Competed in Varsity PF in high school.

Tabula rasa style.

Decision based off of the flow, I am looking for clear, concise extensions that are warranted.

Do not extend through ink or try to extend dropped responses.

Make weighing on the voters clear for your own best interest.

email chain: jackcrawford1825@gmail.com

I debated in HS for 4 years under La Salle NC with 2 quals for the TOC/other nat circ experience.

Holistically I have 8 years of debate experience & there arent many debate args/styled that I haven't had personal experience debating for/against. Currently a mostly K/theory debater in college in VLD.

"Progressive debater"

Speed's cool, don't spread through your tags.

I'm tab.

Post-round me one on one after the round if you really would like to challenge my decision, I won't have an argument with you in front of a room full of people.

Everything here is for LD and below this ( I marked where) I'm slowly making a PF paradigm again because I'll start judging it later in the year.

K

To avoid an awkward conversation at the end of a round, the perm doesn't work as offence.

NEG:

I think you have the burden of providing specific links and framing your impacts at the end of the debate.

I won't do work on the Baudrillard shell for you for example, it's very important you explicitly say why you're winning what and its implications on the round. Some auths. can stretch farther and in different ways than others but you need to do it explicitly for me to give you credit for that.

TLDR: I won't vote what Baudrillard elaborates, but what you elaborate in the context of Baudrillard for example.

AFF:

I'm fine with whatever, you don't need to defend USFG action but you should show how you are in some way tangentially related to the topic to avoid the FW wall. Or dont, there's still a world where I'd vote for it.

I should probably add at the bottom of this I primarily read more contemporary french theorists than anything else, with the exception of other auths. like hegelians, kantians, marxists, those crowds.

Theory/FW

Theory: So while I'm all for your TOTALLY RADICAL hijinx on the T page, it would behoove you to win more than just that the debate was difficult for you to win. In my mind debate ought to be very difficult, to reach the threshold for me to evaluate a T shell the way it ought to be evaluated (apriori) then you should hit a higher bar than "x made the AR difficult".

That said, I'm all for extremely technical theory debate, just keep in mind what I am comfortable voting on.

I don't vote on disclosure.

I don't vote on speed theory in the event there's a speech doc. (I'll still clear you in round)

FW: I default competing interpretations if for some nightmarish event happens where nobody discusses this.

Otherwise, its a debate like any other.

Case/DA/CP?

I'm tab, do whatever you like.

I evaluate on the line-by-line and appreciate your ability to group & get into substantive arguments rather than blippy sentences that touch each line.

I generally advise that you don't assume you have a 100% chance in terms of the strength of link to your impact scenario, you should explain how it gets to that point with 100% certainty.

It's not that I don't vote on your 3 word 100% certainty impact analysis, but that doing this leaves you open to a compelling argument (for me).

Speaks/CX

30's for everyone

If something in CX isn't made in a speech I didn't hear it and its not on the flow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^speaks/cx^^

PF

I'm flowing. You win my ballot by winning in a technical way the flow.

Come to the round preflowed, you don't have to wait on me before you flip for sides.

Speed is fine, I debate fast in LD, you need to send out & be capable of making speech docs for the opponent if you're going to start spreading. This needs to be done in a reasonable amount of time and I won't wait around/accomodate to make this a more viable option for you. You spread, you should be able to take on the higher expectations that go along with it.

jackcrawford1825@gmail.com -- for the email chain

Cards

I like cards and you should read them.

If you take 5-10 min. on every card call I'll get angry and start tanking speaks, you should be able to access your cards quickly.

Front half (AC/NC & AR/NR)

Constructives can be anything, I'm tab and I don't ever take my own opinons of policy into a debate round.

I will evaluate and abide by the conceded/won framework very strictly and also as an apriori issue unless told otherwise.

Rebuttals can do whatever, I don't evaluate offensive overviews coming from 2nd rebuttal. I expect 2nd rebuttal to handle offense.

Back half (2AC/2NC & 2AR/2NR)

The 3 min. summary in my eyes is something that just puts more onus on the 1st speaker to do more weighing/analysis than blippy line-by-line work.

Summaries that go first need to extend offense on the other teams case (like extend your turns), you don't need to re-extend your defense unless you're making cool tricky pivots.

Summaries that go second should do the same thing & handle defense on your case.

FF

Please frame/weigh your impacts, if you don't go for your f/w or try to win under the f/w in ff it's prob. a really bad thing for you in my eyes.

Offense that you don't get into ff I don't evaluate, and framed offense beats a larger quantity of offense 9/10 times.

Theory

I don't vote on disclosure or formal clothes. I look down on these args being read in round, espec. in this event.

If you can't win a reason why the theory vio. made the debate impossible for you to win, it's not apriori, and I cannot imagine a scenario I'll vote on the shell. (I say why in the LD section)

It's an apriori issue that works as an RVI because the event's too short by a massive margin to prevent this from being over-strategic.

Therefore, you ought not spitball blippy poorly constructed theory args. (please) at non-tech teams because it's a coinflip if you can hit the high threshold & avoid the RVI. I can and will enforce the RVI.

Being rude to opponents is not a good strategy.

Rolling your eyes will tank your speaks. Being rude and toxic will tank your speaks.

Lay out your arguments in a clear and slow manner so I can understand your points.

I vote off crossfire. Can't help it, but I do.

I’m a parent flay judge. I appreciate clear structure and signposting for speeches so I know where I am on the flow.

I have a preference for clear, plain language (not too much debate jargon) spoken at a speed where I can understand it.

I compete in college debate, I primarily read policy arguments, but I'm familiar with Kritiks and high theory arguments. I'm willing to listen to any argument you have/want to read as long as it has a well explained link to the affirmative or the resolution. If the argument is more nuanced I suggest you spend more time on it as I will be hesitant to do the work for you at the end of the round. In order to win you should be able to give a clear picture of links to flushed out impacts. It's too often I see a team read a tagline like "poverty is the impact" then move on. Explain why it matters and how to weigh it against other impacts in the round and you stand a much higher chance of winning. As long as you can attach some reason to vote on it and give it actual impacts, you shouldn't have this problem.

Theory: I am willing to listen to it no matter how strange it is, it just has to have voters in the same way a disadvantage needs impacts. Don't blip out "this is bad for fairness and education" and then move on, spend time explaining how it impacts fairness and education in the round, then explain why fairness and education matter.

I will default to competing interpretations as a means of evaluating theory if there isn't another method given by either team.

Speed: I don't have issues with speed, but I ask you to respect others when they ask you to clear or slow.

Partner communication: I'm fine with it to any extent. I'll only flow what the speaker says. If it gets excessive I will punish you in the form of speaker points, especially if it is rude interjections, but it won't be a voting issue.

Non-Topical Affs: Not impossible win, but I expect some justification for not being topic. Just saying "We wanted to" is not enough.

I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account, as well as how you interact with your competitors before, after, and during the round.

Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.

Spreading: Eloquence over speed. Quality over quantity. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.

Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect are fine.

At the end of the day I vote for who provided the best arguments and told me why they matter. Debaters need to tell me what evidence/arguments are most important for resolving the round, and why. I appreciate a good overview. Tell me how, even in light of the opposition's best argument, you still win the round. Give me impact calculus. I like it when debaters think about the probability of their scenarios and compare and connect the different scenarios in the round. The better team uses their arguments to outweigh the other side.

Flex Time: I allow for partner to partner communication in flex, but this is an opportunity to challenge your oppositions credibility so why waste it?

Topicality: I vote on well argued violations. T debates need not devolve into questions of "abuse" but ultimately boil down to limits. I prefer literature/expert based interpretations of the resolution. Negatives do well to provide case lists and to articulate why their interpretation isn't an arbitrary line to exclude the affirmative. For affirmatives to win reasonability, they must provide a qualified counter interpretation and make a compelling argument for why theirs is a quality/predictable limit for the topic.

Analytics: Smart, warranted arguments can have a lot of weight on my flow, especially when you expose weak internal links.

If you run theory make sure you understand what it is you are running. Just saying it is "fill-in-the-blank theory" doesn't mean it actually is.

Isabel C Fairclough

Parli

- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.

- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).

- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.

- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.

- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.

- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.

LD - I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion. - My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework. - P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.

- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Congress

Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.

In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.

Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.

PF

I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.

Speech Requirements:

- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)

- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")

- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus

Things that are important for me:

- Signposting

- Clarity

- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)

I do not want you to:

- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document

- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction

- be rude/condescending/curt in CX

I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.

I debated in High School for all four years and qualed to TOC. I have experience in mainly PF, but on a number of occasions I debated circuit LD, holistically I'm more familiar with PF and the style in general. There are a few things I love to see in rounds and a few things that I hate to see. Otherwise, don't try to mold yourself too much to me as a judge, I just want to see a good debate.

Onto some of the things I love to see in rounds. Super intense crossfire is always fun, but I will not flow anything said unless you bring it up in a later speech, which I feel is pretty standard across most judging pools. Weigh your impacts, duh, but unless it's clearly warranted and you stress why it's important, it won't mean much to me. Remember I'm not the one researching this topic for weeks/months, clearly tell me why you won. I like jokes, make one and I might bump your speaker points up. Please don't come across as condescending or rude if you do that, your opponents probably don't deserve nor need that, and I don't want to watch it. I love a good offtime roadmap before rebuttal, summary, and ff. Please signpost to let me know where you are on my flow, this will greatly improve the chances of me fully comprehending your argument.

Now onto some of the general things I don't want to see in round. As a girl debater, and coming from a majority girl team, I faced a lot of sexism and heard countless stories about judges and fellow competitors participating in sexism in the round. I have no tolerance for seeing that. If you are a male/boy debater please be conscious of your actions throughout the round. Just because your voice is deeper and louder, does not give you permission to speak over anyone else in the room. It also does not make you a better speaker. Please be courteous and mindful and there should be no issue. The second thing I hate to see in rounds is rude behavior towards your opponent. Even if you think you are winning, win with grace and don't be a jerk. There's no need for that behavior and it could lose you speaker points, and potentially the round if it's severe enough. Please don't spread unless your taglines are clear. Like I said I did circuit LD and PF so I can flow it, but if I can't hear a tagline that looks poorly on you and the argument. I'm the judge you should want me to hear everything you have to say. The last thing is framework. I will not vote on a framework unless it is clearly extended through each speech. Don't just say the words cost-ben or utilitarianism, and expect me to perfectly fit that to your case. If you want it to impact the round, tell me why you win under it specifically to this round. But don't bring it up unless you actually want me to vote on it.

As of right now I'm judging at tournaments and attending college, but I really want to help give good feedback that could potentially help you in a later round. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round starts.

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and have been a little out of the game since starting college.

For all forms of debate, I value evidence based arguments over theory and please please please do not spread. I will not understand a word of what you are saying.

Be nice and enjoy.

Hello,

Experience wise, I did Parli/LD at a college level.

I'm pretty flay

I am ok with speed but don't go super fast, or just let me see your case.

I'll listen to most positions, I'm not too familiar with K-debate so use at your own discretion

Time yourselves

I have never done debate before but i have heard a lot about it from my younger sister. Our paradigms are pretty much the same so check hers out, her name is Tori Jones. The more you yell about capitalism the higher speaks you get. I also really hate speed so do not spread unless you want me to laugh at you.

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!

TLDR: Your round! Run whatever framework you want and make my job easy.

I am a graduate student studying Communication Studies at CSULB, where I also teach public speaking as part of the program. I have been coaching speech and debate at Palos Verdes high school since 2020 and at El Camino College since 2023, where I also competed for 2 years in parli, impromptu & extemp, DI & POI, and IPDA.

Communication: Pass notes or talk to your partner it's up to you, just don't be disruptive. I'll flow whatever is said but don't egregiously speak while it's your partner's turn.

Impacts: Please have impacts. Tell me why the thing is bad don't just say it's bad and don't elaborate.

Speed: I've gotten worse with speed over the years but generally I don't mind it. I might clear you if you're unclear.

Kritiks: Mostly I include this section because I'm just waiting for the day that someone runs a K in front of me at a high school tournament. It happened once and it was so fun. Kritiks should have a clear link to the resolution. Advocacies and their solvencies should be clearly explained. K's (esp on the aff) should have a very clear framework for evaluation, a K without framework is hard to evaluate. Run whatever K you want. I ran anthro a lot when I was debating and I love a fun cap K. I'm not an expert on any given advocacy, treat me like a lay judge who happens to understand framework and theory.

Theory / Topicality: I'm open to a good T debate so long as it's properly structured (interpretation violation standards voters). If I vote on T, usually it's on articulated abuse. I don't mind running shells just to kick them, but it's a very bad decision to collapse to a theory shell that is just a time suck. Honestly open to any theory position, even jokey stuff as long as it's not bad, just don't run dumb stuff in the MO (I've seen new theory in the MO and it was a mess). I'll default to competing interps but you should state that somewhere in the theory.

RVIS: RVIs are fine when they are justified (your opponent is egregiously racist/misgendering/queerphobic/problematic or they run 7 blipped theory shells and kick all of them). I have never voted on an RVI, but I could. Usually, I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt or work it out on the flow, but if you gotta check someone you gotta check someone.

Signposting: Use taglines and tell me where you are on the flow "they say this, we say this" "judge go to advantage 1 and look at their solvency"

Timing: Time yourselves and time your opponents. I don't mind if you are slightly under or over time, but ensure it's not abusive. Call your opponents on time abuses if they are happening.

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.

Email: timothy.matt.meyer@gmail.com

1/21/23

I am getting back into circuit/progressive debate this year, though the last time I was considerably involved was 2020. When running advanced arguments do your best to make it clear what my role is and why it matters. Speedwise, I'm still a bit rusty, and don't like being overly reliant on docs (self rating of 7.5).

RVI's

My default position is against RVI's, with the only exception being extreme quantity (of legitimate violations) or severity of a single one.

Slightly tech over truth

__________________________________________________

Experience /Qualifications:

I've been a part of forensics for almost 10 years, competed in multiple IE's and both Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate. Qualified and broke at nationals. Coached state and national finalists and extremely competitive PF and Parli teams at the state level.

Preferences

All forms of debate:

Make sure you signpost effectively and clearly convey your arguments. Also clearly illustrate any links and impacts you have.

I have a fair understanding of the active topics (and am always interested to learn more in these rounds) but it is against my principles to make arguments for you. I won't connect your links/impacts to something you haven't said in round, so don't assume that I will.

I'm fine with speed for whatever is reasonable for your event (policy-✓✓✓, LD-✓✓, PF-✓, Parli-why?). Debate is educational, nobody wants to be in a round where they are just being yelled at incomprehensibly. Respect clears and share your docs.

I have a more traditional background; if your impacts are extinction, make sure the link chain in getting there is clear. I strongly prefer impacts grounded in reality that cleanly flow through vs a shoddy push at 5 different extinction scenarios.

My most important personal preference: Manners

This activity is very competitive and confrontational. I understand that sometimes it can get heated. But at any point if anything offensive is done to the other team, I will immediately drop speaker points (and potentially the round based on the severity.) It's important to engage in discourse respectfully.

Lincoln Douglas:

Make sure to clash and subsequently defend your framework. This is the crux of your case, you shouldn't be moving over it.

Be organized, and clearly lay out how your arguments interact with your opponents.

Fairly open to progressive argumentation. I enjoy Kritiks (though I'm a bit rusty on these) and Plans. I'm not a big fan of theory but respect meaningful shells (frivolous theory). Respect the rules of the tournament as well. I really don't want to have to run to tab to figure out if your arguments are legal or not.

Public Forum:

I want clear links and impacts from both sides. Anything you think is important, emphasize. Make sure to be organized and professional.

I accept the use of Kritiks/theory when permissible, but recognize the format of PF is not conducive to the depth of kritiks in my opinion.

I pay attention during cross but won't judge on it. Make sure anything you want to be flowed is said in round.

Parliamentary:

Signpost Signpost Signpost

Signposting is more important here than in any other event. Make sure you are organized, and you are consistently signposting throughout your speeches. If I get lost, there's a good chance a main argument will be missed.

Make your links clear and stay relevant to the resolution for your arguments to flow through.

Argument wise, basically anything goes (frivolous theory).

**UPDATED FOR TOC**

Assistant Coach for Fairmont Preparatory Academy

Education:

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science & Bachelor of Arts in Speech Communications from the University of La Verne '18

Debate Experience:

University of La Verne 2014 Performance Scholarship Recipient for Speech & Debate

Competitive collegiate British Parliamentary style debater 2014 - 2018

Attended over 25 tournaments nationally & internationally: The Oxford IV 2017, WUDC Mexico 2018, CMUDE Chile 2018, USUDC Anchorage 2015, USUDC Atlanta 2016, USUDC Stanford 2018, Pan-AmericanUDC Atlanta 2018, etc.

Titles: 2017 U.S. National Debate Championship Winner (BP Debate), Spanish World's Debate Championship 2018 Finalist (CMUDE Chile 2018)

Coaching Experience:

Bonita High School, Fairmont Preparatory Academy, University of La Verne (Spanish BP)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PF Paradigm 2018-2019 Season:

**UPDATED FOR TOC**

"Prep time for the requesting team will not start until evidence has been handed over to the debater requesting said cards. Teams may prep during this evidence request time, this should encourage teams to have their evidence ready and available to present immediately. Judges should discourage teams from attempting to “game the system” if evidence requests become overly burdensome or create excessive delays in the debate." - TOC rules. [KNOW THE RULES KIDDOS]

EXPLAIN UNIQUENESS. If you can't explain/link out to why something actually changes on the AFF, it's going to put you at a huge disadvantage.

CARDS. CARDS. CARDS. I know this topic isn't the crowd favorite, but this is TOC, you *especially* need to have evidence for what you run. Don't make assertions or say "it just logically makes sense" when someone asks where your evidence is in round. Have a card or you don't get access to your impact.

• I'm a flow judge at heart. I do not like spreading, if you spread: it won't win you any favor in the round and it is better for you to slow down and explain your contentions at a normal pace. Don't read theory.
• If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary; everything said in final focus should have at least been mentioned in summary. Please know the difference between a team dropping a point/not engaging with a contention and a team whose response you simply did not like. Disliking a team's response to your case does not equate dropping or not refuting it.
• I don't flow crossfire but I DO listen and it can factor into my decision sometimes. However: anything super important coming out of crossfire that you want me to flow should be in one of your speeches.
• Productive crossfire: if you spend 3 minutes talking over one another/constantly interrupting/being unnecessarily rude, etc: it's a waste of time for you and will make me annoyed. I lower speaker points for this.
• I enjoy off time roadmaps so I know where you are at on the flow.

• What I want to see: flushed out link chains & arguments that have realistic impacts. I vote for teams that are closest to the truth. Truth > Tech in most circumstances. Exaggerations and half-truths will be factored into my decisions; I defer to the teams with the most realistic and honest impact when there is tie.
• Properly complete/extend your links in summary and final focus

• Weighing mechanisms :) Explain why I should defer to your side: cost benefit analysis, scope, magnitude, probability, etc. I am in huge favor of clearly explained impacts. Pre-empt this in summary, be sure to do this in final focus.
• Comparatively weigh the round. Engage with the other side and their impacts and explain why I still should defer to your side.

• What I do not want to see: 1) abuse or misuse your evidence: I will pull cards if I need to. 2) spreading 3) Unproductive crossfire: allow the other side to speak, be respectful, only interrupt if absolutely necessary. Speaker points will reflect how you treat others in round. 4) Theory. In my opinion, this should only be run if the other side is truly being abusive and you HAVE to thoroughly explain it. 5) Disrespectful Post-Rounding: If you have a question, cool. I am happy to explain my thinking calculus. But do not interrupt me while I am giving an RFD or tell me I'm wrong. You're allowed to disagree, but do so respectfully. :)

ALSO: I have a very serious face when I judge, it is not that I hate you or what you are saying: it is just my face :) If y'all have any questions about anything, feel free to ask before the round!

Lastly: I know it's TOC and y'all have a lot on the line, but don't forget to breathe & enjoy the ride. I know it's corny and cliché, but don't forget to have fun.

A little bit about me, I've been doing college debate for 2 years now at El Camino College where I do Parliamentary debate and LD. As for my judging paradigm, the main thing I look for is a clear, concise argument with the analysis to back it up.

I debated PF for 4 years 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 rebuttal 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. 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. As the judge I want to do as little thinking as possible, so if you want to explain your arguments to me like I'm 5 years old, I'm game. The best way you can do this for me is with a clear and consistent narrative presented throughout the round. I will always weigh a long, well warranted, analytical response more heavily than a card dump. More often than not, if you just logically make more sense than your opponents, you will win my ballot.

Other thoughts:

-I hate wasted time in rounds where teams take 10+ minutes outside of their prep time trading evidence.

-If both teams are chill with it we can skip grand crossfire.

-I will never call for cards. If you have an issue with a card, bring it up in your speech.

-I don't vote for anything said in crossfire, if its important, bring it up in your speech.

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Yes I want to be on the email chain: send to shayansaadat0@gmail.com

I'm a pretty straightforward, laid-back judge. I vote based on who I think made the best arguments and responded to their opponents' arguments best. That being said, here's a few things to know when it comes to the debates themselves:

Theory: I am receptive to and love good theory positions. I believe that most resolutions have an implicit bias that leans toward one side more than the other, and that a team can easily abuse resolutional wording to skew other teams out of the round––both aff and neg. Explain your theory position and why it matters to the debate as a whole. That being said, I strongly dislike bad theory. Don't run bad T-shells or Kritiks if they aren't relevant to the round. Debate the resolution, not the definition of a single word in the definition of the definition that the PM used. It's irrelevant, doesn't get you any ground, and takes away from the debate as a whole.

Spreading: Spreading is totally okay with me. However, I am more than open to arguments against speed. If you are too fast for me I will say, "Slow" or "Clear," and I encourage other debaters to do the same.

Organization: Please, please, PLEASE signpost. It's the best way that I, and others in round, can follow your arguments. Good organization makes good debate. Tell me where you're going in your arguments so I know where to flow. If I don't know where/how to flow what you're saying it will hurt your chances of winning.

Communication: Partner to partner communication is fine. Puppeteering is fine. In any case I only flow what the person supposed to be talking is saying. I also only flow what is said during round, not in between speakers, or at any other time.

Impact Calc/Round Vision: Concisely impact out your own arguments. Do the work for me. Tell me why your arguments matter. Explain to me why your arguments are right and your opponents are wrong so that when it comes to voting I don't need to make any reaches.

I also won't disclose speaks.

TL:DR if you debate well, you'll do well.

I am a Public Forum coach. I like to see teams who are polite and respectful to their opponents, especially during crossfires. Definitely include weighing and impact calculus in your final focus, don’t leave it up to me.

zsandoval@loyolahs.edu

I did not debate in either high school or college, but began judging when my daughter started high school. I don't have a preference for any particular event, and enjoy judging both debate and IE.

Re: IE - I love almost all of the events (except DI, but I'll judge it if they need me to), and I know what good interpretation looks like. If you're doing Impromptu, be aware that I'll give the higher rankings to kids who literally improvise their speeches to match the topic, and give the bottom rankings to kids who improv their intros and then pull out their same three examples no matter what the topic is, even if the improv isn't as smooth as the rehearsed one.

I love clash in a debate, and value logic and argumentation. I flow rounds, but I am not one of those judges who is all in my own head thinking about what I would say if I were in your shoes. You should convince me that (a) your arguments are stronger and (b) that your opponents dropped parts of your case. Link chains should be well-explained; they're called "link" for a reason.

I've learned to really appreciate topicality debates, but I also like other types of debate as well.

I'm a native New Yorker, born and bred. I think fast, I write fast, and I talk fast. However, let me remind you that I am a lay judge. If you are spreading, I am more likely to offer you an asthma inhaler than to decide that you have won the round.

Finally, I can't stand when people say something like, "I/we can't debate this! This is UNFAIR to our side!" Yes. Yes, you can. You are a debater. Make it so.

Two years competing for El Camino Debate Team. Participated in Parli, NFALD, and IE's.

I am a current freshman at USC. I did PuFo for all 4 years in high school so I'd say I can follow a round pretty well. I was competitive in the circuit, qualifying to TOC and Nats.

I'm more of a tech over truth judge. If you didn't rebut some outlandish contention, I won't automatically strike it from my flow. Don't make me do the work for you. With that said, make sure to tell me why to prioritize your impacts over your opponents. I'll probably guide off util unless someone gives me reasons not to.

PLEASE SIGN POST! It makes my life a whole lot easier, and it will make your lives easier if you tell me exactly where you are with whatever you are saying. With term of extensions, please don't just tell me to extend random cards without explaining which argument it goes with so I can accurately make out your link chain.

Because I'm a PF debater, I don't appreciate spreading and will probably be unable to understand you. I mostly like to flow on paper, as you will probably see me do in rounds, and I can only write so fast so enunciate and emphasize your tag lines clearly if you speak faster.

I want to see you guys respecting your opponents while addressing their claims in a sophisticated, civil manner. With that said, have fun! Debate can be frustrating but it was a great experience for me so you all should try your best to enjoy it while you can.

Sidenote: If any of you have questions about college, debate, or anything else, don't hesitate to ask me. :)

I debated for for El Camino College for two years. I mostly compete in parliamentary debate, as well as some speech events (informative, impromptu, extemporaneous).

I am fine spreading as long as it doesn't effect your ability to communicate your arguments effectively. Also don't spread and sit down with time left. I enjoy good theory arguments. I like voters and impact calculus in the rebuttals. Tell me why you are winning and where to make it easy for me to vote for you.

PV Peninsula '18, NYU '22

Former middle and high school debater, I did 4 years of parli and 6 years of public forum (my high school discontinued PF going into my senior year which is why I returned to parli after a 3 year hiatus). I also dabbled in impromptu for a few years but speech wasn't really my thing. I vote on actual arguments but I'll take the flow into account. I'm not really an expressive judge, but don't be completely monotonous the entire round. I know my college might make you think I lean a certain way politically, but I do my best to put away my biases and consider the substance of your arguments and evidence.

Parli:

Theory: I don't prefer theory arguments but I'll vote on them if they're valid and well executed. Don't run T just because you can, and keep kritiks clear and concise. Debating definitions are fine, but don't nitpick. I'll interpret that as you wasting time because your case is weak. Also, try and limit the canned cases.

Spreading: Eloquence over speed. I care much more about what you say and how you say it than how much you say. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

Organization: Please sign post! Clear framework is big for me. Remember, I take the flow into account. If I can't clearly flow your arguments, it makes my life (and yours) more difficult.

Communication: I will only flow what is being said by the person who is supposed to be speaking. No puppeteering, but notes, ect. are fine.

Public Forum:

Criteria: Please have one. I can vote without one but it just makes the round so much easier to judge in my opinion.

Cards: Please read the source before you start reading the information that the source will provide, it just makes it easier for me to flow. If you read some really impactful evidence with huge numbers that sounds like it could win you the round, but you don't provide a source and your opponents don't call you out on it, I probably won't hold it in high regards. Ask for cards before prep time starts if you want a card.

Dropped/Extended Arguments: If your opponents by chance drop an ENTIRE argument, just extend it across the flow and move on. Don't repeat the entire argument word for word when they didn't even respond to it in the first place. Personally, I think dropped arguments are a big enough deal that I will vote on a singular dropped argument if it's impactful enough, no matter how well the rest of the debate goes.