Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament

2018 — Northbrook and Glenview, IL/US

Fernando Arias Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated PF in high school and currently debate and coach parliamentary debate with the Speech and Debate Team at the University of Illinois.

General Notes

I am a flow judge who appreciates clash. I am definitely tech over truth and will evaluate any argument so long as it's fully flushed out and warranted (although truth is nice to have on your side). Please make sure to weigh and compare impacts within the debate so you don’t force me to intervene.

I’m fine with speed. I will shout “clear” if I’m not keeping up.

Anything you expect me to vote on needs to get extended through to the end of the debate.

I’m fine with roadmaps being off-time and would like them to be detailed.

I tend to like…

· Contentions that have clearly articulated link stories and impacts

· Impact calculus

· Systemic/environmental impacts

· Proven abuse on T

· Final focuses that explain “Why we win if we win what we win,” not just a list of voters that don’t necessarily interact with the big picture of the debate

I don’t like…

· Card calling - Be smart about it. Most of the time it doesn't matter and just slows down the debate. Arguing your cards are better because they’re X amount of time more recent is usually not helpful either. I will evaluate your argument, but I prefer debaters to engage on substance.

· Fiating extra-topical planks/contention

You will lose if…

· Any intentional “isms”, or accidental ones not corrected by apologizing

· Not accommodating me or your opponents we say “slow” or “clear”

Speaker Points

30: You’re the best speaker I expect to see at the tournament

28.5 to 29.5: I expect you to break at this tournament

27 to 28: Somewhat unclear, minor mistakes

26-26.5: Very unclear, major mistakes

Below 26: Lots of major mistakes or you did/said something offensive

I will drop your speaker points if you are rude to your opponent or hog crossfire without giving your opponent a chance to ask a question.

Katrina Burlet Paradigm

6 rounds

I have been competing in/coaching different formats of debate for the last six years.



When it comes to Public Forum, simply because of the way it is set up, I find that teams often fail to weigh and frame the round. Because these things are not clearly built into Public Forum the way they are in other formats, there are many rounds I feel I need to intervene in and make decisions about which arguments are most important in the round. So the best way to win my ballot is to tell me WHY your arguments should be more highly valued in the round. If it's because your framework should lead me to believe that, why should I prefer your framework? If it's because the impacts are immediate, why should I prefer short term impacts? etc.

If you're already at a point where you do that consistently, the things I prefer and look for in a round are: sincere respect for all people in the room, strength of argumentation, and creative arguments. In my mind, it is unfortunate that PF has excluded Ks, Ts, and Counter-plans as forms of argumentation acceptable within the format. I love hearing wacky arguments. If you have an argument that is way out of left field, that is super far left or dangerously far right hidden in your arsenal, please run it in front of me.


Of course, getting to the point of needing to weigh the value of different impacts, or playing into my preference of being entertained by creative argumentation, first requires that both teams successfully presented and defended a case clearly and still have substantial impacts standing at the end of the round. If you are not at a point where your argumentation/refutation skills consistently bring you to the end of a debate with your impacts still standing, here is what you should focus on in front of me:

I am a firm believer that debate is about growth and learning. You will not lose points in front of me for taking a break to think in the middle of your speech. You will lose points for not using all of your time. If you have completed everything you plan to say, never concede the remainder of your time. Stand up there and think. Is there anything else you can say that would help you and your partner win the round? If you run out your time still thinking, that's fine. High school debate is a time to stretch yourself - always try to make more arguments.

It also seems to me that the biggest thing most inexperienced teams need to learn is how to explain how their argumentation or refutation effects the round as a whole. Don't just make an argument and pretend like it exists in a vacuum. Tell me how your refutation ultimately changes the world that your opponents presented to me. What effect does your refutation have on the impacts that your opponents claim?

John Compton Paradigm

7 rounds

*Updated for GBX LD*

I’ve competed at the University of Illinois for three years in NPDA and NFA-LD. Tl;dr I try to be as flow as possible. If you tell me the sky is green, I’ll take that as true. I’m not familiar with what’s being run on this resolution so if there’s any jargon or specific knowledge just make sure you explain it well. Above all debate’s supposed to be fun, so try to have fun with it, if you go for a crazy strategy I’ll probably enjoy it too. Don’t be unnecessarily combative. Extend your arguments all the way through, clash with your opponents, just give me clear reasoning why I should vote for you over your opponent and we should have a good round. Now into specifics.

Stock issues:

I’ve always been a fan of clean case+DA debate. And theoretically if case does not adhere to stock issues that is a reason for me not to vote for the affirmative. Please do impact calc, don’t just leave me as the judge to vote on which impact I think is more important at the end of the round.


Make sure you can articulate well why your CP is competitive. If your perm severs or is intrinsic I probably won’t vote on it. I’m generally not a huge fan of delay CPs and PICs but you need to prove the in round abuse to me in the theory arguement. At the end of the day just give me a world by world analysis and demonstrate the net benefit to me.

Theory/T Debates:

I really like theory debates, but you need to link it in round and show proven abuse otherwise I’ll probably grant some leeway if you tell me to extend reasonability. By this I mean I’m not a fan of super frivolous shells like disclosure theory or aspec. Basically if you just run the same generic shell without demonstrating proven or strong potential in round abuse, it’s probably won’t meet my threshold to vote on it unless it’s like clean dropped. I also generally won’t vote on RVIs. The negative shouldn’t be able to lose for making the claim that the affirmative’s definition is unfair.


K’s really aren’t my favorite. I’ve run them, I’ve answered them, generally my problem is that high level philosophy can be very difficult to understand. If you’re going to run it, make sure you can explain it as if you were talking to an average person on the street.

Value Criterion:

I didn’t do LD in high school and collegiate LD is much more policy based. Just make sure I can have it cleanly on my flow what the role of the ballot should be, if it’s vote for the team that best upholds this value or prefer our value criterion over their value criterion. Essentially just give me something to weigh and reasons to prefer and I should be able to follow along.

Speaker Points:

I generally work off this scale. But if you’re rude to your opponents or trying to spread them out of round

30: You’re the best speaker I expect to see at the tournament

28.5 to 29.5: I expect you to break at this tournament

27 to 28: Somewhat unclear, minor mistakes

26-26.5: Very unclear, major mistakes

Below 26: Lots of major mistakes or you did/said something offensive

Otherwise, just be funny, be cool, and have a good time. I’ll give oral RFD’s as well but email me with any questions or even interest in Collegiate Debate at

Nicole Damian Paradigm

4 rounds

I did PF.

Don't read off-time roadmaps. Odds are, you won't follow them anyway.

I will always evaluate the framework first and then look towards who best provides offense under the framework.


I will likely only vote on an argument if it’s present in both summary and final focus. That means extending both the warrant and the impacts of the argument. “Extend the Smith evidence” by itself with no analysis as to what the evidence is actually about isn’t an extension. I won’t vote on blippy extensions. Please do not spread, at all ever, especially not in the morning.

Second rebuttal NEEDS to respond to turns. Second summary is too late.

Weigh. If neither of the teams weigh, I’ll be forced to intervene and determine what I think is more important which you might not necessarily agree with in the end.

I will vote on theory or Ks if they are thoroughly explained and warranted. However, I believe that both of these should be used as a check back on either an egregious abuse instance in the round or within the resolution itself. Senseless use of theory or a K just to waste time or to limit your opponent's ability to debate will result in less speaker points and depending on how I see it in the round might even cost you the win. I won't buy disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory or any other foolish new theory.

If someone calls for a piece of evidence, please give it to them in less than 2 minutes. If you take longer than 2 minutes to find a piece of evidence, I’ll dock your speaker points.

Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate. I will just drop you if you’re offensive.

If you have any questions, ask before the round.

Marybeth Ehlbeck Paradigm

7 rounds

I used to have a paradigm that was way edgier as I don't think paradigms should be a norm but debate is a game so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Most important thing:

Please just have as comfortable of a round as you want, lets all treat each other with respect, empathy, and camaraderie. My favorite rounds to watch are those where both teams are light-hearted with each other and the round and I can sense the fun that they're having. I think that the role of the judge often creates an unnerving power dynamic, I'm just a college student who is as human and fallible as you are. Debate your best and I'll do my best to come to the "right" decision.

Stolen from Malcolm Davis's paradigm: As I get old and grumpy, I am increasingly frustrated with PF's bells and whistles. We are all regular people. You don't need to 'strongly urge an affirmation' or proudly declare what the 'thesis of your case' is or anything, you just need to debate the round and explain what's going on clearly. There needn't be pomp and circumstance in a room where we're talking about ideas for fun on the weekend.

Arguably more important:

I do not hack. I feel like this shouldn't need to be said in paradigms, but I suppose we humans should expect nothing and accept everything. I have and will continue to justifiably drop old friends/labbies etc. If you expect me to be a debate camp crony, strike me.


1. I will vote for an argument (hopefully under a framework [one that is warranted and fairly won] ) if it is warranted, impacted, and weighed against the other args in the around under a offense/defense paradigm. Exceptions to this rule: the arg is offensive/exclusionary, not in both summary/FF, card is misconstrued/grossly paraphrased.

2. MY HEARING IS NOT THE BEST. Unrelated but if you are going to shows at a young age please please please purchase earplugs it is not uncool. That being said please be VERY CLEAR with signposting, extending author names etc. If I cannot hear you/you're not articulating/I can't keep up with your spread I will say CLEAR. Don't freak I'll only start deducting speaker points after the third time I say clear and you don't enunciate/slow down.

3. I get very frustrated with cheap weighing. This frustration can also be intensified when said weighing is being done for an argument that does not/has not successfully extended a warrant. Weighing has to be explicitly comparative and contextualized to your opponent's offense. Do not waste your time or mine in a speech reciting buzzwords that provide no clear reason as to why I should vote for your argument over the other arguments in the round.

4. This has become a pet peeve of mine and I did not think it would but: no off-time road maps. Just tell me where to start flowing and signpost throughout. Only read one if you're reading an off. Related: progressive args have their occasional places in PF. Most of the time I find them unnecessary. I think that disclosure theory is half true at its best and probably will not vote on it.

5. The extension of defense into first summary is not required. It is required if the defense has been frontlined.

Good luck and have fun!

Arun Iyer Paradigm

4 rounds

I am a parent...basically a lay judge. However, I will flow everything in the round and try to make a decision based on the flow. If you're going too fast I can't/won't flow your arguments. Clarity is very important to me. Clearly state your claims, warrants(proof) and impacts(the "so what").

Stay respectful and don't yell over each other in cross. Evidence is really important to me. No blind assertions and hypotheses please. I prefer you read dates and full sources for everything (no weird acronyms that I won't understand). Keep the round as clear and simple as you can - Highlight key issues, make persuasive arguments, provide specific justifications for your claims and rebut your challenges. Your speakers points are based of confidence, composure, delivery, and style. I may call for cards at the end of the round. I won't disclose.

Kim Jackson Paradigm

2 rounds

I am a "mommy" judge with prior judging experience only at a handful of local tournaments. However, I will vote for the team that explains their arguments and responds to arguments more effectively. I am not very good with speed so please make your arguments clear and well to follow. If you fail to do this, the round becomes a lot more difficult for me to evaluate and you might not be happy with the results. Best of luck to all teams!

Annalisa Keuler Paradigm

2 rounds

I am a lay judge and former speech team coach. My background is in theatre and speech, so presentation matters to me. I would like you to speak at a slow rate, so I can make sure to catch all of your arguments and evidence. I also need your speeches to be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but again, if I can’t understand it, I can’t vote for it. I just ask that you be civil and respectful of each other.

Aisha Khan Paradigm

6 rounds

General debate things to know:

This is my first year judging LD debate. I competed in policy debate for about three years, and Student Congress for one. I find that being fluid with arguments that connect is most important. In LD debate is discourage speaking fast, it is more important to get your argument across with quality. I will judge mostly on clarity of your arguments and how they go against the opponent. Not only is the quality of the debate based on your arguments, but on your speaking skills as well. Proper eye contact and and being engaged rather than looking at your laptop is important. Entertaining debates that are done well are always better, keep a strong framework. Be able to explain yourself well. Do not go over your time, not a fan.

Things to know about me:

-Pronouns are she/her/hers

-I enjoy arguments in regards to philosophy or ethics

-Let me know about anything preferences or accomplishments prior to, I am very friendly

-I enjoy a good ole time, so lets keep it fun and interesting

Ellie Konfrst Paradigm

2 rounds

I competed in PF for four years for Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, both on the national and local circuits.

I'm very much tech over truth! Win the flow and you'll win my ballot.

How to win my ballot:

You need to collapse in the second half of the round, I think it's a huge strategic mistake not to do that.

Find the cleanest piece of offense on the flow and weigh that. I want to avoid intervention as much as I possibly can, but if arguments get muddy and don't get sorted out, that's hard for me to do.

Use the persuasive nature of PF to your advantage. I evaluate the round off the flow, but that doesn't mean I'm not a human and can't be persuaded. Ultimately, your job is to convince me you're right. In close rounds, sometimes that's less logical and more emotional.

In the spirit of persuasion, I also think you should be collapsing on a clear narrative in the second half of the round.

You have to weigh. If you don't weigh for me I'm forced to literally just pick things I think are more important, which means you lose control of the round, and I'm forced to interfere. Weighing should be clear in summary and final focus, and it might even be helpful to start weighing in rebuttal. (NOTE: In order to weigh your argument, you also have to win the argument. I've seen way too many teams weigh arguments that they lose, and that leaves me forced to intervene just as much as if you don't weigh. Remember, you need to extend warrants and impacts).


If you want me to vote off of it, it has to be in summary AND final focus.

Extend warrants and impacts.

With the new three-minute summary, defense needs to be extended in first summary.

You need to respond to your opponent's rebuttal if you're speaking 2nd. I prefer defense and offense, but I'm significantly more forgiving with dropped defense than dropped offense. If you speak second and you drop a turn read in first rebuttal, I consider it dropped for the round.

Extend card names along with what the card says.


I know debate rounds can get heated, but I think it's important to respect your opponents. If you're unnecessarily aggressive, patronizing, or rude, I'll definitely dock your speaks.

If you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. I'll drop you and tank your speaks.

Additionally, be aware of the privilege you have in a debate round, whether it's through your gender, race, socioeconomic background, or resources available. I also believe I have responsibilities as a judge to make the round as educational as possible. That also means I believe I can check back against abuse of privilege in a debate round with my ballot. Be sensitive with the arguments you're making and who you're making them to. In essence, if your arguments or behavior in a round marginalizes or excludes certain groups of people, it's likely I'll drop you.


I'm open to any type of impacts, as long as you weigh them.

However, I have 0 background in policy or LD, so if you want to run theory/Ks/pre-fiat arguments you're gonna need to explain them to me in the simplest possible terms.


I will evaluate under whatever framework is presented to me in the round.

That means, if you drop your opponent's framework, I will weigh the round based on that.

I'm super hesitant to use framework brought up in 2nd rebuttal, especially if it fundamentally alters the way I need to evaluate the debate. If your framework is something very different from a CBA (e.g. deontology) it needs to be in constructive.

I love weighing overviews and will 100% evaluate them as long as they're brought up by rebuttals.


If you tell me to call for a card AND seeing that card is necessary in order for me to make my decision, I'll call for it.

Other stuff:

I talk really fast in real life, and I talked really fast in debate, so I can handle max PF speeds. With that said, if you are clearly speaking too fast for your opponents, I'll probably dock your speaks - I think that's rude and exclusionary for an event that's supposed to be open for anyone.

This is an unpopular opinion, but I LOVE roadmaps. I don't think it ever hurts to make sure you and your judge are on the same page.

This is also why it's crucial for you to signpost. There's nothing worse than you giving killer responses, but me missing them because you lost me in your speech.

You should be using voters in summary/final focus! It's not a dealbreaker for me but it will make me like you more and I'll probably boost your speaks. It also just makes for better debates, so do it!

If you have any questions you can ask me before the round/message me on Facebook.

Nate Odenkirk Paradigm

7 rounds

I debated PF for Oakwood Secondary School from 2013-2017 on the national circuit, and now coach for them.

If you make more sense than your opponent I'll probably vote for you. I am truth > tech! I like "old tymey" PF when persuasion/presentation mattered. Weigh and have a narrative. cross ex matters, I may even vote on it.

I am not at all convinced by policy-esque arguments, or spreading. Strike me if you are not a traditional team that actually debates the topic, or relies on tricks.

Jacob Ohana Paradigm

4 rounds

Jacob Ohana

Harker '18, 4 years of policy debate. Econ major @ UChicago, coaching Whitney Young (go Dolphins!)

Debates judged on the arms sales topic: ~50 (at UMich)

put me on the chain: 18jacobo+debate[at sign] (yes there's a plus sign in my email). After the debate please send a doc with any cards you want me to read (no promises that I'll read them).


There's been a trend towards meanness in debates. I would like it to stop. Please be respectful of your opponents and anyone else in the room (spectators, other judges, etc). I would be happy to accommodate any request to make the debate more accessible to you—just ask me, either by email or in person. Debate tournament weekends suck for all of us, but they'll be a little better if everyone is just nicer to one another.


I would prefer that aff teams read plans. Planless debates have a lot of value and I learned a lot from them in high school, but in the context of high school debate I don't see any necessary relationship between reading the aff in a debate round and solving any sort of impact—which means I'm strongly predisposed to voting for procedural fairness impacts. If you're doing prefs and you know you're not going to be defending a plan, you're probably best off not prefing me.

However: I would like to see you debate in whatever manner you're best prepared for. If that's not defending a plan, go for it—trying to radically reorient your style of debate between the pairing and the 1AC is a bad idea. I'll be most receptive to your arguments if you have a compelling reason that debate is specifically necessary to solve an impact (I'll inevitably end up comparing your impact to procedural fairness, but it's easy to convince me to make debate a little less fair).


I read a lot of cards, not just to make my decision but out of curiosity. Good evidence by smart, qualified people wins debates. I prefer a few densely highlighted cards to a stack of one-liners. If your opponents are reading evidence that really doesn't support their argument or is obviously unqualified, say that! It's pretty easy for me to discount positions that just don't make sense from people who don't know what they're talking about. Qualified evidence that explains a general theory for your position allows me to fill in blanks you leave open in speeches when I'm making a decision—this is almost always in your interest.


I flow on my laptop. I can type quickly so don't worry about me getting things down. 2 ways you can help me out:

1. I will flow better if you go in order, rather than moving scattershot across the flow.

2. Please pause for a second when moving between pages to allow me to virtually move sheets.

People have told me my face is super expressive when I'm flowing. If I look confused, I probably am.

Misc. Debate Opinions

Take all of these with a whole shaker of salt. I've mostly grown out of any sort of strong ideological positions about debate arguments—I would feel awful if I voted against the technical winner of a debate because I had some personal quibble with one of their arguments. However, I still have a few default positions:

Kritiks: they must prove the plan is bad or a competitive action is both mutually exclusive and preferable. This doesn't really exclude any arguments, though some kritiks have harder times than others meeting this threshold—for example, postmodernism arguments. Aff-specific link and impact explanations are necessary. You will not convince me to not consider the fiated effects of the plan absent the aff dropping the fiat double bind, but can convince me other things are more important.

Process CPs: I really enjoy these debates as long as the process is topic-specific. Generic process CPs just seem to be an attempt to avoid clash and debating the substance of the aff. If the net benefit is something other than politics I'll be thrilled.

Offense-defense: Zero risk is quite easy to reach when arguments are below some minimum threshold of explanation or defense is conceded. Absent these conditions, it is nearly impossible. If a competitive counterplan definitely solves the whole aff, I will vote neg as long as there is a net benefit that links to the aff and not to the counterplan in the 2NR, and there are no blatantly conceded defensive arguments.


Clarity is king, queen, and whatever other superlative. There's typically a gap between what you want me to flow and what I do flow, and the gap is largely due to unclear speakers going too fast for their level of clarity. If you need to slow down to be clearer, slow down—you'll still be better off saying fewer words if I understand them better.


I debated at Harker 2014-18, only read policy arguments, every speaker position, went to the TOC. Now, I coach at Whitney Young and still mostly think about policy arguments. I'm an econ major at UChicago, and I read about math and IR for fun but have suffered through your basic K authors for required social science classes.

Anand Raman Paradigm

4 rounds


I vote on extensions between summary and final focus. I like to see voting issues in both Summary and Final Focus but if you really want to do a line by line in Summary, that's fine too. Just make sure you sign post for me.

Please refrain from extending through ink or making arguments that jump from rebuttal to final focus.

It's easiest to win my ballot if you have a strong narrative/advocacy throughout your case and speeches. I like framework, observations, and overviews because they're really good for streamlining the debate.

I like if an argument collapses well, so in the later speeches like summary and final focus, I would like to see more than just impacts extended.


If you're the second speaking team, I like it if you go back to your case during rebuttal, but it's not a huge deal if you don't.


I'll listen to whatever arguments you want me to, but mostly I'll listen to how you weigh it.

Cross X:

I generally listen and don't flow, so if an important concession comes up, make sure to mention it in a speech.

Evidence Ethics

Sometimes at the end of a round I may need to call for cards. This might be because a team asks me to do it or because it seems like the actual wording of the card might not align with how it was explained. If I notice a degree of exaggeration that significantly influences the quality of the card, I'll probably just drop the card from the round. If I read the card and evidence has clearly been falsified or significantly misconstrued, I will either drop the team that used the objectionable evidence, file a report with tab, or both. Overall, just be honest and we'll be a-okay.