Tabula Rasa. This means I am a blank-slate and I will NOT make any arguments for you in my head. Make sure all of your points are accurately extended and are clear to me. 

4) Don't spread. I will throw a pen at you if you do. If you talk too fast, there is a very likely chance that I will miss something. 

5) I don't flow CX, but I will pay attention. I've had the judges who just stare at their phone during CX and it just bugs me. If you say something really good, I might consider that when calculating your speaker points.

6) I have a really short attention span. Making me laugh in the round will get you more speaker points! Include puns, references, song lyrics, etc. as long as it is professional. 

7) All arguments that you want me to weigh in FF must be brought up in summary.

Ryan Ferdowsian Paradigm

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain:

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom


- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T


- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.


- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)


- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")


- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews


1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

Nicole Figueroa Paradigm

pls just gimme paper and pen. I'm gonna ask.

Judging experience:

- I competed in PF for 4 years in Las Vegas (yay, Golden Desert)

- Currently debating (policy) at ASU (woohoo, Arizona State University)

Important stuff

- if u think that a college policy debater has a high speed threshold... u right. speed threshold is high

- I don't flow cross

Extra stuff

How to win my ballot... a guide:

1. Tell me how you want me to judge the round

2. Articulate how you win by [however reason you judged that round] and why your opponent doesn't (you can even tell me why your opponent's way of me judging the round is a nono!!)

.... because I'll vote for anything as long as it's clear lol, I'm not picky. Ks, theory, CP... blah blah blah. Just tell me what you're going for.

- It's 2018, so we're treating people in the debate community with RESPECT! I don't care if I can see the fiery hatred for whoever you're debating against in your eyes but that better not come through your words or your actions. I used to be like "hoho I'm a cool judge and sass can sometimes be funny" (which is tru, I'll let you decide what part)... but to others sass and killing their view that debate can be a welcoming space so tread lightly and just remember that words do matter. I know that y'all know this because you're participating... in speech.. and debate.

- I'm good with speed. But if you can't spread, that's okay with me. Don't do anything you're not comfortable with and debate the way you want to

- I like signposting. I always flow, so it just makes me feel secure in knowing, "oh yes, they ARE talking about X, I didn't miss something and they DO want me to evaluate that stuff they're saying to this argument!" If you don't do it, I hope your speech is well structured because I'm gonna be like "oh hahaha great round" on the outside but "why did u make me do so much work for u flipping between papers" on the inside.

- Why I don't flow cross-ex: If you want me to care about an argument, say it during your speech because that's what the speech is for. Like cross-ex is the only time you have to have an instantaneous response from your opponent so it makes no sense to me why you'd waste it on repeating what you said. Like.. ask questions to make your NEW speech

- On 1/5/2018 I realised my deep disdain for people being like "hohoho u weren't listening to me do u want me to just say my WHOLE case over again?" - like... no. Obviously not. Your opponent does not want to hear the words that already confused them repeated back to them and neither do I. This is the quickest way to getting 20 speaker points in front of me because it's unproductive and unnecessarily rude.

- My email is if you have questions


Koji Flynn-Do Paradigm

3 rounds

Be kind to one another.

I did PF in high school.

My old paradigm was very long and pretty useless.

I flow on a spreadsheet, so if I'm not typing during your summary/final focus I'm likely just copying and pasting your extensions.

You can go fast (I'll call clear if I can't understand you).

Cross isn't for making arguments. Please don't cut each other off.

Ask me any questions you have!

Scott Franz Paradigm

6 rounds

I did public forum debate for 4 years and I don't like how fast people go now, I find it counter productive. The closer you come to spreading, the less I'm going to be able to pick up, both mentally and on the flow.

For your evidence, citing your sources as "last name, year " in case is worthless to me. I don't flow cites, I flow tags, and I also expect to hear the credentials of the sources you have. Part of warranting your arguments involve telling me why I should believe a particular source.

How to win my ballot:

1. warranting: tell me WHY a scenario/outcome/impact is likely to happen. The most persuasive thing a team can do for me is IN THEIR OWN WORDS explain the context & logic surrounding the card to demonstrate to me they know what it says.

2. The more you signpost and tell me exactly where I should look on the flow, the easier it is to flow.

4. appropriate concessions: too many teams are unwilling to concede arguments. Focus on where the clash is in the debate, know when to not waste time on arguments that turn into a wash.

How to get high speaks on my ballot:

1. Use cross x productively. Very few do it well, many make it an annoying waste of time. Ask useful, succinct questions that aren't meant to trigger another mini constructive/rebuttal in part of the debate I can't flow.

2. Present well, you're giving a speech. Speak like a normal human being. Gesticulate well. Don't put your hands in your pockets. Last but certainly not least, volume is not the only, nor is it the best, means of emphasizing words.

3. Time management. For prep and speeches, show me you know how to allocate this resource appropriately i.e. Show me you can conclude a speech without quickly uttering the phrase "and for these reasons vote [insert side here]".

Lansing Freeman Paradigm

4 rounds

If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, bang on the table. Don't bang on the table. I prefer substantive arguments, presented in a linear fashion, strongly supported by logic, and and backed up by well-sourced facts.

I don't know every arcane rule and style of debating, but as an AP Gov teacher for 18 years, I know the topics and recognize proper argumentation and reasoned position-taking.


Ankur Garg Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Gwyndolynn Gentry Paradigm

6 rounds

All arguments need to be reasonable, based on evidence. I'm ok with fast talking, but it needs to be understandable. I don't care for yelling. Please be mature and attack arguments and evidence only, not opponents personally.

Anthony Gerrettie Paradigm

2 rounds

Anthony Gerrettie
Northern Arizona University, '05 B.S. in Public Relations and Speech Communication
University of Arizona, '08 Post Bacc in Secondary Education, English

Former Head Coach, Salpointe Speech and Debate (2009 - 2018)

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Prep time has been a disaster in paperless policy. Flash evidence efficiently or if it gets abusive or if your partner is prepping while you're flashing, I'm running the clock.

While I used to judge policy exclusively, I've only judged policy when needed for the past three years. I'VE SEEN A TOTAL OF 6 POLICY ROUNDS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Speed: I've judged policy on and off for nine years so I'm decent with speed. I'll let you know if you need to slow it down, but if you're not clear, I'm not going to get it. If I can't hear it because you do not articulate, it didn't happen. Part of being a debater and winning is communication. GIVE ME THE TAG LINE SLOWLY AND THEN RAMP BACK UP.

Topicality: Very rarely do I vote that a plan is untopical. When I do, it's only because an alternative definition for something was provided and proved to be more effective that was not clashed by the affirmative and it was extended by the negative team calling the plan untopical. I SEE TOPICALITY AS A TIME SKEW THAT THE NEG WILL KICK OUT OF IN A LATER SPEECH. GO FOR T IF THEY DROP IT AND THEN MAKE IT YOUR MAIN VOTER ISSUE.

K: Kritik's are good but only with proper analysis. Here's where you need to use your voice, speed and volume to annunciate what in the K card makes that K good. I'll need more than a tag line if it's going to be evaluated seriously. You can't make critical claims without analyzing and I need to hear that analysis, but when you use K's, you really put yourself more in the hands of a judge than simply winning on other arguments would. They will have to philosophically side with your K.

CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments, or perm it. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's : Important for debate and clash. The best debates have clash and every debater has a ton of DA's, be sure you pull out the right ones.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Value/Criterion Debate
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent. With the evolution of L/D debate, the framework is becoming less of an important argument. If you go traditional, win ont he framework, if you go progressive, you can win on an Off Care argument or turns of your opponents case.

I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extrend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summariing the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

Progressive LD Debate

LD is becoming more and more like policy. I enjoy progressive debate but only if you are aware of the literature. Too many students are running progressive arguments and don't understand them. If you're going to be progressive understand the literature and spend a minute or two in your final speech explaining why you were progressive and why you've won. Overexplain.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

Any questions?

Public Forum Judging Philosophy

I've spent the majority of recent rounds judging L/D and PF.

Contention Level

-The first speech should build your case. Observations and Framework should come first.


-Rebut down the flow. Attack everything in order as it's given.


-Figure out where you're ahead and make that your speech. The summary should contain voter issues

Final Focus

-Tell me why you've won this ballot. You can only have access to arguments that the summary beings up. If the summary didn't mention it, you can't bring it back up.

Prep Time

-If you call for a card that's fine and great. Once you get that card in your possession, prep time starts. Your prep time will be used to read the card.

LJ Gomez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sathvik Gowda Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated PF for four years and am now coaching for Leland

I first evaluate the framework debate, then I vote based on who generates the most offense off of the winning framework. I also appreciate a good strategy, so debaters who do a good job telling a coherent ballot story will make me happy. Finally, and arguably most importantly, I refuse to clear up clash for any team. This is the responsibility of the debaters.

I only like theory when there is a legitimate abuse committed in/out of the round, if you run frivolous theory as a timesuck then I'm probably not even going to bother evaluating it.

Laurel Goycoolea Paradigm

4 rounds

My background: I debated public forum in Colorado from 2005-2009 (also competed in DX). I'm now a PF coach at St Francis HS in CA.

Public Forum
I would consider myself a pretty old-school public forum debater which means I am looking for "the people's debate" not policy. I want to see solid argumentation and rhetoric. If you want to get meta, do policy or LD.

Do not spread if you don't want me to lose half of your arguments. I can follow normal human speech at a higher speed than regular conversation, but again, no spreading.

Be organized and know your own cards. I have little patience for debaters who can't easily find their own cards or don't know which of their cards go with their own contentions. Give correct citations: author last name and year at minimum!

Be civil. I am a big fan of stoic confidence, and I hate aggressive, steamrolling "confidence"/cockiness.

Be honest with your prep time, but don't be a hawk of your opponent. I don't want to see arguing over 2 seconds.

Earn your speaks. 27 is average/passable to me. Non-verbals matter - eye contact, shifting feet/balance, hand movements/toying with objects, etc.

Feel free to ask me questions!

I am very new to LD judging and have only judged a handful of local, slower LD rounds.

I want to see good, solid argumentation: strong rhetorical skills, good persuasion. I will likely have a hard time following intricate theory or policy strategies. I'm a PF debater, I can't follow K's very well. 'Nuff said. I am frequently telling my PF debaters to use less debate jargon, so take that as you will for LD. In other words, I do not like unwarranted jargon and will ignore it.

I like to see a defined value and value-criterion and encourage creativity (util is fine, but is often run very cursorily/boringly). I am not great at quickly evaluating dense FW, so If you choose to read a dense FW, give me a decent overview of how offense operates under it; i.e. what do I evaluate, how it affirms or negates, how/if it precludes your opponent's argument and offense.

Do not spread if you don't want me to lose half of your arguments. I can follow normal human speech at a higher speed than regular conversation, but again, no spreading.

Be organized and know your own cards. I have little patience for debaters who can't easily find their own cards or don't know which of their cards go with their own contentions.

Be honest with your prep time, but don't be a hawk of your opponent. I don't want to see arguing over 2 seconds.

Earn your speaks. 27 is average/passable to me. Non-verbals matter - eye contact, shifting feet/balance, hand movements/toying with objects, etc.

Feel free to ask me questions!

Erin Granillo-Walker Paradigm

LD/CX: Medium threshold on theory, fine with speed, flex prep/tag team cx fine, include me on the email chain/flash, fine with kritiks. I like good crystallization at the end of your rebuttles

Chris Greenleaf Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Khamani Griffin Paradigm

6 rounds

Edit log Starting as of 10/12/19:

- organizing specific parts of the paradigm (nothing evaluative) - 10/12/19

- Edit to traditional / philosophy section and K Aff section and organization to *attempt* to make this cleaner and not 6+ pages of my rambling - 2/17/20

Hello! I coach debate at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School.

I specialize in coaching Parli, LD, and Congress.

I competed in national circuit NPDA in college and I did a stint in Policy (I never really knew what the topic was bc k debate lol)

Please have fun, don't be rude, have the round you want.

Truth means a lot to be but I lean more tech over truth. If a team says the wrong thing, I will not intervene. I will address it afterwards. I will intervene if there's a significant amount of disrespect by tanking spks or in extreme cases, the ballot.

this paradigm gets more specific as you go; so read on if you need to know debate specific instance things.

email chain —->

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cheater CPs: if you can't justify your aff, might need to pick a different one. Love a smart CP debate. give me the net ben to the cp

A2 Cheater CPs: will vote on impacts on these standards, not just the standards, I need to know the impact to doing this

Identity Ks: will enjoy voting on it

High Phil: will not understand it; I’m probably not your judge / will flow it, pls explain in rebuttals or else I’ll be a sadboy writing things I don’t understand thx ~~~~EDIT: Post Berkeley 2020: okay pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

T: will vote on it

Nebel T: pretty new to this (I’m assuming a fair amount of people on this topic are as well) ill work on better my understanding of this but basic Nebel t shells I follow ; the more advanced, the more ill need a little help

Theory threshold: pretty low to vote, slightly higher to not vote on

Critical Non T Affs: I love these; know your blocks and justify non t so I don't have to vote on fw bc I will vote on FW; ~~~~EDIT: so, debaters are reading lit bases I'm not familiar with. This is totally okay! I enjoy learning new things, and as long as we explain what the important parts

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: if you're reading a one line analytic you're gonna blow up for offense later; I may need a warrant and potential impact to understand this. If you need a threshold for understanding this; Thomas Liao has a beautifully written section I'll take a blurb from to explain this (and some other things) at the bottom. - You can also presume I’m not a tricks person; if you're willing to try it out in front of me, I’m here for it, you might have to do a little work but with enough weighing, I'll vote on anything for the most part.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; so I don't have a high threshold on these args (as I go on to explain that threshold lol) but I'm gonna need weighing and framing on these args, so if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good)

K v K debates: really fun debate for me to become engaged in and one I love watching

Case Debate: will vote on :)


** I’ve tried to open this up to more than just Parli and LD so that it includes other debate forms. If you have specific questions about literature bases I’ve read or are familiar with; just send me an email and I’ll get back to you. If not, ask before the round and I’ll answer or just read it and explain it to me; so read the whole thing if you can, otherwise scan for the bold text for the “Reading My Paradigm during Prep Time,” version.

  1. I'll vote on anything (so long as it's not morally abhorrent in doing so; idk what that bright line is but look at the second bold phrase on line 11 for what should be your bright line on this)
  2. I have a very low threshold on Theory. I’m likely to vote on potential abuse, but if it’s looking like you’re gonna go all in on T, proven abuse is probably the safer route. This means I love clash and will support it, however, if you make me vote on “must provide a written copy of the plantext,” (which I’m a huge fan of, by the way) unique standards will put you ahead. ———I defer to reasonability on T unless told otherwise (you should still tell me what reasonability means and presume idk what that word means. So, please say otherwise and you won’t have a problem. ;)——I will not pick up your RVI on T. Sorry ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Forcing the judge to vote for the AFF Bc they were topical isn’t a threshold I'd prefer to cross but warranted RVIs or ones you can justify through reasonability I'm pretty receptive to. . If you’re brave enough to test that, pls note, I will be very sad while flowing. ——- also, if you’re deliberately spreading someone out of a round, I’ll probably pick up their speed procedural, Golden turn, criticism, whatever. Bc I think that’s not cool. Inclusivity and access are important. If it’s egregious, I’ll drop you on sight. If both sides are spreading against my threshold for speed and I yell clear several times, I’ll either 1) drop the team that did it first or 2) presume Neg.
  3. I love the K debate. FW, Thesis (pls, like even if it’s quick just give me the breakdown), Links, Alt, Alt solvency. I’m receptive to framework, so if you’re answering framework pls don’t just tell me to crossapply things w/o giving me an explanation of how things work first. (Then say it :)) I dabbled in afropess, afrofuturism, cruel opt, performance. Just bc I read them doesn't mean ill backfill for your args, I still expect you to explain the context of how your args interact with the args // scenarios presented.
  4. Real big fans of Case debates and seeing people go for case in the 1nc is really compelling to watch.
  5. I love good clash from the Neg but I’m a sucker for PICs. It's just a fun debate to have. Pic teams should know how to defend their strat choices.
  6. I think turns are very underused, while also being very under-explained as to how they function in the debate space. Pls read uniqueness the other way and provide some analysis / warrant that proves that to be bidirectional, and if you can win your turns, I’ll vote on them. This is pretty specific to PF as well, as I've noticed teams will make turns on arguments and win them and not go for those turns or even interact with them.
  7. There’s a really good chance I may have to intervene if you don’t tell me what I’m voting for in rebuttals - Parli x Policy x LD / summary or final focus (PF). Please collapse. I can't stress this enough. make a choice. Weigh your impact, prove the link to the impact and weigh that against their impacts. P L E A S E. smart concessions also are important. You don't need to win every single argument in the debate. But, tell me why the ones you're choosing to go for matter.
  8. Your rebuttal should write my RFD. Tell me about what impact scenario beats the other team’s. Give me framing and calculus. PLEASE. Whether it be the theory level or the link level or thesis level or alt solvency, whatever. Why are you winning this round? If you’re right, you’ll know it.
  9. pls remember that your framework can determine how (if at all) your arguments are received and interpreted.
  10. Collapse. Don't go for every piece of offense in the debate; you're not winning all of it. Prioritize and weigh your way out. Which weigh? yeah dat way.
  11. I’m super down to have a faster than normal debate. But I’m gonna ask that you slow for tags or send me a copy. ( That’s fine with me. Couple things tho, if I don’t have a copy of it in front of me and you’re full on spreading, I’m gonna miss things. I promise it. You can move fast, and if I were you, I’d watch me Bc I’m VERY FACIALLY EXPRESSIVE. You’ll know if I need you to slow a little.
  12. Pls don’t make me judgekick a plan or theory shell. Tell me what to do with it, Bc you’ll be mad if I don’t vote on it. If you make a shadow extension from something said earlier that’s chill. In PF, I will not vote on things said in case that do not get extended in summary. Meaning, your debate may technically feel like it starts in Summary. That's fine.
  13. I process information visually and will keep as tight of a flow as possible, but 1 of 2 things happen; (a) ill catch a cite and miss part of the tag bc I’m struggling to spell the cite w/o prompts on how it’s spelled (b) I’m struggling to hear you and am looking very confused. Looking for ways you can help me? Great! a) resummarize a particular point in your own words; especially if you feel like the decision is gonna come down to that anyway, just so I have some version of it. b) don't just say your __ evidence covers this; it happens, we all do it, but it's difficult if I'm assuming I know what you're referring to, and am not certain.
  14. Pls be friendly. (We’ve All had to debate someone that we’ve had beef with and even if it gets rough, pls try to be civil with each other.) But on another note, I like a sassy debate but I love seeing two close friends hash out a tough round. That means pls be respectful. If you’re a guy shouting down a girl in cross ex Bc you think it’s “dominating” or any other form of machismo,” to put someone else down, I will tank your speaks and have a hard time voting for you and will drop you. Ask for pronouns, names, whatever. Also time yourself. I should be able to trust y'all.
  15. I’m a process flower; I unfortunately don’t have the ability to write what I hear as I hear it, but I will listen harder than anyone else in the room to appear tonhave the most neurotypical flow and write my brains processing of what you’ve said. This doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a fast debate or faster than normal or conversational or speech docs. It’s just something I’ve come to recognize sets me apart a little. I don’t think it holds me back bc it makes the debate about how you’ve explained your world to me. As I’m expressive, you’ll learn exactly where you need to be, by my reactions. If I’m looking very confused and not writing, I have no idea what your offense is. (tends not to happen but you’d be surprised) If I’m confused and writing, I’m probably not sure where this is going, but I’m definitely following. If I’m smiling at you and nodding, It’s probably bc I’m enjoying your argument and your stylistic choices. If I’m staring at you and nodding with a tense face, it’s probably bc I’ve flowed your argument and understand it and am waiting for more offense or framing or weighing or for you to move on to the next argument.
  16. Partner to Partner comm is fine. Your partner is there. Team effort. Pls don’t control your partners speech time, nor will I flow what they say, you gotta say it. But yeah do your thing.
  17. Have fun and feel free to ask me any questions about things I should be comfortable with in your round, Bc remember, it’s your round. Break a leg. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Okay, this portion of my paradigm is to clarify how I process information and weigh arguments and sequence them on my ballot // mind if it's not done for me. Some of this is contextualized for my NPDI / HS Parli / NPDA folk, but can apply to most analytical debate.

· I try to find the simplest ballot story - that means I will sequence argument evaluation as I deem appropriate. I believe lengthy ballot stories are more likely to be wrong, so I err heavily towards simple decisions. in practice, this means ignoring as much of the flow as is justified.

· I don't think argument interaction has to be explicitly flagged if it's clear that there is a contestation about truths. for example, if your thesis is "the sky does not exist", I would consider that to refute "the sky is blue". That being said, pls feel free to make my life easier by flagging things if you really want to make sure I don’t miss it or prioritize it.

  • I evaluate kritiks with impact framing contextualized to the entire round, in particular the other side's impacts, whether that's through a role of the ballot, prior question framing, root cause claims, or meta-ethics etc. however, the impact framing must be interacted sufficiently with the relevant impacts on the flow, or it often ends up being a clunker that doesn't help me evaluate the round.

· If your argument is warranted such that I can explain why your argument is true and / or has the implication you say it does, I am willing to vote for it. if your argument doesn't make sense to me, I’m limited in my ability to vote for it. here are two examples:

o (1) if you didn't read a solvency mechanism on your advantage, and the other team states you don’t have a solvency mech and I also agree that you don’t, it becomes pretty irrelevant whether or not your uniqueness and impacts flow through because you functionally don't have a solvency mechanism.

o (2) even if you extend an argument that is cold conceded, 1) I need an impact that outweighs or comes before the more clash-oriented debate 2) I won't vote for it if I don't understand it. to be clear, there is a difference between my not understanding an argument because it lacks a logical step versus not understanding something because I lack some knowledge (about the world, about your literature, etc.). in the latter case, I will default to what you say as being true. in the former, I will not.

· I try to presume I know nothing but I’m not a tab judge. it's impossible for me to not use knowledge from outside the round - all rounds assume a common basis of knowledge e.g. that people stay dead once they die (vs reincarnation). here are two independently sufficient brightlines - if you contest something about the world which I have assumed, I will drop that assumption- skep triggers are the best example of this ("knowledge is impossible" -> ill need the application that bc knowledge is impossible, we must ___ or whatever your preferred framing is) ; I will also not rely on outside knowledge if the other team flags the lack of explanation and reads at least a counter-claim - e.g. "you haven't explained why nuclear war causes extinction, global fallout is only temporary"

· I have a moderately high threshold for requiring warrants. generally, all claims should have warrants - empirics, analytics, or testimonies qualify, and are considered stronger to weaker in that order. this is a deeply rooted paradigmatic view which can be adjusted, but only through truly persuasive arguments

· Uncontested claims are possibly true (nonzero). however, pointing out that an argument has no warrant is sufficient for terminal defense on that claim if you read a competing claim, because both claims would have equal strength of link based on the warrant which means I can't evaluate them. terminal defense just needs to establish zero comparative risk, not absolute risk

Jenifer Groman Paradigm

I don't like spreading. I expect students to understand both sides and be clear. I value use of evidence and effective argumentation. I want competitors to respond to opposing arguments. I value civility and professionalism to your partner and opponents. I like off-time road maps and signposting.

Erin Guiney Paradigm

I have experience competing, judging, and coaching both Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate and have judged a handful of Novice LD rounds.

For Congress:

60% presentation, 40% content. There MUST be refutation in every speech after the authorship. If you speak twice on the same bill I will drop you. If you refer to male competitors as 'representative' and female competitors as 'Ms.' I will drop you. Please give me impacts.

For PF:

I'm not going to time you. I'm not going to flow CX. You will not be able to speak faster than I will be able to flow. I need impacts, please, and clear taglines. It is not my job to weigh the round for you, so you need to be doing impact calculus and giving me key voters all the way through. If you are rude in CX I will give you low speaks and I will want to drop you. Also I do not care who the authors of your cards are so if you refer to cards by the author only I am not going to know what you are talking about.

For NLD:

I'm new to this, so please speak clearly, give me impacts, and use your value and criterion throughout the round. I won't flow CX and I won't be able to keep up if you go full spread on me. Weigh impacts and condense the debate for me more and more every speech so it is clear what the main issues are.

Anil Gupta Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Logan Guthrie Paradigm

Logan Guthrie

Arizona State University

I competed in LD for Mountain View High School and now compete in policy debate at ASU

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Explain why ontological or epistemological considerations come before policy-making

- I generally view the permutation as a test of competition which makes arguments like "moving target" an uphill battle. That being said, if you explain why the permutation is bordering performative advocacy, I am more prone to these arguments

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just explain why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. FW

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against the risk of FW reproducing fascism? The debater(s) that answer(s) that question best is probably going to win

- Aff's should provide a clear model of what debate looks like under their counter-interp

- TVA's with an explicit text are more persuasive to me than general assertions that the aff could have been topical

- Slow down for techy analytic dumps. If there are sub-points (a) through (g), and you want me to flow all of them, don't spread at the pace you would when reading cards

K vs. K

- As is the case in theory, comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the kritik(s).

Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact


- I probably won't be familiar with all of the acronyms and mechanism debates within the topic, so techy CP's should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a greater degree


- Unlike most, I don't really have any predispositions regarding theory interps. Go for condo bad, RVI's good, whatever. Win the standards and you have my ballot

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so comparative analysis or weighing between standards is key. Theory debates shouldn't be decided by who read the most reasons to prefer their mode of debate. Quality > quantity


- Flashing isn't prep

- I usually only read cards if they are flagged

- Please clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot

Kusum Haranath Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Nathan Harness Paradigm

I am a former Lincoln-Douglas debater (in lay Colorado, eg. Pure VC debate, I'm not familiar with other styles of LD) and a fairly new college CXDA debater. Generally my understanding of debate refers back to the former style, but I'm comfortable with most Policy terminology and style.

The Good, The Bad

I'm cool with aggression and passion, you're here because you enjoy it.

That said lets talk about spreading, if you spread, that's fine as long as I have your case, in order in front of me, don't expect me to follow your frenzied bullshit without a guide to follow.

Give all of your arguments a god damn warrant. Spout about how the other teams plan/status que/my decision is gonna kill people/cause thermonuclear war/make the internet slow (actually that last one's probably good in of itself, if you manage to link to that props man), it wont be a voter unless you can explain why those things are bad and why I have a duty to vote against them. If you refuse to do that I'm not going to consider your "harms" in my decision. The same goes for any Ks.

I will immediately be more likely to vote for you if you can boil down this debate to base philosophy, the best debate is value vs. value (using LD terms, but same goes for other formats) with plan vs status quo/counter-plan taking a supporting role.

The Ugly

The role of the ballet is to chose the best debater, if you want me to act otherwise you ought to be ready to actually convince me of it (which will almost always make you the better debater).

If you're in a policy round and aren't willing to send me and your opponents your speeches, I will not vote for you.

Alexander Haw Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vi Ho Paradigm

1 rounds

Not Submitted

Raymond Hon Paradigm

6 rounds

Hi, my name is Raymond Hon. I am a BioChem major at ASU and I have never debated before.

  • I'm fine with speed as long as you are clear. Do not spread.
  • I don't flow crossfire
  • I prefer roadmaps
  • Make sure to give me good warrants and explain your arguments.

Jake Hovis Paradigm

6 rounds

I care about:

Clash, frameworks, telling a logical story, warrants.

I often vote on:

Dropped arguments, outweighing the other side

I demand that debaters:

Give voters in the final focus, go down the flow and address all arguments, be civil, be understandable (If I don't understand an argument, you will lose.)

I do not vote on (unless I have to):

Theory or Kritiks

My background:

I did CX in college and was a national champion. I understand your K's and Theory, it just doesn't belong here. I have been a primarily PF coach since 2012.

Benjamin Hughes Paradigm

5 rounds

My Experience/Background

In college, I took semesters of parliamentary debate. Today, I'm a coach at the middle school level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with 15 years of coaching experience. I'm also the founder of OC Debate League in California - affiliated with the MSPDP (if you're familiar).


In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I try to be a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me. I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish.

Speaker Scores

Students will earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.

I'd recommend using good speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon. Please no spreading!

Andrew Hull Paradigm

6 rounds

Email for questions:

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.


Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

Nadia Jafar Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Jennifer Jung-Kim Paradigm

2 rounds

George Bernard Shaw said, "those who can, do; those who can't, teach."

I've never debated, but I do have many years of teaching experience at the college level and I'm used to students arguing in front of me and with me, though usually about their grades. I've also been a volunteer debate coach and I've judged countless tournaments. I'm a big fan of debate because I've seen how debaters often become outstanding college students when they come to college with critical thinking, speaking, and writing skills. And they know how to use evidence to build an argument.

Here are some things I look for in debate:

1) Don't make it hard for me to flow your case. Be clear about contentions, subpoints, and taglines.

2) Don't spread. If I can't follow you, I can't flow.

3) I like cross-ex that is a courteous, intellectual clash, so this is where you can get the bonus speaker points.

4) I like evidence and want to know which card you're citing, especially in PF and Policy.

5) I weigh links and impact, so tie your criterion (in LD) and argument into a nice, neat package for me to admire.

And a few of my quirks:

1) If you're in PF or Policy, be considerate and don't speak loudly when the other side is speaking -- pass notes or whisper to your partner instead.

2) I don't like to shake hands. 

Most of all, show me how passionate you are about debate, and let's have a great round!

Mani Kandan Paradigm

6 rounds

I competed for Hamilton High School in LD/CX/PF for four years. I have judged many prelim and elim rounds throughout this year's PF/LD season.

I am sick so I won’t be disclosing and I’ll be doing my best to refrain from speaking.


- Don't be arrogant.

- You can go as fast as you want as long as you remain clear.

- Don't stop people from observing or flowing the round.

- Humor in moderation is appreciated.

- I am tabula rasa as long as I can humanly maintain it.

Speaker Points

20: you did something horrendous & Man's not hot

25-28: Man's ok

29-30: Man's hot


- When you extend, don't only extend the tagline/author name. Explain the significance of the evidence.

- Pre-non-constructive off-time roadmaps are cool, but no brownie points will be awarded.

- Arguments in final focus must be in summary. Exception: first-speaking team doesn't have to extend defense in summary. Nothing to see here.

- I listen to but don't flow cross.


- I don't time prep when a team calls for evidence. Abusing this privilege will be reflected in your speaker points, and in extreme cases, in my decision. If the amount of time spent reading opponents' evidence becomes an issue, I will intervene.

- I will call for evidence after the round when I'm asked in a speech to do so.

- I will intervene on blatantly misconstrued evidence even if the other team doesn't catch it.

Other Things

Caring about your arguments is cool. Don't exclude people. Don't discriminate against people. Have fun.

If you have any questions, please don't be afraid to ask. This includes after the round as well: (creds to ZD and fanafu)

Kajol Kapadia Paradigm

Hi I’m Kajol Kapadia! I’m a current student at Arizona State University and I’m studying Exonomics with a minor in history. In high school I participated in Policy Debate and Public Forum Debate, at ASU I’m a member of the Forensics team and compete in Policy Debate.

In terms of debate, I’m fine with speed and most arguments (including Kritiks). However, I haven’t seen a theory argument that I’m particularly fond of yet, but if you’re good at theory, go for it.

I’m okay with both partners speaking in cross-ex. If your partner says something during your speech I’ll flow it if you repeat it.

Keep good flows, if you flow, I’ll flow. Make sure you answer all arguments.

Overall, just be polite to your competitors and have a good Debate.

Gia Karpouzis Paradigm

4 rounds

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early


- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!


- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

Elyse Kats Paradigm

Blue Valley High School 2016- 4 years of policy, LD, and congress
Arizona State University 2020- Current policy debater 

Please ask me any questions about this to clear anything up. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have after the round. 

In general- 
1) I prefer fast, clear, and technical debates; if you drop an arg it flows the other way. But please, do not try to go faster than you are able to. You need to do more than shadow extend cards. 
2) Clarity is more important than speed. I'll say clear once or twice if I can't hear every word you're saying, but after that you'll just lose speaks if it's not clear.  

Policy argument types:

Kritiks—I am not particularly well read in terms of literature, but I am more than willing to consider whatever you read. I have experience only in college with the K, so just make sure you're explaining everything well and I will be willing to vote on it.  

Counterplans—Explain the solvency advocate and I'll consider any type. 

Disads—I value impact calc heavily so make sure you're doing the proper analysis there, comparison is key. In terms of generic DA's I have a pretty high threshold for the link, so make sure you prove it.

Theory—I will vote on thoery in certain cases; however, I am more willing to reject the argument instead of the team. I usually think condo is good, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In terms of other theoretical arguments I don't have an inherent bias either way. You should always disclose, and I will vote on disclosure theory (if you prove the impact). 

Topicality—I will definitely vote on T. However, if you explain why you're reasonably topical well I will default to reasonability. I view T like other arguments, if there's no link (violation) or impact (voters) then I won't vote on it. 
Framework- I used to be a very policy-based debater, but I am definitely willing to consider alternative frameworks now. In general, just make sure your explain framework well and I will consider any type. On the aff I don't think you need a plan text/ state action, but the neg can convince me otherwise. 


- I consider the value/ criterion debate first, make sure you do enough analysis here and challenge it first. If that debate becomes a wash I will default to the solvency/ impacts on the contentions.

- I'm willing to consider critical positions/ cases

- Look to my policy paradigm for further elaboration

Talla Khelghati Paradigm

4 rounds

I debated for 4 years at Presentation High School, and I'm currently a first year student at UCLA.

I would call myself a "flow judge," and I can handle speed as long as you're clear.

There are a few things that I think are important when it comes to my judging paradigm:

1. All arguments that you want me to evaluate in the round should be in summary and final focus. I stole this line from Kyle Chong's paradigm because he worded it nicely: I am okay with terminal defense being extended from rebuttal to final focus, but all offense/voters need to be in both speeches.

2. Extensions need to be made correctly or I will not extend your card. This means you need to include the source of the card and what the card says in order for it to be extended. I will not accept "Extend all 6 responses my partner makes in rebuttal" or "Extend Huffington Post" without any further expansion on what these cards say.

3. Collapsing is crucial. Pick and choose which arguments you want to go for; please do not go for everything in your case. The ability to collapse on 1 or 2 arguments will automatically boost your speaks for me.

4. This goes hand in hand with collapsing: please weigh your arguments. Collapsing allows you more time in your final 2 speeches to tell me why I should prefer your arguments over those of your opponents. Please do this. If you don't, I'll unfortunately be forced to do it myself which may or may not work out the way you would like.

Also, if you hug your opponents in the middle of crossfire I'll give you an extra speaker point.

Keshav Kundassery Paradigm

3 rounds

The Mission San Jose KW Paradigm

I debated for Mission San Jose High School for 4 years, and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I am fine with moderate speed. Although I personally spoke very quickly when I competed, I will misflow tag-lines and citations if they are rushed, and I prefer a more understandable debate. If you want my ballot, you will be better served talking clearly; too much speed will hurt your speaker points.

- If there is no offense in the round, I will presume first speaker by default, not con. This is because I believe PF puts the first speaking team at a considerable structural disadvantage. If both teams have failed to generate offense by the end of the round, the onus should fall on the team going second for not capitalizing on their advantage. This is my attempt to equalize the disparity between the first and second speaking team.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus. However, there will inevitably be exceptions, e.g. defense in the first FF.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- First summary does not have to extend defense, but it is responsible for extending turns/any offense.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your shit.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and kritiks if they are well warranted enough. As a warning/disclaimer, if something doesn't make sense to me, I may not feel comfortable voting on it. This means you will probably have to over-explain advanced and complex arguments.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, rape, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at

Mary Anne Landefeld Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Nick Leonardi Paradigm

2 rounds

I'm not really a big fan of spreading, and if you talk too fast I will ask you to be clear (up to two times; after that, if I can't understand you I probably just won't vote for you). I value probability over magnitude and am OK with counterplans. I am fairly indifferent to theory. Ks are fine IF they are topical on at least some level.

Carl Liaupsin Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Thomas Littler Paradigm

2 rounds

Hello! I have been a commercial litigator for 39 years and have tried numerous cases to judges and juries in addition to arguing thousands of motions.

I have been judging speech and debate competitions for six years.

For Debate:

I do not mind speed as long as there is clarity. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your arguments. I do like a road map to help me follow you.

I am fairly familiar with debate jargon, but not necessarily every specific term. I enjoy seeing clash in the debate, flowing your arguments all the way through, and weighing arguments. I want to see the impacts and links within your arguments.

I do not mind passionate debaters, but please be respectful toward your opponents.

I do not like and don't understand progressive arguments.

For Speech Events:

I enjoy creativity in content and expression in delivery. I like movement and vocal expression.

For performance events my rankings are based mostly on the quality of the performance but also on how well your speech presented a full story.

For extempt and impromptu, I have a greater emphasis on organization and content than on delivery.

Jasmine Liu Paradigm

6 rounds

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

Mark Mabie Paradigm

6 rounds

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 5 years since then - close to a full-time job. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

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

I will ALWAYS TRY to disclose even if the tournament tells me not to. It is my ethical duty as a debate instructor and judge to give you the best feedback I can after the round and increase your education.

Judge preferences that must be met:

When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters must signpost every argument and every response (Parli). If you don’t tell me where to flow, I won’t write your argument. You also must 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” in round and you do not comply, there is a good chance you will lose. 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 debater’s 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

Kate McGarey-Vasey Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Meerson Paradigm

4 rounds

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

Nupur Mehrotra Paradigm

6 rounds

About me:

I am a Mom of 2 kids who both debate in "Congress" and "Public Forum/ Policy". So I am no stranger to arguments of all kinds within competition and outside of it. I mostly end up judging PuFo, so my paradigm is for that.

Judging style: Team

I like civility in the room. Be respectful and gain respect.

You don't need to change your style of speaking for me, I can follow fast speech, if I miss something, I do ask for cards mentioned.

Don't use too much technical stuff, if you do - explain it in short. Otherwise the argument will be lost on me.

I give a lot of weight to impacts and mostly award points based on that.

Do not bring in a controversial topic in the debate unless it is absolutely necessary (eg: terrorism, 9/11, etc)

I do take notes so don't try to pull fast ones, chances are I will catch it (Not all the time though)

I like off time roadmap. Helps me be organized.

Judging style: Individual Speaker:

I award points based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc, you will be marked down to the lowest.

Let your opponent complete their thought in cross before interrupting.


Do not try to shake hands.

If you need any clarity on paradigms, more than welcome to ask me before debate on a 1-1 basis or anyways.

David Mendoza Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Sherry Meng Paradigm

6 rounds

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.


General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you need to explain the logical reason behind your argument.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.


I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off a K that is not directly related to the topic. Education value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as its on topic per NSDA website for the tournament.

Jacob Mitchell Paradigm

4 rounds

You can keep track of your own times, but I will also be doing so. I expect you to be honest to your times and follow them very closely. You can speak quickly, but you have to enunciate. If there is anything I can't understand, I will judge as if it wasn't said. Other than that run a normal round.

Manush Mobarhan Paradigm

4 rounds

I did Public Forum for four years at Presentation High School, and I'm a first year student at the George Washington University studying International Affairs and Economics.


I'm a firm believer that what sets Public Forum apart from other debate events that it really is for the public. As such, you should be clear and understandable to anyone who would watch. I will unwillingly keep up with speed; however your speaker points will suffer.


I'm open to any and all types of arguments. In fact, I'm a big fan of nuanced or quirky arguments or interpretations of the topic as long as they are backed up with solid evidence. Framework can be useful but is not necessary. Do respond to your opponents' framework or else I will default to it.


Second rebuttal does not have to defend their case in addition to the opponents. Summary and final focus are for telling me what's the most important and collapsing onto it. At the end of the day, collapsing on the right arguments is what sets apart good debaters and excellent ones. Final focus should be consistent with summary, and I won't weigh arguments that are in one but not the other. Lastly, weighing: you aren't going to be able to win every single argument. You might think you are, but you're not. So tell me which arguments are the most important and why.


There is nothing I hate more than debaters who are shady with evidence. Misconstruing evidence ruins the purpose of having intellectual debate, and I will be very unwilling to vote for any team that does this. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence, ask me to call for the card at the end of the round. Furthermore, a personal pet peeve is teams that are stringy with their evidence. When opponents call for a card, give it to them promptly and allow them to read it as long as they need.

Other Points

-Crossfire was always my favorite part of debating, and I will highly rank debaters who can be both respectful and incisive during cross. That being said, I won't flow cross. If you are aggressive or rude to your opponent, I will drop your speaker points.

-I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

-I will really, really try my hardest to be tabula rasa. So if you tell me the sky is green, I will accept it until told otherwise.

Kam Moler Paradigm

3 rounds

I'm a newish judge. ASU in January 2018 was my first tournament. This is my 3rd. I'm a lay judge. Professionally, I'm a physics professor and researcher.

I'll try to flow and do my best to keep up, but I'm not an experienced flower, and if I can’t keep up with you enough to take adequate notes, I won’t be able evaluate your argument in making my decision. Keep the flow clear enough for me to judge on it -- help me out by clearly signposting your top-level arguments and rebuttals.

Tech or truth? I don't favor either extreme. If you drop a top-level argument, I'll give it to your opponents even if their top-level argument seems wrong or even silly. Otherwise I'll do my best to judge who won the point based on the importance of each point as well as the quality of the arguments made about it.

The above wouldn't apply to deeply offensive arguments but I really don't expect to see any of those.

I will base my speaker points on the clarity of your presentation as well as the quality of your arguments, because debates matter most when both sides and their observers can follow.

Any questions, ask me.

Austin Morgan Paradigm

4 rounds

-I'm fine with speed.

-I love K debates, but have no objections to good "traditional" debates.

-I'm always ready, your partner is always ready, and the audience is always ready.

-I default to net benefits/CBA/util absent a framework provided by the debaters.

-I will be familiar with the given topic literature. Moreover, I am highly familiar with K literature (basically every K).

-Don't talk over each other in cross-examination. Share cx time equally.

-I will vote you down if you're overtly discriminatory (ex. racist) in your arguments or your behavior in the round. In these instances, malicious intent is usually required, but not always.

-I'm fine with non-topical affirmatives and non-topical negatives.

-I'm fine with narratives, performances, etc.

-I will vote down arguments that are obviously morally problematic (genocide good, etc.).

-I'm open to arguments critiquing debate itself.

-I have a serious distaste for debaters who embrace this fashionable "bro-ey" style of delivery. This includes gratuitous use of the word "like" and the phrase "probably bad." Another example would be "yeah, so you affirm because of, like, Lacan." I think such behavior is more a sign of one's cultural capital in debate rather than a demonstration of effective argumentation.

-You need to give me the author, date, and related information *before* you read the evidence.

-I do not attach much weight to arguments making empirical claims in the absence of empirical evidence. In particular, I do not buy historical analyses that are not accompanied by evidence. You enter a debate round and then suddenly everyone's an expert--not with me in the back of the room.

-Peer-reviewed literature outweighs evidence from non-peer-reviewed sources absent a compelling reason why this shouldn't be the case (for example, arguments like "peer-reviewed articles are inaccessible to smaller debate programs" or "the knowledge production of the academy is ivory tower," etc.).

-I'm fine with cards that are about debate itself, unless they're written by your coach (have to punish bad debate practices).

-If you are incredibly clever in your approach to cross-examination, I'll reward you with high speaker points. My criteria for "clever" is anything that makes it tremendously obvious that your opponent does not know what they're talking about.

-I am entertained by references to Twin Peaks, Woody Allen Movies, "The Big Lebowski," as well as good imitations of Zizek. Such references won't give you any special benefits, but will entertain me.

Jake Morris Paradigm

Email: Yes, please put me on the e-mail chain

I am policy debater at Arizona State University and basically, if you are reading this, you are already more competent than I am at debating. Imagine if I was a toddler and you had to debate in front of a toddler. I am a toddler who does understand what debate is even though I have done this for 3 years. Just imagine it. That's how you have to win.

I have judged both LD and Policy before for Chandler High and DV.

-High School Policy: I will ask if you want me to disclose. If anyone says no, I won't

-I am fine with speed as long as you are clear on the important bits

-Make sure to clearly state reasons why you ought to win

-The Neg Block and the 2AR I believe are the two most vital parts of the debate. Make sure these parts are A1 (good)

I am not picky nor do I have that deep of preferences. I am not hard and I will typically give you the benefit of the doubt

Do good!

Karthik Nambiar Paradigm

Experience: I did PF for 2 years. I haven't judged that much, so keep that in mind.

I expect to hear all of the arguments clearly. I can only keep up at moderate speeds, so past that I can't evaluate your arguments.

I don't flow CX. Bring it up elsewhere if you want me to keep track of it.

Theory is fine only when absolutely needed. Kritiks are rarely needed. Don't use them.

Signpost so that I know exactly what you're talking about and discussing.

Off-time roadmaps can be helpful, but keep them brief.

Be nice to all participants. You don't have to be a jerk to counter their arguments.

Limit jargon.

Kendrick Nguyen Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

Scott Nielson Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Niemiec Paradigm

2 rounds

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Jeffrey Niemiec Paradigm

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Penny O'Brien Paradigm

4 rounds

 Conflicts: Park City


PF Debate

I vote off the flow 10/10 times

Good evidence is awesome

Be bold and take risks

Defense is overvalued

Weighing and offense are undervalued


Things that make me happy:

-       Great signposting

-       Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

-       Lots of evidence

-       Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.

-       Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

-       Jokes

-       Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.

Things that make me sad:

-       Improperly citing evidence

-       Miscutting/manipulating evidence

-       Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere. 


What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you. 

Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.



Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.


Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.

The K?

I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.



Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.

Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.  


Other technical things: 

-       I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR

-       If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad

-       I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please

-       I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)


Speaker Points:

Short version - good at debate = high speaks

                     - pretty speaker = entirely meaningless

Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:

30 – you should go to finals

29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks

29 - you should clear

28 – you might clear

27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.

26 - below average

25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent


Valielza O'Keefe Paradigm

6 rounds

My number one rule: if you're a douche, you lose.

If the round devolves into a yelling match or teams bullying each other, I will not be happy. You start mansplaining, using ad hominem, any of that, I don't care what your arguments are, because you don't deserve to break. Please be respectful and cordial to your opponents, regardless of the circumstances.

Now that the serious stuff is out of the way: I am a founding member of my team, NWCTA from Las Vegas, was PF captain for two years, and I qualified to Nationals (2017), ended with a ballot of 7-5 and competed in IntPF, Tournament of Champions (2017) Silver, and broke at ASU (2017).

Technical preferences:

1.) You won't lose me on the flow, but don't spread or I will like you less. This is PF, not policy.

2.) Make eye contact with me, not your opponents. This goes for giving speeches and cross-examination periods.

3.) Things said, whether they be additional cards or responses, during cross-examination do not affect the round. If you would like them to, reference them in one of your speeches. Cross-ex does not factor into my judging of the round, but I do use it to award speaker points. I will not flow cross-ex, but I will be listening.

4.) Because my political opinions are so strong, I judge tabula rasa (blank slate) to keep it as fair as possible. If you tell me something, I will take it as true unless it's blatantly false, racist/bigoted, etc. However, I will be well-read on the topic, and I will call out disputed cards or anything I find fishy after the round is over.

5.) If you speak well, I will award speaker points appropriately, but don't assume your speaking ability will carry the round. I will give the round to the quiet team with well-developed arguments over the loud, obnoxious team that insists on addressing me and insisting "Judge, sign your ballot right now because..." No. (Do not address me directly, that is one of my biggest pet peeves.)

6.) Summaries need to be used exclusively for weighing and impact calculus. Tell me how to weigh. If you leave the weighing up to me, you will not like the results.

7.) All points made in summary need to be extended into final focus. Whatever is not extended will be dropped.

8.) Roadmaps are great. Attempt to number your responses and move down the flow. Be concise with your words. I'll be listening; if you say something once, unless you're extending the point, you do not need to repeat yourself.

9.) Do not go over time for summaries and final focuses. 10 seconds is permissible for constructives and rebuttals.

Aha, I didn't intend for this to be so serious - but I hope this conveys that I will be judging your round with a lot of active engagement and consideration. Looking forward to seeing you in-round!

(If you can make a joke about anime that is relevant to your case, I will bump you up to 30 speaker points.)

Patricia Ong Paradigm

5 rounds

Background in IT and finance

I'm a parent judge for Fairmont Prep that's been judging for a year and a half on the circuit. I have a son that's been doing this for 2 years and I most likely have a small amount of knowledge about each topic.


Lay judge

I take notes but please speak slowly if you want me to get everything down.

No theory or kritiks

truth>tech; don't have crazy impacts like nuke war

Condense at the end of the round and make it clear what I'm voting for

Jennifer Partridge Paradigm

4 rounds

I have been judging speech events since September of 2017. I have judged almost every event, and am fairly familiar with the rules.

I would like the name of your piece beforehand, especially for impromptu and extemp. Note, this does not mean the prompt, but the actual name you give your speech. Puns are preferred, though not necessary (if you want to lose). If you are doing oratory, be sure that your piece does not contain too many quotes. I count every single word that comes out of your mouth, and I will know if you go over the 10% maximum. If you are doing interp, I hope that you have the source material with you, as this is a requirement according to the NSDA rules. I like to read along in order to ensure adherence to the source material. This goes double for duo. In informative, you will be marked down for every fact or statistic you say that I already know: you can't call it informative if you're not teaching me new things. Additionally, bonus points will be awarded if you use a chair as a "visual aid" because standing is difficult with the amount of sleep deprivation you undoubtedly have. In all events that I judge, an extra speaker point is awarded if someone shouts, "World star!" after a joke that I find funny, both to the shouter and the joke teller. Rapping automatically ensures 50 speaks, unless your flow is whack, dawg. That is not dank nor is it on fleek.

Speech is supposed to be a fun event. Make me laugh or make me feel something emotionally. Hopefully you can tell that I have a sense of humor. It goes without saying that the middle paragraph should be completely disregarded. Paradigms are mostly a debate thing, but high school students do tend to be paranoid. Anyway, that's my 20 cents. If you didn't understand that pun, you lose ten speaker points. I can always tell based on the look in your eyes ;)

P.S. It has come to my attention after I submitted this that I will be judging debate as well. Bring your own coins. I am broke. I expect that you will all be timing yourselves, though I do keep time as well (even if it is by counting out loud the entire time in the event that my phone dies). I pay attention to crossfire. My son has informed me that I do not flow formally, though I do take extensive notes of the arguments made throughout the round when I'm not doodling. I am aware that final focus is only permitted to extend things that were stated in summary. I'm not familiar with kritiques or theory shells, but go ahead and try them, especially if they mention Kanye West. I am more lay than tech, but less lay than most. If you find an excuse to engage in a rap battle to determine the victor of the round, you are not the first one I've seen (I wasn't the judge for that round, but I have heard the GLORIOUS stories). This remains to be my 20 cents, and even though debate is often less humorous, I expect the same understanding of my puns.

Erik Perez Paradigm

2 rounds

Updated (07/20/2020)

I dressed up as an e-boy for halloween. that is the kind of energy i bring to the table. What kind do you bring to the table?

look at my judging history if you are confused

im a ness main, im in law school, and i have two brain cells

i probably need paper. i can answer your questions about law school if you have any

check Christian Vasquez's paradigm from "the split" down if you want to "adapt" to me.

Nicholas Petsas Paradigm

3 rounds


  • State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
  • Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
  • Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college.
  • Presently, I am a government healthcare consulting informatics associate for Mercer and I coach my high school alma mater in PF.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

  • I would like for teams to have the ability to give their opponants evidence effortlessly. PF is in a time crisis where debates go longer than they should.
  • Back in the day (which wasn't that long ago FYI) we used expandos and could easily hand over evidence. you could easily just put the full shpeal on your computer in a file so if they ask for the "methodology" you can hand them over the full file.
  • why we live in a world where we dont do this is beyond me but since this is just a wish please move on to the next portion which actually matters for your debate:

What I expect/prefer:

  • In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is recieved.
  • The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something completely unrelated to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponents arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
  • As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
  • I do not flow CX. that is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponants and seek out contradictions in their line of arguementation. If you give a speech the whole time then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
  • I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important arguement comes down to economic impacts and their opponants most important arguement is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
  • I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguements then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
  • If you speak pretty you will get more speaker points and that is literally it. In good debates I do not even get a chance to look up at the debaters.
  • Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow or grouping arguements.
  • If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" at the end when your opponents havent attacked it yet then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
  • I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

Stephen Pettit Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Les Phillips Paradigm

3 rounds


I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary. Ask me questions!


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

I do not demand that the second speaking rebuttal or any summary speech do anything in particular. If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I also expect debaters to be able to state/defend the qualifications of every single piece of evidence they use. Though it is not the explicit NSDA standard, I believe that quals should be read out loud. I will bristle and/or throw my pen if I hear "according to Princeton." Evidence standards in PF are improving, but they are still not good. You will not get good points if you do not meet these standards.

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


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

Nathan Quarton Paradigm

2 rounds

2x TOC qualifier in PF


Emaad Raghib Paradigm

4 rounds

Check out my partner Suraj's paradigm:

Anand Rajavelu Paradigm

2 rounds

I am in tech management and I enjoy debate judging after both my children took avid interest in PF in their high school years.

What I like is a healthy clash between the teams while maintaining respect for each other:

- I will look for a clear case advocating a position with succinct arguments and credible data to bolster the position. If you pique my interest in your constructive speeches with well structured contentions it helps me stay more glued

- Be clear in your delivery and use inflection as needed. Remember, it's not the volume of words you deliver in a minute but the quality and articulation which will have a greater impact.

- While I can follow fast speakers, I may not be able to flow if you are too fast and that might not help you

- I consider arguments that are realistic and could actually happen stronger than hypothetical ones. Extrapolation is fine as long as there is sound data or precedence to back it up

- Refutations or responses will need to address the full length of the argument. Don't make partial attempts as that leaves the argument standing

- Winning formula - If you have one killer argument remaining which had plenty of data that outweighed all the refutations


Brenna Ram Paradigm

4 years of policy debate at St. Francis HS, fourth year policy debater at ASU. I coach for DV. I do not flow straight down. I will probably vote on your dirty tech tricks if you win that I should vote on them.

If someone wins that I should be a policymaker or look at offense/defense I'll evaluate the debate accordingly. I CAN be persuaded that there is zero risk of something. I'll vote for anything if you win that's what I should vote on.

I STRONGLY hold the line on new 1ar/2nr/2ar arguments; I will confidently default to not evaluating a new rebuttal argument.

Historical analysis and demonstrably deep/nuanced knowledge of your argument is very, very persuasive for me.

I'm much better for straight-up policy debates than you think I am.

k stuff I'm particularly familiar with: triple o, foucault, queer theory, postcoloniality & decoloniality, hillman, berlant, Nietzsche, lacan, fanon

I will buy your internal link turns to framework if that's the best way your aff interacts with the topic - you don't HAVE to impact turn framework if you don't want to.

This is a thing now I guess: if a question is asked in cx but there’s not enough time to answer, you can ask the cx-ing team if they’d like to use their own prep time to answer it. Do it fast. Then that’s it. I have gotten bored and am not listening anymore. Example: the 1A shouldn’t continue cxing the 1N during the entire span of 2AC prep, but the 1N CAN say "would you like to use your prep for me to answer the question" if the question was asked before the timer went off.

Don't say things are postmodern when they're not postmodern. pet peeve. "Postmodern" does not mean "confusing."

Also I hate when people say stuff like "no perm bc it's a method debate" or "fiat solves the link" or "perm shields the link to midterms" with no explanation. That's not an argument. I'm not writing it down.

The perm doesn't need a net benefit to win the debate because it's a test of competition. It doesn't even need a card explaining why it's possible (although having one doesn't hurt).

You can get my vote on "neg gets one unconditional option."

I only say "clear" twice (per person).

Colin Redman Paradigm


I debated policy 4 years in high school along with a brief stint with LD in my senior year, and I'm in my fourth year of college debate at ASU. For whatever reasons I've ended up judging LD more than policy, so I'm pretty comfortable with either event.

For Policy:

Sorry, but because I haven't been involved in highschool policy debate much this year, you shouldn't expect me to have as much specific knowledge background on the topic as you do. Basically, don't expect me to go into the round knowing topic specific acronyms, but I should catch on quickly enough. On some specific args:

K is fine on the aff or neg. I'll vote for substantive framework arguments, but I generally won't find procedurals very persuasive.

I'll evaluate theory like other arguments, and I'm willing to vote for theory if you've given me a reason to.

For LD:

I am OK with either traditional or progressive LD, although outside of solid abuse I tend to lean progressive in theory debates. Ks, speed, DAs and so on should all be fine.

Overall in any event I just want you to run what you want to run and are comfortable with.

Tina Ren Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

Victor Rivas Umana Paradigm

6 rounds

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate)

. Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since. I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if youre going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.
Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at

For all debaters:
clarity: anunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Andrew Roberts Paradigm

2 rounds

I'm a new judge to official Debate, so a lot of my paradigm is based on that. I'm not new to judging arguments, however; you will be judged based on how well you support your argument and refute the opposing argument with evidence from strong, reliable sources.

Preferred Rate of Delivery:

I don't like spreading; if you're talking faster than I can understand, I can't/won't write down your argument. That being said, you don't need to be conversational, and speaking rather quickly is fine, just keep it reasonable.

How do you decide the winner of the round?

I choose the winner of the key arguments, emphasizing the use of analytical and empirical evidence and weighing the theoretical impacts based on said empirical evidence. You don't need a framework, but they help; if one team has a more convincing, empirically-based framework, they will likely be able to show greater impacts.

Other Notes:

It's important that you signpost your rebuttal -- indicate exactly what contention/sub-point you're referencing.

Always cite your sources, obviously.

Avoid excessive use of jargon: make sure it has a clear purpose, or you risk being misunderstood by me. (new judge)

General advice to competitors:

Explain to me why I should vote for you -- you must weigh/compare impacts, not just present your own. Give me clear, reasonable, key-voting issues in summary, and explain why you win those arguments. If you convince me of a way to decide who wins, you have much more control over how the outcome.

If your opponent says something important to your argument in cross, bring it up in a subsequent speech, since my notes will not be as detailed for cross.

Similarly, if you call for a card, mention it in a later speech.

Refute the opposing team's claims, you can't win an argument if you don't address the opposing side.

Make sure your cards are organized and easily accessible.

I can't stress enough that I must be able to understand your argument in order to judge it: do not spread, do not excessively use jargon I might not understand.

Brett Rydalch Paradigm

6 rounds

“This forum, like all public forums, is a waste of time”

- Ron Swanson (JK, I just love Ron.)

Public Forum:


- Read good evidence and make sure I can understand the card citation. Its not real if I can't hear where its from.

- Defense is overvalued

- Weighing, indights and offense are undervalued

Things I enjoy seeing in round:

- Signposting

- Turns > Link debates

- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

- Lots of evidence

- Risky/Off-the-wall arguments… as long as they still make sense.

- Well-weighed arguments extended through the Final Focus, even if that means you’re kicking out of others. Write my ballot for me. Some of the best teams I’ve seen lose and/or drop every argument but one, and still win the round.

- Use Cross well. Make it constructive. Being funny and/or sassy never hurts, either.

- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

- Give me clear voters. Tell me why I should vote for you in your Summary/FF.

Things I DO NOT like:

- Improperly citing evidence.

- People that lie in the 2nd FF

- Off-time roadmaps. The only time to give one is if I need a new piece of flow-paper because you’re going off-case, or if you’re doing something otherwise out of the ordinary.

- Miscutting/manipulating evidence

- When you say an author and I can't understand. Don't be like..."Blah, 17 says..."

- Using rhetoric claims about discrimination and abuse or anything. Be careful about making blatant statements about these topics that could across as offensive.

- I pretty much hate framework. Most PF teams provide a framework and then really don't work within it or it becomes a framework debate. I DO NOT, REALLY DON'T, LIKE SERIOUSLY HATE a 45 min debate on framework and the case does not adhere to the framework you present. all run C/B Analysis for 99% of everything and most of you don't understand anything about economics or actually present a valid C/B Analysis then just don't waste our time. Let's just agree that the flow is king and you need to prove stuff. Lets just agree there is one framework..Impact Calc...I will weigh who has the better impacts. Enough said.

Don’t do these things in front of me.

Speed: I like speed up to like 325 wpm. If you go really really slowly I might get bored and start drawing pictures of butterflies and flowers on my flow, so speed is prob in your best interest. Slow down on tags and authors if you’re really fast.

Other technical things:

- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both Summary and FF.

- I don’t flow crossex, but you should refer to things that happened in cross in your next speech. I don't care how you do it or even if you do it. Please don't try to be sneaky and assume you can stare at me during cross and think you can get another speech in. Naw, I'm good and don't care what you have to say. I will probably be on my phone, computer or watching Netflix or something.


I coach PF.

I life PF.

I work with NSDA in PF.

PF is good.

Scott Schuerman Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

Aashney Shah Paradigm

4 rounds

I'm not really good at putting this into words so if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.

I competed in Public Forum nationally and locally (AZ) all four years of high school, and dabbled in Extemp and Congress.

Speeches: In rebuttal, it is really easy to try to talk fast and have 7-10 responses per argument, but most of the time that means that each response is barely covered and there is a high chance that one response has been reiterated a few times, just with different words/cards. Please don't do that, I would much prefer quality of your responses to quantity of your responses. I expect that you maintain consistency between summary and final focus. If they are not consistent I will not weigh something said in summary and not FF and vice versa. However, just telling me to 'flow through ____ card' is not sufficient, I must get the link chain, and explanation of why that card is important. Also, WEIGH, I am sure that if you don't, and I end up doing the work, neither of us will have a fun time with the decision. Make sure that you collapse in summary and final focus, this makes it easier to judge the round and it makes everything much clearer. Also, make sure that your narrative is strong. Remember, you should tell me a story, don't just read cards and expect me to understand your argument, make sure that I understand step by step why your argument functions and makes sense.

Evidence: If you read something in any speech, it should be readily available and so if the opposing team asks for it, I will give you 30 seconds to look for it before I start cutting into your prep time. Also, please abide by evidence rules. I will ask for evidence if hotly contested or if its validity is questioned.

How to win my ballot: Basically, do all the things you were taught to do: Link out and warrant each argument you are going for, make sure you have offense, and most importantly, tell me why you win and why I vote for you.


- Please try to respond to every argument brought up in constructives, otherwise it allows for easy offense for your opponents.

- Don't flow through red ink, I will be flowing and I will know if the argument has been responded to.

- I won't listen to CX wholly, bring it up in a speech if its mentioned in CX

- Only use FW/Observations/Definitions if they really are beneficial to your case/the round. If it is just "cost-benefit analysis" or "Merriam-Webster defines ___" it just takes away from the substance of your case.

- Run whatever arguments you want but just make sure that the link chain is clear, and everything is properly warranted and linked.

- Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, etc. Just be a nice person, its easy.

- Signposting is nice, please do it.

I also have two huge pet peeves:

1) Please please please do NOT give me an off time roadmap if it is "down their case, then if time permits mine" or "the three voting issues". Only give me a roadmap if it is something completely out of the ordinary that I should know.

2) Do not count down the time to your speech "3, 2, starting... now". Just start talking, I trust you to take time for yourself.

I really am bad at saying what I look for in a round so if you have any specific questions don't hesitate to ask!

Roman Shemakov Paradigm

4 rounds

I did PF and LD for three years in high school. I'm fine with everything; ask for specifics in the round.

Jing Shi Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Kaylee Silber Paradigm

A bit about me: I am a college freshman at ASU and I compete in policy debate and I have been competing in policy debate for about 3 or 4 years in high school and was a part of the Sacramento Urban Debate League. I ran/run performance k affs and kritques. But don't let that discourage you.

I will vote for any argument as long as you articulate: a. how it functions in the debate b. analysis and more than mere shadow extensions and c. why I should vote for it.

Overall, I want y'all to have fun and enjoy yourselves in round. With that do not be offensive or excessively rude to one another or your partner.

Amanda Sloan Paradigm

6 rounds

I believe that speech and debate serves as a way to learn effective communication skills in addition to argumentation and research skills. If you are talking so fast that communication is lost then you have done the event a disservice. If I can’t hear it I can’t flow it. Just having more evidence doesn’t mean that you have won the round. Impact analysis is imperative to any case.

Being professional in the round will earn you higher speaking points. Yelling or being disrespectful will result in low speaks.

LD: I am okay with K's and counterplans.

Please make sure that all you have evidence you use in the round. If your opponent asks for it please provide it promptly. I will only ask to see it if there is an issue raised.

Braxton Smith Paradigm

2 rounds

No speed and no jargon. Your arguments should be clearly impacted and I will vote on the most convincing argument.

Raj Soni Paradigm

2 rounds

I never did Debate in high school, but this will be my 7th year of judging public forum. I have judged at Nationals and some national circuit tournaments. However, I still like to be treated like a lay judge, even when I take a lot of notes. That means clearly signposting all arguments that you want to be considered and concisely weighing them during summary and final focus. If I don't understand the argument or how a response is actually responsive, I can't consider it. Additionally, I don't like arguments that are clearly absurd. That seems vague, but if your evidence says what you say it says then your argument should make logical sense to me. I will consider them if no adequate response is made, but my bar for level of response is lower for those types of arguments. Finally, I'm not very familiar with any theory or rule violation type arguments, so keep that in mind. I am open to them, but you will need to explain them extremely well.

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

James Stage Paradigm

4 rounds


Former Competitor: 2008 - 2011

Coach - 2011 - Present

Speed - Go for it, I am not the best with speed but if you go for it, it isn't going to lose you points. I won't say clear or give you any indication that I am missing things though so you are taking a slight risk.

Weighing - Do it. Seriously, If I am given any clear weighing analysis in the round I will go for it. My resume and background reads like a moderate Republican's fantasy. You probably don't want me making personal decisions about how I think we should craft policy or evaluate vague concepts.

Signposting - Clearly tell me where you are going in the round. If I get confused I get disinterested and if I get disinterested I get onto Netflix and watch West Wing with the subtitles on.

Off-time Roadmaps - Do them. If you say you are going to read an overview or a framework, tell me where to put it or I will put in in my computer's trash file and empty it after your speech.

Crossfire - I might look like I am not paying attention to your crossfires. That's because I am not. Thats for you to clarify the round and for me to add detailed comments to the ballot. If something interesting happens, let me know in a speech. If you are going to start hitting someone, let me know and I will get out a camera.

Extending Defense - Meh. You don't really have to do this in my opinion but obviously if your opponents go through ink you might want to remind me of that fact, especially if it is on something you really want me to care about.

Weighing Pt.2 - Please do this. I am begging you.


If I had a PF team that had the capacity to come this wouldn't be necessary but, for now, here we are. Doomed to dance this dance until my obligation of a minimum of three ballots are up and I have left your hopes and dreams broken at my feet.

Let's start this off on the right note. I know enough about LD and all of its components to be dangerous. In clearer terms, when you tell me what you are going to try to do I will conceptually understand what you are going for but I will lack the experience or wherewithal to implement your vision on my flow. See? Dangerous.

Don't take this to mean I don't care about the event or that I don't look forward to these rounds. Do take it to mean that if you are planning on taking any risks or doing anything tricky, that your opponent stands to benefit from my ignorance as much as you.

Speed (Preface): Good luck. Seriously, good luck. Speed is an excellent tool to put more arguments out there on the flow but maybe we want to make sure I understand the basic ones you are dropping first? Just a suggestion. And no, I won't do that "Clear" business. Adapt or die. This is forensic darwinism.

Technical Debate: Solid meh. You can. I won't drop you for it and I get that the adaptations I am asking for will mean that you need to adjust in ways that will force you to use it.

Defaults: Let's return to that dangerous thing. I don't really have any default preferences that I have developed over my lackluster experience judging. You can read my paradigm below for PF to see if you glean any information from that but otherwise, I am tabula rasa to a fault and will stick to what I am given in the round despite any personal beliefs or pre-existing knowledge.

Disclosure: Unless you are disclosing who wins the round before I need to judge it, it's not something I really care about. I buy why disclosure is a good thing and I also get how it can be abused given enough resources. If it becomes an issue I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round and not the ones in my head.

I hope this helps although it undoubtedly will leave you in a state of fear akin to the people of Pompeii as the ash cloud descended on their once-idyllic town.

For email chains my email is

Emily Su Paradigm

6 rounds

I did PF for 3 years, and dabbled briefly in Policy (it was rough lol). I graduated from ASU this past December with degrees in Economics and Justice Studies, and I'll be going to law school this fall.

I value evidence and warrants a LOT. I usually won't call for cards unless it was pretty heavily contested during the round, but pls don't use evidence that's sus-- if I notice that your card is clipped or contradicts your contentions, that'll still count against you. Pls download the entire card because it's important for context! That being said, what matters is not always the quantity of cards, but rather the quality and how you explain them and impact them out. Don't just tell me that x causes y-- tell me why there's a causal relationship. Warrants are how you show that you actually understand your argument. And even if an arg doesn't have a ton of evidence backing it up, you should still answer the logic of the contention. Also, I care a lot about impact calc; if you don't weigh things for me, I'll have to weigh them myself and that might not be in your favor. Tell me how to vote!

I care a lot about consistency, so if you wanna go for something in your FF, flow it through in your summary.

As for crossfire, I probably won't pay much attention... I don't flow cross, so reiterate any important points in later speeches. I don't really care whether y'all stand or sit, whichever's more comfortable for everyone!

Roadmaps are pretty useless for rebuttals unless you're doing something weird, like answering the third contention at the top of the flow. Signposting is really important in all your speeches, though, so I know where to place things on my flow. For summary and final focus, roadmaps can be helpful if you specify your key voters, or if you're gonna read an overview. But if you're just saying something like "I'm addressing my opponents' case, then extending my own," or "I'm gonna go through some key voters and why we won," it's fairly pointless.

Speed is fine, as long as you're clear and enunciate your tags and key pieces of evidence/impacts that you really want me to pay attention to. I'll let you know if you're going too fast, and pls don't spread! Also, pls keep your K's and high-level theory away from PF. I won't run prep while you're looking for evidence that your opponents wanna look at, but I'll start prep once you begin looking over that evidence.

If I hear an arg that's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., I'll automatically drop that argument and tank your speaks. I'll do my best to judge tabula rasa, but I value truth over tech.

Bonus speaks if you say "crystallize," have funny tags, or make a pun during the round!

Maurice Tafolla-Cunningham Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Fargo Tbakhi Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Thompson Paradigm

6 rounds


I'm a fairly traditional current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I love framework debates when debaters really weigh values and connect their contentions to their value and criterion. As a whole I'm not a huge fan of kritiks or counterplans in LD, but if you can explain it clearly and convincingly, you could definitely still win a round running such a case with me as judge. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. LD is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.


I'm a fairly traditional former PF debater and current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I appreciate framework debates (whether practical or more LD in nature) and on case arguments, but I am not a fan of counterplans/topicalities/squirrely PF cases. I'd prefer if debaters debated about the topic rather than about the game of PF itself. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. PF is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.

Abbey Toye Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Tristano Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

Chetty Venkateswari Paradigm

3 rounds

Not Submitted

Caleb Vinson Paradigm

if it's boring I vote down both teams. Jokes. 

I am equipped with no sense of humor. I was born with no sense of humor and never developed one. 

High thresholds on most things so either win most arguments or the most important arguments. Jokes. Tech before truth unless the tech is like... dumb. But anywho: I debate for ASU and I can defs deal with whatever you nice folks decide to run (: so make it fun for me and yourselves! 

Framework is for the elites. You know who you are. But I'll vote on it.


Zhengdong Wang Paradigm

6 rounds

Background: I'm a junior and debate for Yale. In high school I did PF four years, CX one tournament.

These are the meaningful places my paradigm differs from many other paradigms. I have other preferences. Don't worry about those because most people don't violate them and at worst they're minor annoyances that won't change my decision. You can ask about them if you want.

1) Limit debate jargon. I think too slowly to figure out if your defense is terminal or if your turn is actually a turn immediately as you speak. Explain why your words accurately apply to your argument. Otherwise, I'll probably miss the next thing you say because I'm too busy determining if your jargon is consistent with your argument.

2) Reading evidence doesn't count as prep. This means: finding evidence, using eyes to look at the laptop/paper your opponents give you – not prep. Writing things down, talking to your partner concurrently with aforementioned activities – prep. On panels, I defer to the strictest timing paradigm.

3) I intervene liberally on misconstrued evidence. Yes, even if your opponents didn't call you out on it. Judge intervention is pretty terrible, but so is taking advantage of short PF speech and prep times to pass off bad evidence. If you tell me to call for a piece of evidence, I will.

4) I try only halfheartedly to be tabula rasa. This is a big one. I'll vote on any topical, well-warranted, impacted argument. But if you want me to feel really happy, avoid gimmicky/marginal/gotcha arguments. Take on large clash and big burdens. Run things that matter. Find the heart of the issue.

Questions after the round to Please don't argue with me thanks.

Michael Wang Paradigm

6 rounds

Not Submitted

Chase Williams Paradigm

2 rounds


Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Institute for Speech and Debate. Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online TOC 2020

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. The Online TOC schedule is based on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am. is the best email for the evidence email chain.


You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate.

I won't vote for theory. Don't try it - it has no place in PF. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, I'll listen - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my belief first - or striking me.

Melisa Wilson Paradigm

6 rounds

Hi – Cara Wilson of Westridge here writing her mom’s paradigm. She has been judging for 5 years now, and is a good note taker. That being said, she is by no means a flow judge but she will notice if you bring up new points in final or blatantly lie. She likes interactive frontlines, so not just extending your own point over and over again – don’t be two ships passing in the night. She likes it when you weigh impacts clearly. Please be nice to one another she hates aggression and debaters being disrespected. Please, please, please if you want any chance at picking up her ballot speak slowly. You can still do your fancy jargon – she knows that turn and nonunique means, but she just needs time to write it all down. I’m trying to teach her to flow y’all, don’t just assume she doesn’t know anything. In one sentence: be nice, be clear, be interactive/comparative, be persuasive, and be slow.

Have a good round y’all.

Nicole Woodruff Paradigm

2 rounds

Experience: I have 4 years of experience in high school policy debate at CK McClatchy (2009-2013), and a semester of policy at Arizona State University (2013). I have coached policy debate at Chandler Preparatory Academy (Spring 2014-Fall 2018) and was the head coach at BASIS Chandler (since Spring 2017-Fall 2019).

In general I try to remain as open as possible regarding what arguments I will evaluate, and am willing to listen to any argument provided that I am given a reason why it should affect my decision. Make sure to tell me how I should be evaluating arguments, how to characterize arguments, and how to weigh arguments. The more freedom I am given to make decisions in how to deal with those issues, the more likely I am to make decisions that hurt your position in the round.

Please ask me if there is anything more specific that you would like to know that is not included in this paradigm. I try to keep it short because I believe that the point of the debate round is to establish for me how I should be evaluating the round, and writing down my every opinion on debate theory doesn't seem productive for allowing you to debate the way you want when I try to avoid those opinions being the basis for my decisions.


phone: (916)704-4931

Michael Wornow Paradigm

6 rounds

Did PuFo for 3 years and Policy for 1.

If you ask for a card, your prep time starts when you get that card from your opponents.

If you flow in Crayon or in markers on the whiteboard in the class room, automatic 30s.

No K’s.

I will call for cards.*

Extend card names AND warrants, i.e. don't just say "extend CNN 18", explain what the card says.

Don't drop arguments.

No spreading or thinking your spreading when you're just mumbling.

If your tagline is a well-known song lyric or rhymes, plus points. Also plus points for iambic pentameter**

I won't flow every question/answer of cross examination, so if your opponent admits something you need to bring it up in a speech to have it impact the round.

If your impact is lives then you need to cry, otherwise I assume you don't actually care.

I am not a parent, but on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most experienced judge, I would rate myself a strong 2.

You can do anything while delivering your speech -- sitting while speaking, standing while speaking, speaking quickly, quickly speaking, sitting while standing, standing while sitting, sitting quickly, quickly sitting, and standing while standing.

* If the total number of characters in the card is a prime number and every character is a different shade of red and every sentence is a different font, I will buy it.

** In order for this to count, you need to slap the table rhythmically while speaking so I know. Also mark the rhythm on the card itself.

Note: Some of this is obv a joke, but some of it isn't.

Jinnie Xie Paradigm

6 rounds

I debated for Hamilton High School (AZ) for two years in Varsity Public Forum in the local and national circuit and am now a senior at Emory University studying Neuroscience.

TLDR: Speed is fine but be clear, Warrants and Impacts are important so please extend them, Know your evidence and have your full cards ready, Don't be rude


I’m fine with speed as long as you are clear and audible and enunciate. Please do not spread. If I don’t understand what you’re saying, I can’t flow it. Quality over quantity. HOWEVER, if you do choose to speak quickly, please go down the flow line by line or signpost. Even if you give an overview, signpost or else I'll get lost. If you're going to read your case quickly, slow down or pause before and after giving me taglines. Keep in mind that I am not a machine and can only flow so quickly and take in information so quickly.


My decision is mostly based on what is said in the final focus. If you’re going for something in the final focus, you absolutely need to flow it through in your summary EXCEPT for defense from rebuttal. When extending impacts/responses/cards, you need to extend at least one warrant with it or else it's not going on my flow. Do not extend through ink.

I strongly believe that crossfire is useless. I won't pay attention. On the off chance that something important happens during cross, bring it up in later speeches.

I tend to focus a lot on evidence. If I end up calling for a card at the end of the round and I see that you've clipped it to help your side and your opponents didn't call you out on it, I'm still going to use the evidence against you. So, it's in your best interest to not to use sketchy cards; make sure you know what your evidence actually says. PLEASE DOWNLOAD FULL CARDS. I also want to see solid warrants. Explain your arguments and why impacts happen and why they matter. PLEASE WEIGH AT THE END OF THE ROUND and tell me what I'm voting for.

Some other things:

  • I am by no means really good at or extremely informed in the history, polisci, or economics department, and possibly current events. This means that any background information that I need to know in order to understand your arguments needs to be addressed either in your case or at some point in the first half of the round. This is something that I think debaters should do anyway, but I find that it is not the case for most. For example, if the topic revolves around some conflict going on in the Middle East, I need some explanation of how this conflict came about and what the current issues surrounding this conflict are, especially if this information is necessary in order to understand your arguments (which it probably is). Otherwise, I might have absolutely no idea what's going on and may vote for the wrong team. With that being said, feel free to ask me about my familiarity with the topic/subject before the round. You can also assume that I know more of the topic the later the round is in a tournament.
  • I do not judge tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean I will develop your arguments for you. If there is something very wrong/flawed about your argument, I probably won't give it to you even if the other team doesn't call you out on it.
  • I would probably describe myself as a 85% flow judge 15% lay judge. If the round is between 2 very strong teams (i.e. multiple bids) and/or it is a late outround at a national tournament, treat me like a 50% flow 50% lay judge in the 2nd half of the round because my RFD at that point will probably be "you were more convincing" or "your side makes more sense to me."
  • I really like it when teams number their responses in rebuttal or their impacts in case. Good organization makes my job easier.
  • Analogies are cool.
  • Strong frameworks are cool.
  • Please don't assume I know what your acronyms stand for because I probably don't.
  • Please keep things like counterplans and Ks away from PF. I will look at disads, tho I prefer more traditional arguments.
  • I'm pretty lenient with speaker points. Expect 28-30s from me unless you were incoherent, rude, or gave rough speeches.
  • Most importantly, please be respectful; there is a fine line between being aggressive and being condescending/rude. Be aware of what you're saying and how you're saying it, and be aware of your actions regardless if you're speaking or not.

Bonus points if you incorporate puns, song lyrics, or the words “duty” and "lugubrious" in your speeches or get creative with fun/nontraditional taglines :)

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

George Yang Paradigm

4 rounds

Not Submitted

Zia Yavari Paradigm

2 rounds

Not Submitted

jackie prokopeas Paradigm

3 rounds

I debated PF for 4 years at Southlake Carroll on the national circuit. While I am a "flow judge" and can handle speed, I would discourage you from spreading if it sacrifices your clarity.

Couple things to consider when having me as a judge:

1. All arguments that you want me to evaluate in the round should be in summary and final focus, although I'm okay with first speaking teams extending defense from summary to FF.

2. Collapsing is crucial. Pick and choose which arguments you want to go for; PLEASE do not go for everything in your case. The ability to collapse on 1 or 2 arguments will automatically boost your speaks for me.

3. This goes hand in hand with collapsing: please weigh your arguments. Collapsing allows you more time in your final 2 speeches to tell me why I should prefer your arguments over those of your opponents. If you don't, I'll unfortunately be forced to do it myself which may or may not work out the way you would like.

Overall the key to winning my ballot is making the round as EASY AS POSSIBLE for me to evaluate and honestly just make more sense than your opponents. The best way to do this for me is with a clear and consistent narrative given to me throughout the round. I will always weigh a long, well warranted, analytical response more heavily over a card dump.

anjalee sadhwani Paradigm

I’m Anjalee, I’m a freshman at ASU majoring in Microbiology with a minor in Justice Studies. I have previously competed in Policy, Duo Interp, Duo Acting, Oratory, and Poetry.

Flowing is important; if you flow, I flow.

Coherent arguments, go with the flow (literally)

I’m comfortable with spreading, and any kritiks you wish to run.

Be respectful of each other in and out of the debate space.