Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Top:

I will pretty much vote on anything and lack many ideological predispositions with a few exceptions. I try to be as least interventionist as possible so please do judge instruction that explains to me why you have won the debate & the implications of the arguments you are going for.

Send a card doc after the debate has ended. I'll read the cards you think are important, but I tend to think the quality of evidence comes secondary to who did the better debating.

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I lean NEG on condo, and would only prefer you go for it if either a. the neg severely mishandles it or b. it's the only winning option. I will not vote on blimpy theory arguments that aren't developed or articulated out earlier in the debate.

Non-resolutional theory is a non-starter.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

Huge fan of them, I love me some solvency offense & AFF specific counterplans.

I am okay for counterplan competition, but the more egregious the counterplan, the lower the threshold it is to win the CP is illegitimate.

Disads:

Good

I think the interest rates DA is cracked. Though I haven't judge that many debates on this topic, I do not understand why some variation of an econ DA is not the 2NR in every debate.

Kritiks:

The best kritiks are ones with links to the plan. If you want to just rehash some theory about the world, without contextualizing it to the plan, I am not the judge for you.

Topicality:

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation.

Impact Turns:

Good

Misc:

- tech > truth

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

• Bigotry will not be tolerated

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

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

PF:

General Stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Tech>Truth

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

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

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

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

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

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

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

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

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

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

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

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

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

-2 exceptions tho:

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

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

Evidence:

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

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

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

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

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

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

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

C) It is important for my decision

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

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

i judge debate rounds like the new york times editorial board: i just wish i could vote for everyone!

2015-2019 circuit pf/extemp at theodore roosevelt in des moines, iowa

i go to depaul university now

put me on the chain: finnm.cool02@gmail.com

DEBATER MATH IS BAD MATH

tl;dr anything not discriminatory goes, please comparatively weigh, collapse strategically, and frontline!!!

first to steal some from other paradigms:

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. Sorry not sorry.

the most enjoyable part of debate is when debaters successfully mold a convincing narrative out of ridiculous concepts

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing domestic violence, sexual violence, or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

now, some thoughts of my own:

Ks encouraged, your speaks will reflect that if you run them well...

HOWEVER if you run an identity-based position and neither of you are a member of that community, don't

i'd prefer theory to be run in shell form but i won't penalize you if you're unfamiliar with formal technical structure, just explain why your opponents are being abusive/bad for debate and why that means i should vote for you

if strictly a substance debate, i evaluate the fw debate first and do impact calc under that

good and interesting fw debates will lead to high speaks, but also don’t throw a framework in just because (especially CBA, which is just a waste of time in constructive)

presume 1st speaking team if no offense, absent a presumption arg made in the round

if an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in second rebuttal)

defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument i won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after first rebuttal

weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy

for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary

be strategic! you don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so!

speed-wise I’m good for ~250wpm anything more and I’ll need a speech doc to avoid missing things (but if you feel excluded by your opponents going too fast, implicate that as in-round abuse for a path to the ballot)

evidence should have author last name and date

extensions have warrant and impact, actually explain the argument and why it matters rather than just “extend Whalen 14 moving on”

speaks are 27 and above unless you’re big heinous

plz plz plz ask me any questions you have before/after the round, this is an educational activity

ill disclose speaks if you ask me

auto-30s if you:

-win on anthro or baudrillard (this doesn’t mean I’ll hack, you have to actually win the arg)

-take no prep time & win

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com

Perry Hs

ASU Finance

Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.

Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech. I also wont yell clear.

Hi,

I am a parent(lay) judge,

• If you can please share cases so I can follow along I would appreciate it (veezee210@gmail.com)

• Don’t speak fast and explain your cases thoroughly

• Limit Complicated Jargon: Explain what the words mean

• I will judge based on

• Confidence and speaker skills

• Final focus

• Respectfulness

Have Fun!

Hello debaters, My name is Debasree Banerjee and I am excited to serve as your judge for this Public Forum debate. I am a parent judge and this will be my second time judging a debate tournament. I'm looking forward to a constructive and engaging round.

Judging Philosophy:I approach debates with an open mind and a commitment to fairness. While I appreciate well researched arguments and strategic case construction, I ultimately prioritize clear communication, clash, and weighing of arguments. I believe in evaluating the round based on the arguments presented within the context of the resolution, rather than injecting personal biases or preferences.

Expectations:

Clarity:Clear communication is crucial. Speak at a pace that allows for understanding and enunciation of arguments.

Argumentation:Present well developed arguments supported by evidence and logic. I value quality over quantity.

Clash:Engage with your opponents' arguments and provide meaningful rebuttals. Directly address the key points of contention.

Weighing:Provide comparative analysis and weigh the impacts of competing arguments. Show why your side's impacts outweigh those of your opponents.

Respect:Maintain professionalism and respect for your opponents throughout the round. Adhere to time limits and avoid disrespectful behavior.

I place a high premium on logically structured arguments that are grounded in reliable data. While logical extensions of evidence are acceptable, I strongly favor arguments that demonstrate real-world relevance and societal impact. Purely philosophical or moral positions that lack broader validation hold less weight in my decisions.

I appreciate a clear and organized speaking style that emphasizes the flow of arguments. While I am comfortable with varying speeds, clarity of presentation is vital; speed should never compromise the ability of the opponent or myself to follow your arguments. Lastly, mutual respect between competitors is essential.

Key Considerations

• Evidence: Credible data and analysis form the bedrock of persuasive arguments.
• Logic: Arguments should exhibit clear reasoning and avoid logical fallacies.
• Impact: Demonstrate how an argument has meaningful consequences in the real world.
• Organization: Signposting and a well-structured flow make arguments easier to follow and evaluate.
• Respect: Debate should be a space for the respectful exchange of ideas, even in disagreement.

I look forward to seeing thoughtful and evidence-driven debates!

LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School and have coached with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

Have the speech docs and evidence cards ready to send to us

Your points should be presented logically and also have your whole structure be connected

Well-supported arguments weight more to me then non-supported arguments

No new arguments in the final, I will ignore all new arguments that are brought up here

Reading off files will get a lower score from me, I would rather have debaters understand the docs that they wrote and present themselves as so

If your delivery is unclear, I will score you as if you didn't have a case

Be respectful at all times during the debate

Make sure you weigh your arguments

You have to actually believe what you are trying to say, confidence is very important

I believe in being the brand. I look for scholars who not only know their policy but are able to articulate it beyond the cards. An argument that isn't concise is no argument at all. I aim for my scholars to present themselves along with the materials they've prepared. I look for presentation and projection; if a scholar knows information but can't present it as if they wrote it, I deduct. I don't want you to memorize; I want you to enact the procedures of informing and persuading. Having worked in news and politics for over 3 years and being part of multiple political campaigns, I seek scholars who believe in the narrative they are pushing. A lack of confidence results in a lack of composure, and you can't win a debate if that's where you start.

Flay/parent here!

Rebuttal: Make sure you signpost well and respond down the flow or responses will be dropped.

Weighing: Use debate Jargon in the write way. etc. do not say we weigh on magnitude because we save x lives and they save only y. x>y go down their contention and signpost again with specific weighing to impacts. Meta-weighing is good.

Cards: provide cards within 2 mins

tech>truth

I'm not to comfortable with theory and K's.

Speak at a moderate speed and I do not prefer spreading. If you do spread send me your speech docs @ prashant.bhatt@gmail.com

Do not present new evidence after summary.

Speaks:I keep speaks open. Speak well you get good speaks

If you include a Taylor swift lyric you get +2 speaks ;)

Have fun be fair

add hbisevac0@gmail.com

niles north 23, kentucky 27

general

the core predisposition I have is that technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. this means that technical concessions (including cheap shots) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

big fan of cool strategies. I enjoy research a lot and will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

evidence matters a lot. you should read all the cards. debaters have to set the metric for how evidence should be evaluated and do comparison.

organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times.

thoughts

topicality: predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. have good cards. this means cards that define the word, not just use it. reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

counterplans: solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

kritiks: teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. there are a lot of things that teams feel compelled defend but are entirely irrelevant in the larger context of the debate. things like realism, util, etc. often end up just buzz-words used that are not contextualized to any of the larger parts of the 1AC/thesis of the K. the less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

planless AFFs: the more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

asserting an argument is new or dropped does not constitute an argument, you should jump up and down about it with thoughtful explanation.

LD

everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

other

please format email chains properly with the tournament, round, and teams.

if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about kentucky, feel free to reach out!!

Hey, I am Serena! Put me on the chain: blutterserena@gmail.com (if this doesn't work, lmk!)

I am primarily a Lincoln-Douglas debater but have done 9+ tournaments of public forum debate at Altamont on the local and national circuit.

I am what you would call a "tech" judge as my experience in LD has made me open to less traditional debate. Simply this means: run whatever you want and speed is fine/great!

Things to think about to win my ballot:

1. Weigh your impacts (I know it sounds basic, but I have to say it). Quick tip: please do not say "my impact of nuclear war outweighs on magnitude, timeframe and probability." Instead say "my impact of nuclear war outweighs my opponent's impact of climate change because of magnitude, timeframe and probability." It makes it so much easier to flow AND I won't have to interfere as a judge because that would be...not fun. Suggestion: weighing needs to start in the rebuttal, it is so much nicer for everyone!
2. Really look to the core arguments of the round. If your opponent dropped a core contention, I probably am going to notice that on my flow, but I cannot do anything unless you call them out.
3. If you are PRO, tell me why the current status of the world is bad now, and why we need to affirm the resolution to make [x scenario] better. If you are CON, tell me why the status quo (current state of the world) is good now and how the plan/resolution would make [x scenario] worse.
4. Final Focus: tell me why my decision matters for whatever reasons. You only have 2 minutes so TAKE UP ALL THE TIME because you definitely need it. :)

General Things:

1. SPEED: Go as fast as you would like!
2. Speaker Points: Because this is probably your last tournament of the year and everyone is most likely overwhelmed, I will be generous with speaks! I will generally go with 28-29.9. I know what it is like to pick up ballots and get 26.5 speaks. :( Of course, if something absurd (racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, etc.) is said in the round, you will get an auto 24 speaks and an L but I know y'all would not do that! if you really want some good speaks, end your final focus with a song lyric and I'll give you an auto 29 despite what you would've gotten :)
3. Crossfire: YOUR PERFORMANCE WILL HAVE NO effect on my ballot. If you feel super nervous about what I am going to think of you, don't. I dislike when cx makes or breaks the round. :)
4. I flow the round so don't worry!
5. I love some good impact defense.
6. Frameworks: YES! You do you. If you don't want to have one that's perfectly fine! I'll just weigh them however you tell me too. My fave is structural violence but util is always fun.

If you are a debater who enjoys running kritiks, having a good philosophical debate, or going super fast, I am probably a good judge for you AND go for these arguments. I am a nat circuit LD debater and love those arguments. If you don't understand what I just said, just have fun!

You are all going to do such an unbelievably good job! Experience each round like it's your first and forget all the wins and losses that you've had so far at the tournament. :)

I am a parent judge. I do not go off of personal biases and base my judgement on sound and complete argumentation. Please keep your speaking pace understandable, and do not use any debate jargon. Be respectful to your opponents, and try to have your arguments backed up with high quality evidence. Don't forget to have fun!

Lay Parent Judge

Discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will likely lead to a loss. Be mature good people. Speak slowly and clearly.

-Make Arguments as to why I should prefer your side

-Make Arguments that make sense, I won't vote for it if I don't understand

Please No Speed, I only listen to what I can understand

Please Roadmap - Contention 1, Contention 2....Etc. Thank you

No Prog, No Ks, No Theory, No Arguments that are not related to the topic

Hi, my name is Monali Chakrabarty

I am a Parent Judge.

Speaking: Please speak coherently and avoid spreading

Please do not bring up new evidence after the first summary

Please weigh your impacts and compare your case against the opponent instead of stating that you're better

Please time yourself, and lastly no rude comments and please be respectful

My email in case you need it: monali_c@yahoo.com

add me to the email chain please: pl246742@ahschool.com

for ms toc:

please put all your emails in the zoom chat so that we can get the email chain started as fast as possible

Send all speech docs and evidence you provide

Be respectful, ill flow everything, spread if both parties consent, otherwise speak slowly and confidently

tech > truth no prog (fwks, theory, Ks, trix etc.) just do substance

no new args in final, extend, collapsing is generally a good idea

i strongly dislike paraphrased cases

pls weigh

Add me to the email chain: aaronchoi2009@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. I have very little experience, though my child has started to participate in the PF from last year. So I have now enough understanding about the PF and evaluation criteria. My judging guideline is as follow :

I have a traditional approach to debate, valuing clear argumentation, logical consistency, and persuasive speaking above all. Speed is not my preference; I believe that the quality of arguments cannot be sacrificed for quantity. I prioritize well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and engage directly with the opponent's points. In terms of content, I appreciate debates that stay focused on the resolution without veering too far into theoretical or tangential areas. For me, the essence of debate is in its persuasiveness and the ability to argue effectively within the confines of the topic. Speaker points will be awarded based on clarity, organization, and the effectiveness of engagement with the opposing side's arguments.

Hi, I’m currently a sophomore at Pembroke Hill High school and this is my second year in CX debate.

Add me to the email chain: mcortes26@pembrokehill.org

General:

• Tech > truth

• Go whatever speed works for you but please slow down for the tag and author

• Tell me who I should vote on and why

• Don’t steal prep

• Be nice and don’t insult people

Policy Specific:

• I really like when people include impact calc

• Stock issues matter

• Remember to mark cards if you don’t finish one/don’t clip

NEG:

• Read as many advocacies as you want but make sure that they make sense/link to the aff and don’t just read them to read something

• I will vote on condo if the aff makes a persuasive argument for it so keep that in mind when choosing which advocacies to read

• Prove how the squo is either fine as it is or that your k/cp solves better

AFF:

• Know your case

• Win stock issues

• Prove why squo is bad and how your plan solves it

T:

• I like T debates if they are done right and I will vote on it if neg has thoroughly proven that aff is untopical

• I like when there is clash with the interpretations

K’s:

• I am a policy debater not a K debater

• I don’t like them that much but if you really want to run one please make sure explain it thoroughly

CP:

• I like CP’s but I probably won’t vote on just a CP

• Try and make the CP as specific to the aff as possible

DA:

• I love DA’s and and will probably vote on them

• Make sure that there is a good link relates the aff because even if the impact is good, if there is not a strong link to the aff then I will be less likely to vote on it

• UQ is also very important to winning me over on a DA

CASE:

• Rehighlighting is encouraged

• Analytics are just as important as reading evidence and can sometimes be more persuasive

PFD/LD:

I am very inexperienced in both of these forms of debate. I do know the basics of how PFD works but that is pretty much it. If I am judging one of these rounds please consider me a lay judge.

Have a good debate!

I usually vote in a stock-issues paradigm, but I am open to alternative paradigms if the debate goes there. I like impact calculus in closing speeches. I do not like when debaters are rude to each other; please always be kind and respectful.

Hello,my name is Jenifer Dabhoiwala. I am a mechanical engineer by profession and working in renewable sector (solar and electric vehicle) since past 23 years. I have previous experience judging PF.

I would be looking forward to the following criteria;

• Content: Quality of arguments, evidence, and analysis.
• Delivery: Speaking skills, clarity, and persuasiveness.
• Organization: Structure of speeches and ability to convey ideas coherently.
• Relevance: Relevance to the topic and adherence to parliamentary procedure.
• Civility: Respectful behavior towards other debaters and adherence to debate etiquette.

i would have following expectation from the speech

• clear and concise speeches that engage with the topic.
• showing importance of respectful and professional conduct throughout the debate.

i would provide a written feedback after the round ends.

I am extremely excited for judging the debate. If participants have any questions or concerns , please reach out.

Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS '20, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia, Class of '25

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Reagan High School,

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Public Forum---

I don't normally judge PF but I have done it off-and-on and coached the event as well. Overall I hate "PF-isms" like "we tell you", etc. and I don't think that PF gets a pass from engaging in good extension and rebuttal norms, i.e. nothing is "sticky".

If you are collapsing onto something/kicking something, you need to say so.

Paraphrasing is bad.

Send me all cards read in the debate or else your speaks are capped at a 25.

The only time something is extended for you is the First Constructive in the First Rebuttal. Other than that, you need to do the extensions yourself.

"Delink" is a pet peeve phrase of mine. It's a "no link" argument.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

• I have been judging public forum and parliamentary debate for last 2 years and consider myself as a flay parent judge.

• I have a background in Business and Technology.

• I prefer moderate speed so I can follow the arguments (no spreading).
• I pay close attention to cross-fires and/or questions asked to drive debate forward.
• I like measurable impacts and comparative weighing in the round.
• I flow key points to connect the dots.

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

Abram de Bruyn - abram.debruyn@saschools.org He/him/his

BA, Performance Studies | Victoria University, Australia

MA, Philosophy and Education | Teachers College, Columbia University

Experienced Ethics Bowl and Parliamentary Debate Coach. Judged Policy, never competed.

My approach to judging debate is to recognize each format as a distinct game variant and to honor the rules for scoring. I do not award my decision to the smartest or most knowledgeable person(s) in the room but the team with the winning argument(s). Sportsmanship counts for something, and in close decisions can be decisive. I enjoy and appreciate creative and philosophical arguments which shed new light or perspectives on a topic. However, these can also be a distraction for me if the claims being made are less than clear (or the possibilities for mis-interpretation too juicy). I will want to engage with the ideas instead of weighing the arguments. Always remember, contests can be won or lost by how clearly impacts are communicated in conclusion. Tell me how to vote and why, this is your ultimate challenge.

Im Ishaan, I have been debating policy for 2 years at Lexington High School

Here is my email please add me to the chain: ishdpk20@gmail.com

General:

Tech> Truth

Do lots of weighing, it makes my ballot a lot easier

Clear talking, structured speeches, and strategic CX questions will improve your speaks

I am fine with speed, as long as you are clear, but in PF try to keep it so that you aren't winning by outspreading your opponents

Be respectful, have fun!

As a recent graduate from American University with a focus on Communication and Public Relations, I bring a fresh perspective and a solid foundation in strategic communication and marketing. My coursework and hands-on experience have equipped me with the skills necessary to evaluate speeches with a critical eye and provide constructive feedback.

I believe effective communication is the cornerstone of success in any endeavor. As a judge, I value clarity, creativity, and relevance in speeches. I appreciate speakers who demonstrate a deep understanding of their topic, engage the audience effectively, and leave a lasting impact through their delivery.

I expect speakers to present well-researched arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Originality and depth of thought are crucial components that I look for in evaluating the strength of a speech's content.
I pay close attention to vocal clarity, articulation, and body language. A confident and engaging delivery can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of a speech, capturing the audience's attention and effectively conveying the speaker's message.
I appreciate speakers who connect with their audience through compelling storytelling, humor, or emotional appeals. Audience engagement is key to effective persuasion, and speakers who can establish a rapport with their audience are more likely to succeed.
I value speeches that demonstrate a clear understanding of the topic and its relevance to the audience. Speakers should effectively convey why their message matters and how it relates to broader themes or issues.
I admire speakers who bring fresh perspectives and innovative ideas to their presentations. Creativity in both content and delivery can set a speech apart and make a lasting impression on the audience.
I strive to provide constructive feedback that helps speakers improve their skills. My goal is to offer actionable insights and guidance that encourage growth and development. I encourage speakers to approach me with any questions or concerns they may have, and I am committed to fostering a positive and supportive learning environment.

I believe in fairness, impartiality, and respect for all participants. I welcome diverse perspectives and experiences in speeches and encourage competitors to showcase their unique talents and perspectives. Let's work together to make this tournament a rewarding and enriching experience for everyone involved.

UK, Peninsula

Email

---add: jordandi505@gmail.com, griffithd2002@gmail.com

---forward complaints to: debateoprf@gmail.com

---email title should include relevant information, such as the tournaments, teams, and round.

TLDR

---this is the only section that matters.

---I will flow and decide the debate accordingly. Any preferences can be overridden by technical execution and judge instruction. If I am left to my own devices on particular arguments, I am usually tempted to arrive at the most “reasonable” conclusion.

---as I am flowing and I don’t enjoy suffering, I will flow straight down. While I am a good flow, I am prone to miss things. Debate is a communicative activity and it’s on debaters to make themselves more comprehensible. That doesn’t necessarily mean you must slow down. Rather, there are several other things to do to be more clear: separate analytics with carded arguments, use numbers, differentiate using tone, and frontload argument labels.

---I am incredibly malleable. That means judge instruction and “framing” are important to how I make decisions. This also means debaters should utilize this early and often to hash out my rubric for deciding. The range of possibilities are vast but include anything from impact calculus to inserting a re-highlighting to the direction of presumption. I would much rather debaters hash these out rather than be left to my own rather weak defaults. I find myself diverging from other judges usually when I am given a set of arguments with little instruction for how to evaluate them. I assure you, extending argument #10 is less relevant than explaining the implications of #1-9. Debate becomes entirely untenable if I insert my own thoughts and opinions into certain arguments where debaters have explained it in a particular way. For example, if a team explains the link as “perception-based” and that premise is uncontested by the other team, I do not care if the aforementioned team’s evidence actually speaks to this frame or not.

---I don’t know what constitutes a “good” or “bad” argument. All I know is technical and warranted debating, usually with evidence to support it. That being said, I prefer you to read all the evidence.

---I will ask if I want a card doc, but you should assemble one under the presumption I will want one. Evidence should be formatted neatly, using verbatim, and organized coherently. This is true of both the card doc as well as every speech that features evidence.

---I want to adjudicate the round in front of me. Anything that affects my ballot is ideally confined to the start of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. I have literally zero interest in anything extraneous to that.

---I got rid of the long section about evaluation mainly since it’s now entirely above for the most part.

Other Thoughts

---the topic: I have done quite a lot of topic research and have a better than average understanding of economics. T arguments generally seem bad, but I am quite open to an appeal to limits. What is with all this process garbage when you have the Econ DA. Like, I am pretty good for process stuff, but like the Econ DA exists.

---planless AFFs: specificity is preferable to vagueness, debate is a game could be more, but it certainly is that, AFF offense should hopefully be intrinsic to the process of debate, and K v. K debates are something I think about a lot. My familiarity with your arguments and/or literature is higher than what may be expected.

---DA: K of impacts is better than "probability first" and politics DA is good.

--CP: sufficiency framing is intuitive, judge kick good, condo good, most theory should be perm justifications, and am generally pretty NEG on most theoretical arguments. I am fine for CP competition debates, but prefer the distinction be drawn as early and clearly as possible.

---K: it should either be a DA or framing the AFF out of the debate, specificity is good, framework interps should be mutually exclusive or don't matter, I don't care fiat isn't real. Research about the K is incredibly interesting to me and I want to reward it. Demonstrating a commitment to researching topic- and AFF-specific literature and applying it as such is something that I enjoy.

---T: yes competing interps unless ridiculous, predictable limits are good, more cards are good, definitions of words are good, and internal link debating is good. A note for clarity is I can be pretty good for limits. I'm not as much in the camp of "small difference in predictability outweighs big limits DA" as people I think I am associated with.

---conditionality: since this is increasingly popular and because I've recently had to think about this a lot due to a lousy 2N I know making me answer condo, I decided to put some random thoughts here about it. These will be thoughts for the NEG just because I don't have many interesting thoughts for the AFF other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

· Theory is usually "cowardice," as per the sentiment of said lousy 2N. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

· NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

· The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

· "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). After some tinkering, I unironically began searching for a definition of "dispo." Everything I found either defines it differently from each other or from the way it has been defined in most debates I have judged. Therefore, I can be easily convinced the phrase "dispo solves" by itself does not constitute a complete argument. The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

· This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

---death good: a quick note since I have had to think about this recently. I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That is different than arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," death good, or some revolutionary praxis (for example, Huey Newton). I think the line is generally a difference between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

---evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Hello! My name is Sashi Dondapati, and I am a first-time judge whose son is a middle school debater. I am a lay, and NEED you to speak slowly and with clarity. If I can't understand you, then I will not be able to write down your arguments.

What I value:

1. Slow speed and clarity
2. Truth > Tech
3. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
4. Debate is a sport about respect. If Cross isn't respectful, then I will deduct your speaker points.
5. No Jargon - please speak in everyday terms

I will vote on who presents their arguments the best with good evidence and good reasoning behind that evidence. Just evidence isn't enough to make a case. On Speaker Points:

30 - Amazing! You did everything right and there is nothing I would change.

29-29.5 - Also great. Practically everything is right and only a few minor details to drop

28-28.5 - Mostly good. Some things to fix but overall decent.

27-27.5 - Mediocre. Could do better, and a decent amount of things to fix.

26-26.5 - Lots of problems, only a few good things.

<26 - Needs a lot of improvement.

I look for debaters who have all of the components necessary for an LD case. Focus on explaining your impacts and weighing your and your opponent's arguments. Do not engage in an evidence dump.

Also, please speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Be respectful to your opponent; being rude or interrupting will play a role in my decision.

I'm a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please make sure to speak at a slower pace and make sure to emphasize your impacts.

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

add me to email chain: cfeng005@gmail.com

I have more experience in LD than PF, so I'm more permissive of more "progressive" arguments and styles-- however, I love traditional debating as well so I'm fine with both.

Overall I value link and impact turns > case/internal link quality > impacts. A lot of the time, I see that internal links get lost as the debate goes on and the debate becomes "we outweigh on XYZ impacts" or "in our world XYZ happens," and no clash occurs. This makes it really difficult for me to judge the round versus when link turns and solid internal links are summarized and built upon throughout the round. Also, please make sure to properly extend-- don't say "extend Doe", tell me why the Doe card matters and what it implicates in the round.

On the logistics side:

I'm ok with spreading but 1) if either competitor requests not to spread, then no spreading will be in the round and 2) please disclose your case (email chain!) beforehand if spreading is planned. If this is an online tournament, please make sure your audio/background/wifi is conducive to spreading. If I can't hear it I won't be able to flow it.

I do not keep speaking times or prep times-- time yourself and your opponents.

I don't flow CX, but good CX (questions and answers) will increase your speaker points-- do not use CX as speech time, use it to poke holes in your opponent's logic, and do not interrupt your opponent when they're answering a question!

Tech over truth-- however, 1) in the face of egregious falsehoods/perpetuating hate, I will drop the debater (be nice!!), and 2) a dropped argument does not necessarily make its implications and impacts true.

PF-specific:

From what I understand plans and DAs are frowned upon in PF-- therefore, I do not encourage them in PF rounds. However, I do encourage AFF and NEG to have flushed out, comprehensive arguments within contentions/advantages, with clear uniqueness/inherency, multiple internal links, and impacts. One good, thorough contention/advantage with multiple internal links > 3 mediocre contentions with weak links (depth >>> breadth). Everything in overall applies.

LD-specific:

Theory: Theory arguments (excluding topicality) are arguments that are not persuasive to me unless there's a clear violation and clear impacts-- I don't vote on RVIs. Theory args I've seen typically don't have tangible impacts, and I don't like when theory debate takes up the bulk of the round. For example, disclosure is a common theory argument but I don't vote on it since 1) I don't believe that disclosure has a tangible impact that can't be controlled by topicality (i.e. imo, undisclosed cases are only really a problem if the undisclosed case is extratopical/unfair, and if that's the case, then topicality can control for that), and 2) impacts aren't typically flushed out anyways. I don't want to judge a round on theory, I want to judge it on the topic and case args. However, I like a good topicality debate and will vote on topicality.

DAs/CPs/plans: As stated above, I value clear and thorough internal links and external links (on the DA) on both sides of the round. Opponents should thoroughly contest links and execute link turns to generate offense. Plans should provide a tangible, unique advantage within the resolution, while DAs should be convincing that plans don't solve for the DA. I love a creative plan especially when it includes a unique advantage and shows thorough research.

Kritiks: I have minimal experience with kritiks so I won't be familiar with specific terms relevant to kritik debate. You can run a K if you'd like, but it make sure it has a very, very clear and explicit external link to the AFF and that the broader philosophy behind it is very sound, clear, and has real-world impacts. I have no experience with K AFFs. In my opinion, if you're unsure about running the K, you're better off running the DA/CPs with me since I'm more familiar with those.

update: toc 23'

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

I am a new and lay judge.

· 1. Please speak clearly and slowly. I won’t vote for you if I cannot write and take note of your arguments and understand what you are saying.

· 2. I value clear and concise arguments that include compelling evidence and strong analytical explanations. Please "signpost" in your speeches and go in a logical order.

· 3. Respect each other.

I will flow as much as I can. Tell me why I should vote for you. At the end of the round, I will vote for the side that is more persuasive.

Be slow. Be clear. Be persuasive. Be kind. Debate is a fun experience. Win or lose, enjoy it.

UK, Niles North

CONTACT

---add arielgabay1710@gmail.com

GENERAL

---technical execution overdetermines everything. I will try my absolute hardest to be non-interventionist and minimize it, in any regard, to as close to zero as I can. That said, in some debates, that's impossible, and if that is the case, I will let debaters know why I intervened, but will try and optimize that intervention towards what I believe is most far.

---what I mean by this is that I have zero preference for what argument you go for, debaters work hard and are passionate about different things, you should let rip whatever you feel best increases the chances of you winning, nothing is off the table.

OTHER

---please let me know if you are interested in debating in college, and want to know more about kentucky, don't hesitate to ask via email or at tournaments!! I almost always have kentucky debate stickers in my bag.

---I do not like dead time and will lower speaks and take prep if it gets egregious. for every 3 minutes, the round starts after the posted start time -0.2 speaks to the team whose fault it is (obv accidents or whatever happened).

---you are welcome to 'post-round'. debaters work hard and deserve to know why things were decided as they were. you are allowed to tell me you think I am wrong, and I will explain to you why I think that I am right.

Hello,

I am an executive in a global investment bank with 20 years of experience. I am adept to evaluating debates in commercial world by being the dumbest person in the room with a neutral view on the topic. I judge based on content, delivery of the content, clarity of speech and words so a fast speech where words are being mumbled in mouth is not preferred. I am open to being persuaded by a well-constructed argument. Good luck to everyone!

Thank you for visiting the paradigm.

Best,

Deep

I am a lay judge with little knowledge on this topic.

Please speak slowly and clearly and explain why your arguments are weighted.

Spend a lot time to explain your argument and your talking point is the most important for me.

I will not disclose in prelims.

Please do the timing yourselves.

Add me to the email chain: daniellagleb8@gmail.com

Send all speech docs and evidence you provide

Be respectful, I’ll flow everything, spread only if both parties are comfortable and consent, otherwise speak at a normal pace

tech>truth

No new args in final, extend, collapsing is usually a good idea

Please weigh!!

No Debate.

Firstly, If both teams agree, give me a paradigm that you like better and I'll judge based on it (this includes not flowing/being a lay judge lol I am g-d tier mom judge and won't intervene)

Here is how you should read my paradigm: at the top of each section is the most important stuff. If you only have a few mins read that. reading below those parts will provide a more in-depth take into my judging philosophy.

Update for Online Tourneys

I rlly can't follow like REAL spreading but I can take 99% of PF speed. I'll clear u if i need it. also ask questions if u have them and I'll answer as honestly as possible!

Most important part of my paradigm:

If you make or buy me a chicken parm or mac and cheese, I will get you prep on a topic or coach you for a round or something. I rlly like chicken parm and mac and cheese....

My name is Sam and I debated PF at Wayland High School in Wayland, MA. Was a meh first speaker and got carried imo. Now I'm a member of the Barkley Forum at Emory University in Atlanta.

TLDR: Normal circuit tech judge who likes warrants and logic and needs you to collapse on args

Feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before round or my RFD after round. (thx @Kate Selig for this idea: I'd rather you postround me than tell everyone I'm a bad judge )

Also, ask questions before the round starts! I might have thoughts on the topic you'll wanna hear. tbh also might not cuz I'm kinda dumb

Speed:

u can go fast, but don't like SPREAD SPREAD plz plz. i will try to keep up and clear u if need be.

I can flow it but only if you articulate well enough. 300 wpm and up I need a speech doc. The faster you go the more work I have to do and I'm lazy. I will always flow ur speed, but chances are if you feel the need to go too fast, then your time allocation was bad/you made bad strategic decisions. Also like fr just cuz u can go fast doesn't mean u should. Speed kills

Theory/Progressive args:

read whatever you want. i ran a cap k during medicare for all and loved it lol. I'd rather you not read random theory args just bc you want to win. if you're doing that, ASK YOUR OPPONENTS/DISCLOSE BEFORE ROUND. its rlly sh1tty if you don't. i can't emphasize it enough, reading theory on novices or people that don't understand what's going on = :(

don't run theory if u wanna get high speaks (or win bc i VERY much prefer substance)tbh --> i judged a team who read disclosure against an international team that clearly didn't understand how to debate it and it angered me to my soul. that's just really not cool. don't be mean. :(

but like if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it just like not happily

the below is borrowed from Jason Luo's paradigm

d-d-d-d-disclosure theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very (like actually completely 50-50) tab ras about disclosure, i do not think it is good or bad, just that it exists.

p-p-p-p-paraphrase theory - win the flow, win the round. i am very slightly biased (55-45) for paraphrasing good but its not hard to win paraphrasing bad.

all other theory/k stuff: if it's warranted and weighed I'll vote off of it.

Cross:

it doesn't matter

Its useless to me. If you want to use an answer your opponent gives in cross, then say it in a speech. Don't be rude. Hug your opponent for a 30.

If your partner roasts their opponent in cross (without being douchey) you are expected to stand up and yell "WORLD STAR!." If you do so and I find the roast amusing then you and your partner each get 30's. If you misjudge a roast and I think it's lame you get 26's for interrupting cross.

Framework:

I default util.

Explain it well and how I'm supposed to evaluate offense under it. the more complex, the more explaining u need. Framework debates aren't my absolute favorite but hey, you do you!!

Evidence disputes:

read ev if u want. don't miscut but i won't drop u for it.

I value all evidence equally unless you weigh it, which you should. You should ALWAYS tell me why I need to value your evidence more. also, evidence doesn't matter nearly as much as logical warranting. also like in general i won't call for cards unless ur like "sam call for this card" in speech. I think that calling for ev in any other circumstance is intervening.

Speaker Points:

strategy + speak pretty to get good speaks

You will get better speaks if: You make jokes. You give good speeches and make good strategic decisions. You aren't a dick. You make me laugh. I am extremely generous and tend to give out 29's routinely. I will give you a 30 if you are exceptional. *Send me a speech doc for an extra .3 speaks (sgoldstone514@gmail.com). Also extra .3 speaks for collapsing (if u do it correctly and it makes me happy) in 2nd rebutal. I guess I'm receptive to 30s theory but like it shouldn't be hard to get a 29.5 from me. I good example of really good strategy is what Jason Luo did in first final focus of TOC finals. also i will give speaks relative to the round and the level of competitors in the debate.

Here is an itemized list of my favorite speakers in no particular order:

- Rahul Shah (his voice is soothing and he's so damn cute)

- Claudia Leduc (gives summary without looking at the flow at all, hella impressive)

- Atharva Weling (sounds so persuasive)

Rebuttal:

collapse in 2nd rebuttal. at least frontline offense and stuff. anything not frontlined is conceded.

Summary + FF:

Collapse, extend full link chain, weigh

I like roadmaps. I don't need defense in first summary. Don't extend too much in Summary, thats my biggest pet peeve FOR JESUS' (or any g-d u may or may not believe in, but if u wanna win the round do this lol) SAKE: COLLAPSE. When extending the argument you're going for, please extend the uniqueness, link, and impact in both speeches. An incomplete/ghost extension would a) make me sad and b) possibly lose you the round.

Please impact out turns in summary (although its better if this is done in rebuttal) if you plan on going for them. It is 100% okay to just go for a dropped turn. Also, u can go either line by line or give voters/do what you usually do. Don't extend through ink lol. Defense isn't rlly sticky it (unless u make an arg that it is in speech) but I'm less inclined to vote for a team that doesn't frontline at all even if their opponents don't extend defense.

Weighing:

Please weigh, and give me good analysis. It makes my job 1000x easier.

Earlier you weigh, the better. Weighing is very helpful in rebuttal, but NEEDED for me to vote in Summary and FF. With the new 3 min summaries, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to weigh in summary. No new weighing in 2nd FF, new weighing in 1st FF is unfavorable but if it's the only weighing in the round and they don't respond to it then like eh. If both teams win their weighing and cases and there is no meta weighing then I will vote for the team whose weighing was introduced earlier in the round (prereq/link ins weighing doesn't apply here bc if one case is a prereq to another then u vote for the prereq/link in). Does this favor the 1st speaking team? No, you can weigh (and do other fun things) in 2nd constructive. Unrelated but remember to weigh turns over contentions. If nobody weighs then i honestly won't know what to do. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args. jUsT mAk3 mY lyfE eAs1eR!!!

How I make my decision:

Weighing debate first.

I vote on the weighed args first but if nobody weighs then i be big sad, but I'll vote on cleanest/clearest path to the ballot. I thinks its probably interventionist to pick which argument is better if both teams win their args and the paths are both clear/clean. If there is no offense in the round then I flip a coin to decide who picks up cuz choosing any other way is interventionist, but feel free to make warranted arguments abt defaulting to one side or speaking order. I will always disclose after the round and give an RFD. also PS lmfao u need to win the link into the impact that u weighed.

Other:

I will reward you for taking risks like collapsing on only a turn. Please signpost and tell me where you are on the flow. I hate dumb analogies, chances are, even if you think you're funny, you're not. Don’t call me judge, that’s weird. If a tournament is side-locked, if both teams agree to flip a coin the normal way (winner of the toss decides speaking order or side (their choice), the other team decides the other), I'm fine with that. I think side-locking makes no sense and is very harmful to pf as an activity when certain topics skew neg.

for every link into tourism you read, +.5 speaks lol.

i will never ever ever make any comments abt what you're wearing or how you speak. if a judge ever does, that's pretty messedup. i don't care if u show up in designer clothes or sweats. i enjoyed debating in sweats, it's comfy.

in outs, if i'm on a panel that's 2 other lays, u can tell me to judge it like a lay round and i will. (this means voting for the team that better establishes a narrative and is more convincing lol)

Do crazy sh1t fr fr:

g0 cRaaazeEEy!!

tbh unpopular opinion but evidence is dumb, debate should be logical. obvi like use evidence if u want but warrants/analytics are perfecto. I genuinely think that debate would be better if it was just logical warranting, evidence is bad. (obviously evidence matters but: warrant + authors name vs. just warrant? meh p equal unless u give me good reasoning to prefer the evidence. unless the evidence is like a fact like "x has increased y 200%" is obviously better than a reason why x doesn't increase y)

If at any point you believe that you have won the round with no way for the opponents to win, you can call a TKO, if you are correct it will be an auto W with 30s, but if you are incorrect it is a loss with 25s.

Give a rebuttal in 2nd constructive (1st rebuttal will have to frontline if this happens) (if you read fast enough, you can still do case!) instant 30 if u do this cuz lol.

Above all, just have fun! Debate can get stressful so just try to breathe, chill and relax in round.

I WILL DISCLOSE AFTER EVERY ROUND NO EXCEPTIONS— HOLD ME TO THIS

A haiku describing my judging philosophy:

Weigh Warrants Logic

Collapse Analysis Links

WEIGH WEIGH COLLAPSE WEIGH

plz remind me of how many speaks you should win based all the crazy stuff in here lol i'll forget what i put here

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Citations after article introduction are preferred. How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? It won't How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? Empirical Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. How should debaters run on case arguments? Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. How should debaters run off case arguments? Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. How should Debaters run theory arguments? The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method.

Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. What other preferences do you have, as a judge? Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debated at Oak Park River Forest and the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---I will vote neg if the 2AR is only condo. This is neither a prediction nor a challenge. It is a threat. Every other theory argument is fair game (including yes/no judge kick), but I will never punish the neg for advocacies that the 2NR does not extend.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you because debate is a speech activity, not a reading contest. I always try to make it obvious that I am not able to follow you through both verbal and non-verbal cues.

I have very few argumentative preferences---other than my hatred of theory, I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I must know by the end of the debate is why you should win. Put another way, I value execution more than substance. I do not read very many cards. I do not assign arbitrary importance to single lines not impacted out in final rebuttals.

How do you get the decision you want from me?

Tell me what to do in every place possible---robust judge instruction is the only way to avoid catastrophic judge intervention. Rather than force the judge to find the win for them, the best debaters tell the judge both why they win and the other team loses. This is aided by a clear, cohesive, and consistent narrative through the debate. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. I only read cards when it is absolutely required because of a dispute over evidence quality, qualifications, etc. I do not read cards to fill in gaps on my flow.

Explain the implication of technically concessions---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't say what this means or what the argument even is. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges. The way to avoid this is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do change about your debating to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments more than usual---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

Make complete arguments, and refuse to answer incomplete ones---it is not the 12-off 1NC that makes me angry, it is the 2AC that treats each off-case equally. If the 1NC doesn't even try to read a link, the 2AC does not have to say no link because fully conceding every other component of the DA doesn't matter unless if the link is zero. If the 1NC reads a link to a different aff, you should only say "no link" in the 2AC. If the 1NC doesn't say the CP solves the case, the 2AC does not have to say it doesn't unless you are afraid that once explained, the 1AR will have to overcompensate. I consistently see 2ACs that will accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time outcarding the 1NC. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. I don't view framework debates as distinct from anything else and try my best to maintain the same conventions of judging that I do in every other debate.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should you know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm a terrible judge for teams that rely on dropped tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply explaining it.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. I often find myself questioning why alternatives solve link arguments. If you read a 1AC full of pre-empts, I strongly prefer you go for those rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true as an abstraction.

Here is a list of thoughts related to counterplans.

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this even matter in the year of our lord 2024, where no one goes for "links to the net benefit" and very few teams have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk? If no one tells me to kick the counterplan, I guess I'll kick it, but I'm a very easy sell on the argument that I shouldn't.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---these tend to be the debates that go over my head the most. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction inviting intervention based on my general neg bias. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on that particular issue.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory ideally justifies a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case." That being said, this really only applies to process CPs, so I understand the utility of a theory 2AR in every other situation.

Will I vote on T against a policy aff!

Absolutely---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the ultimate conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide the debate than assuming I can follow the implication of every technical drop exactly how you envision I shoudl.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. It is virtually impossible to get me to toss an impact turn without substantive refutation. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and/or philosophically inconsistent.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. I put a lot of care into judging and like to learn about how people think, so I try to make my paradigm reflect both of these values. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do. I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging. It also forces me to adhere to the procedures I explain, theoretically resulting in more consistent decisions over time.

For LD.

Strike me if you go for tricks and/or theory. Do not take me high if you don't read and defend a plan. I have read some philosophy and have a decent understanding of much of what is read in LD, but I do not intuitively understand how some of it applies to debate, so I may need more explanation than the normal LD judge would for some of the more complex stuff (think: the more premises in your logic equation, the more explanation I need to understand why your argument is sound).

Hello everybody, I'm Eva Grover. I'm a lay/parent judge with some former debate experience.

What matters most: For me, the most important thing in a round is cleanliness. You could give me the best evidence and case in the world, but if I can't understand your arguments, it doesn't do anything for you as a debater or for me as a judge. Throwing around fancy terms that don't add any value or purpose to the round means nothing to me, and I won't buy it. Simply put, clarity is key.

Speech preferences: Even though I will be taking notes in the round, i'd like it if you don't read fast pls. If I can't comprehend what you're saying, then I can't write it down, and there will be no way for me to remember what you said when it's time to decide the verdict of the round.

(Side note: As a judge, I won't be keeping track of time. Competitors should keep track of time and prevent each other from going overtime.)

Speaker Points: I would say that I'm decently generous in terms of speaker points. As long as I can hear you properly, you aren't mumbling, and you sound confident, I will give you good speaks.

Argumentation: While this should go without saying, I'm looking for an argument that is clean and well- written with reliable sources. Your contentions and rebuttals should be backed with good evidence, and more importantly, good logic.

Don't make me connect the dots. I want you all, as debaters, to put the pieces together and prove to me why you win.

My email address is eva.grover@gmail.com

hi, i’m juley (she/her) :)

pls add me to the email chain: pl1003111@ahschool.com

for mstoc pf:

i predominantly do ld and have not done pf for quite a bit and don’t have a lot of topic knowledge, always err on the side of over explanation especially for non stock args

general: tech > truth, default truth testing, extend and weigh!, treat me like a flay judge prob

spreading - ask for consent, send a speech doc for every speech if u’re reading cards or prewritten analytics (u shld be doing this anyway), if u’re not clear i won’t catch what u said and it won’t end up on the flow, go a bit slower than ur normal pace since mstoc is online

theory - common shells like disclosure and paraphrasing bad are fine, anything else idk

for good speaks - go off the flow, clash w ur opp’s args, weigh well in summary and final focus

other - if u want me to eval smth said in cross u must bring it up in a speech, no new args in final focus

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

I am a parent judge who has judged one tournament earlier. Please introduce yourself before starting your speech and speak at a reasonable pace. If I cannot understand your argument, I will not be able to judge you fairly.

I am looking forward to hearing you debate. Good luck!

Hi,

I'm a parent judge. I will judge based on content and presentation.

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

My name is Aditi Hemanth and I am a 9th grader at Lambert High School. I've been doing PF debate for a while and have competed in different nationals. Here's what I look for in a debate:

Main Point: You need to speak well, have strong cases with credible evidence. I need to hear warranting; explain to my why each piece of evidence is connected or how your link leads to the impacts actually happening.

Cross: I do pay attention to cross, but it won't be a part of my flow. You need to be dominant and I notice if you can't answer a question. This doesn't play a big role in my decision, but it still does matter to me.

Response: If you are going second, FRONTLINE. Your responses must be signposted and I prefer an offtime road map. I don't like getting confused with what you are saying and putting it on the wrong flow. I really like seeing good analytics with logic behind them.

Summary: If you are going first, FRONTLINE in this speech. I want to hear impact weighing (ie. probability), case extensions, and either frontlining or extending responses. I am okay with collapsing, and think it is a good way to focus on what you think matters most in the debate.

Final Focus: This is your final chance to convince me for your vote. I want you to cleanly extend the cases you decide on as well as extend the weighing.

Speaker Points: I default to a 28 or 29, but will give you extra points for doing well in cross, speaking loudly, your general behavior, and your confidence while speaking. You need to know your own arguments and the topic well.

Overall, I consider myself to be a flay (mostly tech) judge. Good luck on your rounds!

Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a senior debating for Durham Academy. I've done debate for three years on both the local and national circuits.

He/Him Pronouns

add me to the email chain - benjaminshodges@gmail.com

TLDR - Flow judge, tech > truth, a little tired of the blippy state of flow, WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that does not have a warrant regardless of whether it is pointed out. I'll only do this if its egregious, so I'll still vote for something a little under warranted provided the other team doesn't point it out.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Technical Stuff and Preferences:

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary. I'm quite picky about having parts of arguments when it comes to case. If you do not have a warrant in case, I'm not letting you materialize it out of thin air in rebuttal (assuming your opponents point it out).

I'm okay with speed. If you're going over 1050 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll need a doc to flow off of. Go faster than that at your own risk but I should do fine provided I have a doc.

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic

Progressive Debate:

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it. So many K rounds I see have negative warranting and just devolve to the K team out spreading under warranted claims and attaching the word epistemological or pedagogical to different arguments without ever explaining to me the judge how I should be voting. Please give the issues Ks discuss the quality discussion they deserve, because when done right these can be some of the best debates.

Speaks:

I will try to make my speaks determinations based on your technical decision-making, organization, sign-posting etc ---- essentially how easy you make it for me to follow you and know how to vote. I will not make my determinations off fluency. As someone who struggled with stuttering a lot, I understand how speaks can punish people with different abilities and will try to stay away from that.

That's it. Have fun!

I have done debate for four years in high school, competing in both Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum. I judge based on the flow and weighing mechanisms outlined in the round.

I judge based on the flow and weighing mechanisms outlined in the round, and prioritize presentation and style when determining speaker points. I am committed to providing an equitable environment for all participants, and as such ask that clear argumentation, logical coherence, and willingness to contribute to meaningful discussion is prioritized. That being said, I am fine with spreading, but the best speed for a debater to take in round is one that they know how to. Know your limits and adhere to them.

Feedback will be given based on debater's preference, but personal feedback tends to be on things done well and things that should be improved on in each speech, whereas the reason for decision goes contention by contention. Personal feedback can be disclosed after the round if asked for, but a final decision will not be.

Jeff Hou

Potomac Debate Academy

SMCS Poolesville HS Class of 2026

Add jeffhoufc219@gmail.com for all email chains to exchange evidence and speech docs. This is non-negotiable!

To introduce myself, I am a public forum debater and have debated for almost 2 years. As a debater, I understand what it is like to have a judge that doesn't fully tune in and give illogical decisions. Thus, considering the arguments of both sides carefully is imperative to me and I want to make sure my decision is as rational, reasonable, and productive as it can be. I want every round I judge to be clean, educational, and purposeful.

Pre-Round + Constructive Info:

• Please create an email chain before round and add me to it. You don't need to ask me if I want to be on it; yes, I want to be on the email chain.
• Send your cases to my email before round. If you fail to, I will doc your speak points and if it's a close round, I'm voting for the team that did send it compared to the team that didn't.
• Arrive early, start on time. In the words of my Earth Science teacher Mr. Kingman, "stop burning daylight."
• If you intend on spreading (>280 wpm), give me a notice before doing so. Your speak points will suffer if otherwise.

Rebuttal:

• If you're first rebuttal, your job is to respond to your opponent's case
• If you're second rebuttal, you have to frontline. I prefer that you frontline first and respond to your opponent's case second.
• In terms of offense, you need to implicate it and turns need to have an impact
• In offensive mechanisms, I do have a preference in terms of what holds the most weight. Turns are the biggest; the rest are as of followed: delink, prereq, invalid, non-unique.

Second Half Debate + Other Stuff:

this is sorta unorganized but js read and synthesize it

• If you don't weigh don't act surprised that you lose the round lol
• Weigh as early as possible to maximize your chances of winning.
• Please, please, please metaweigh tbh; debaters love throwing out random terms to weigh on but there has to be some clear distinction and in most cases there are none. In most close rounds I've debated in, metaweighing was the key to winning so please metaweigh.
• I'm going to be honest; probability weighing is stupid lol but if you can justify it go for it.
• No new weighing mechanisms in final focus.
• Don't bring up new arguments in final focus. It's annoying, against the rules of debate, and pointless. Just know that you are wasting time running arguments that I will not vote for. Also, your speak points will suffer.
• I vote on warrants and clean extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim, the warrant of the card, and the implication of the card. Name of the card is the least important part of extension; as long as I know what you're referring to we're chilling. A clean extension is when your opponent has nothing to respond to on your card and you continuously bring it up (you'd be surprised how many people need to know what a clean extension means lol)
• For the love of God, collapse in summary. The speech times get shorter for a reason. Once you collapse on an argument, YOU CAN'T JUST COLLAPSE TO ANOTHER ONE IN THE NEXT SPEECH. You are going to lose the round if you do that (cough cough D'Silva).
• Defense > offense especially when it comes to final focus. Make this debate about you and your position and why I'm voting for you. You need to re-explain your key points in summary and final focus; if you don't, I don't have a big reason to vote for you.
• Defense is not sticky

Theory Debate:

• I personally don't run theory cus it has nothing to do w/ substance and I think it's cowardice
• Regardless of how I view theory, you can run theory but only run theory if there's been an actual abuse. The only 2 things worth running theory imo is disclosure (maybe) and paraphrasing. If you think something else is worth running, go for it. Chances are I won't vote for it but if you pull it off, I'll give you 30 in speaks.
• Your theory has to be actually good and something actually worth listening to. Don't just do it as a trick or to scam your opponent, don't just run it as an easy path to victory, I'll see through it. Yes, I probably will still vote for it if you win on the theory but your speak points will suffer.
• Unlike most judges, I'm chill with paragraph theory; run either paragraph or shell theory cus I don't really care.

Ks in Debate:

• Not the most experienced with Ks tbh
• I highly encourage debaters that wanna run Ks to run Ks; it makes debate interesting
• Make the K make sense tho pls cus I've seen really stupid ones
• One warning on Ks: if you run Cap K, you better somehow and someway find a logical alternative. If your alternative is communism or anarchy, I am not voting for it even if it is absolutely clean. I'm calling this the Aarav Clause; only the GOATs know.

How to Not Lose Your Round + Other Stuff I Didn't Know How to Organize:

• DON'T LIE. DON'T LIE. DON'T LIE. I WILL DROP YOU ASAP AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST SPEAKS POSSIBLE (cough cough Nathaniel D'Silva)
• Don't be racist, sexist, etc.; just be a good person. If you're acting like a POS, I will treat you like one by dropping you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.
• I'm a history nerd so don't be stupid and lie about history in round; I'm going to realize that and refer to point 1 of this section.
• On prep time, don't steal prep time. If it looks like you're stealing prep time, I'm running the clock and docking speak points. If you're taking a long time to pull up evidence or a document, the clock is ticking cus I'm running your prep time.
• You should have cut-out cards; I will drop you if you don't
• I will call and evaluate cards if a) it sounds too good to be true, b) a team calls for me to evaluate it, c) it genuinely intrigues me.
• I prefer evidence not being paraphrased but do as you wish; just be careful of paraphrase theory.
• If round is boring or incredibly close, I'll presume neg.
• It's AP season so tbh I'll be tired

• In crossfire, just make sure it's coherent; anything else is fine with me. I listen to crossfires because it can get interesting but I don't flow cross.

Truth vs Tech

Debaters get wrapped up in the convo if a judge is "truth over tech" or "truth over tech" but in an activity of debate, it's impossible to fairly categorize it in either. If you're completely a "truth > tech" judge, you're interfering as a judge when it's not your place; the role of providing arguments are the debaters not you. If you're completely a "tech > truth" judge, you're making debate an obsolete activity because truth be told, realism needs to be considered if debate is going to be more than just a competition. Thus, my philosophy is that you bring a balance of reasonability and realism with debating on a technical level on the flow.

Ask me if you have any other questions before the round begins.

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate. Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am presently one of the head coaches for the USA Debate Team through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated March 2023]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

I'm a parent judge and this is my first year judging. Please speak slow and good luck.

im not strict with things i specifically look for in a debate round but i will judge off my flow so make sure to respond respond respond (but also collapse if needed)

please dont spread and also don't bring a whole new argument you never read in rebuttal suddenly into summary.

don't steal prep time and i won't be timing you guys but please be honest with how much time you took.

i don't have a lot of rules but dont be racist, sexist, or just any hate in general.

ALWAYS be respectful to your opponents and judge and i will call you out if you're extremely rude.

also please please please do not be a suck up to judges its annoying and have fun debating

Pembroke Hill 26

2nd yr policy debater

To add me to the chain: cjiang26@pembrokehill.org

“Cindy” is preferred over “judge”, I won’t take speaks or anything off if you say “judge” though.

Tl:dr

• tech>truth, though I won’t die on that hill. Arguments like spark and wipeout are not preferred, but I’ll vote for them if they are executed well.

• I’m the most experienced in debating CPs and DAs, but I am open to almost all arguments, so debate how you feel comfortable!

• JUDGE INSTRUCTION. Tell me what I should vote on.

• Be clear, in both speed and content. Please put analytics in the document. I can flow reasonable speeds, but light to no spreading is preferred.

• I love link/impact turns and rehighlights ^^

• An organized speech makes everybody’s life easy. I can’t vote for things I can’t understand.

• I will listen to the speeches, and flow off what I hear and see on the doc. That being said, please add me to any email chain, and mark cards. I also will clear you if I can’t understand your words.

• Overviews and extensions are awesome, I’ll be fine without underviews outside of KvK.

• Don’t under highlight then bring up unhighlighted arguments. More cards doesn't always mean a better argument.

CX

• Pick one or two voters to go for in the last speech, don’t go for everything - please explain how you won (preferably walk me through what happened in the round), and add impact calc

• I love to see good use of questioning

• Most of my preferences are for lay debate, do whatever (with basic ethics) for flow

Neg

• Show me how the squo is better, or how an advocacy is BETTER than the aff.

• Reading multiple advocacies on neg is fine, but don’t try to time skew the aff during lay

Aff

• Show me you know your case, it’s usually pretty obvious when teams just read off a coach made case without understanding it

• Just as the neg shouldn't deliberately time skew the aff, I don’t like seeing affs with a lot of advocacies - prefer no more than 3 in lay (flow rounds do whatever you want)

CP

• Don't go for really cheaty cps. I probably won’t vote for a word pic or delay

• I personally think generics are generic for a reason; I enjoy judging most of them

• I’ll default to judge kick unless aff can show neg dropped offense

• Bonus points if your CP and DA link!

DA

• I’ll definitely vote on DAs, but the less realistic the DA, the more susceptible it is to link attacks

• I enjoy link and UQ debates, I think they make high quality debates

K

• I am personally a policy debater, but I by all means welcome K debates, though I am inexperienced in KvK, so I would really appreciate explanations

• Just because it’s a K doesn't mean you can use ad hominem arguments

• I value a strong alt on the K!

T

• I love to see good clashing interps!

• I have no preferences on ground arguments (education, fairness, clash, etc.), I’ll vote on who explains it better

K affs

• I have extremely little experience with K affs - If you choose to run one, I’ll try my best to judge it, but I will probably vote for the more clear and better executed side

Theory

• I'm not the biggest fan of kick the team in theory, I probably won’t vote for it unless you prove that the other team genuinely deserves to lose the round, instead of kicking the argument

• I don’t like seeing petty theories; having a vagueness debate every round isn't fun for anybody

PFD

• I've debated PFD a few times, I don’t have a ton of experience but I have a basic understanding of what's allowed and not

• I think it’s less of a norm to spread in PFD, so I’d prefer a reasonable talking speed

LD

• I have no experience in LD, I’ll try my best to judge fairly though!

Earning speaks

• I think reading and following a judge’s paradigm is one of the best ways to be respectful in a round - I will give you extremely high speaks if you show you are following my paradigm!

• Clarity

• Eye contact

• Overall politeness

• Professionalism

Docking speaks

• Racist, homophobic, xenophobic language

• Disengaged with the round (ex. watching Youtube during someone else’s speech)

• Being rude during CX

• Obvious prep stealing: I'm usually pretty lenient but let’s be ethical

• Marking cards

• I will destroy your speaks if I figure out you were unethical in disclosure

If any problems arise, I am always open to pausing the round and getting someone from tab or coaches

hey im alfred, im a sophomore at ahs broward. i've have competed in pf, ld, and policy debate at both local and national competitions. broke at harvard and placed top 4 at varsity states.

pls make email chain before the round: pl259931@ahschool.com

mstoc:

-PLEASE say the order of rebuttals/summaries before u speak (it makes everything go faster, for mstoc i am judging out rounds n don't wanna ask for the order in between every speech)

ex: "the order is their case my case"

-you can read literally anything you want with me, js be sure to explain well.

ex: normal k's (setcol, cap, fem, etc), theory if u want, counterplans, etc.

-if you're reading a topical case, be sure to explain all ur arguments clearly because i haven't debated or done research on this topic.

-being organized in ur speeches is super important to me (don't jump back and forth to different arguments), make sure to lmk where to go on the flow, what to prioritize, etc.

-send all new evidence and speech docs before speeches.

-you can spread if everyones fine with it. (but also don't risk clarity for speed, if idk what ur saying im not flowing it lol)

-no new args in final focus.

if you have any questions before the round email them, i respond pretty fast.

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

I am a college Student with some judging experience over my highschool year. I am very intrested in communications and listning to speech and debate, hence judging these compitions is very intresting and would love to explore more in this field.

hi! i'm sky.

please strike me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email is spjuinio@gmail.com. add me to the email chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. be explicit; explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. if you do use jargon, use it correctly. extend evidence properly and make sure that your cards are all cut correctly. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should know the answers to these questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you are winning the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful (generally, this is the case for judge instructions). sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

speeches get a 15-second grace period. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

don't be rude. don't lie, especially in the late debate.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds. if you're competing at a tournament where disclosure isn't allowed, i will still try to give you some feedback on your speeches so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down and/or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions regarding my feedback. i also accept emails and other online messages.

now, specifics!

topicality. it would behoove you to tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why i should.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly. i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if asked, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse to be lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify the card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance given the context of the round. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions (arguments read earlier in the round that were not read in summary). none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

Introduction:

Hello, my name is Pavan Katragadda. I have been involved in the world of speech and debate for over five years, serving as a parent judge. My journey in this field has been enriching and enlightening, and I am eager to continue learning and growing with each debate I judge.

Communication Style:

Clarity of speech is of utmost importance to me. I believe that the essence of a good debate lies not in the speed at which arguments are delivered, but in the articulation and structure of those arguments. Therefore, I encourage debaters to speak clearly and at a pace that allows me to follow their line of reasoning. If you choose to spread, please be aware that if I cannot follow your arguments, it may impact my evaluation.

Technical Terms:

While I am familiar with the general rules and format for most of the Debates, I may not be well-versed in all “technical” terms from the debating vocabulary. If you plan on using any such terms, I would appreciate it if you could explain them during your speech. This will ensure that I fully understand your argument and can evaluate it accurately.

Post-Round Process:

After the round has concluded, I like to take a few minutes to reflect on the arguments presented and enter my feedback and results. Please understand that this process takes time, and as such, I will not be able to disclose the results or provide judge’s feedback immediately after the round.

Expectations:

I expect all debaters to come prepared with strong arguments backed by solid evidence. A good debate is not just about winning or losing; it’s about learning, growing, and enjoying the process. So let’s have a fun and engaging debate!

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

1. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
2. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
3. I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
4. I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
5. Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
6. Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
7. I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
8. I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

I don't have prior personal experience in debating but enjoy it neverthless. How I evaluate in preferential order

1. Clarity - How you open with a clear problem statement and specify your assertion
2. Speech quality - Going too fast makes people miss points that you are making and so make sure you are not tying to win by confusing the opponent- that's not a cool strategy
3. Response to opponents rebuttal vs ignoring selectively
4. Focus on the meat and potatoes of the case and not getting swayed by noisy comments

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing if you have three or more contentions and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge with little knowledge of this topic. Please speak slowly and clearly and explain at the end why I need to vote for your team.

Please be polite and respectful.

I will not disclose in prelims.

I am a parent judge. My middle school debater has taught me and coached me through the structure and main ideas of a debate.

Content is very important as well as the formality of the debate. Make sure you speak clearly, not necessarily very fast.

Make sure you are being respectful even though it is a competitive debate.

Good Luck!

Peng

NSDA x1 NDCA x1 1 Silver bid

My name is Tony and I have been debating PF in varsity for 2 years for Lexington High School.

Some things to know about me:

-Tech>Truth

-Tabula Rasa: I am a blank slate, write the ballot for me

-I presume the status quo unless someone tells me otherwise

-when extending an argument extend uniqueness, link, impact in that order dont just say “extend c1”

-do comparative weighing

-i wont flow cross, if you want to bring something to my attention say it in a speech

-if you are racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other -ist i will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible.

-email chains please add me thx tony.ym.liu@gmail.com

-I'm not super familiar with theory but ill vote off it if it is implicated well.

-same with k's

-no trix

For Middle School TOC:

just debate and try your best, I will be pretty lenient on speaker points as long as nothing really bad is said. Don't run progressive arguments in middle school, if I hear the words "1 off then case" I will explode.

Judging Style: I prioritize clarity, argumentation, and strategic use of evidence. I appreciate creativity and innovation but expect all arguments to be grounded in logic and supported by evidence. I value effective communication skills, including organization, clarity, and persuasiveness.

Argumentation: I prefer depth over breadth. Focus on developing a few strong arguments rather than spreading yourself thin. Ensure your arguments are well-reasoned and backed by credible evidence. I value critical thinking and the ability to respond to opponent's arguments effectively.

Presentation: Speak clearly and confidently. Maintain eye contact and engage with your audience. I appreciate speakers who are dynamic and passionate about their topic but also maintain professionalism and respect for their opponents.

Cross-Examination: Cross-examination is an opportunity to clarify and challenge your opponent's arguments. Use it strategically to strengthen your own case and undermine your opponent's position. I value effective questioning and responsive answers.

Rebuttals: Rebuttals should be strategic and focused. Identify the key weaknesses in your opponent's arguments and exploit them effectively. Make sure to address any new arguments introduced in the round and explain why they are not valid.

Fairness: Treat your opponents with respect and avoid any personal attacks or disrespectful behavior. Debates should be conducted in a spirit of sportsmanship and fairness.

Final Thoughts: Above all, have fun and enjoy it.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

I debated for 3 years in China and won 2 NSDA China regional championships and national semi-finalist. I'm currently taking a gap year before I go to college and I have been judging PF debates for the past year. I understand basic rules and PF debate terms well, but I do expect debaters to explain it clearly when it comes to terms that are specific to the topic. Also, English is not my first language, so don't speak too fast (this doesn't mean you need to intentionally slow down, just make sure you are not speaking faster than 250 words per minute) to make it difficult for me to judge. As a judge, I fully understand the hard-works debaters did prior to the tournament, I will do my best to listen and flow in the round.

Specific suggestions to debaters:

1. Don't be rude. I like rounds that are clear and effective. I would stop flowing if two teams are just shouting at each other.

2. I care about impact calculus a lot. If no other framework is mentioned in the round, I would adopt a utilitarian framework to judge the debate.

3. I care about argumentation over presentation, pathos doesn't really work in most cases when I'm judging.

4. I do flow in the crossfires but make sure you talk about important crossfire moments in the following speeches.

5. HAVE FUN !!!!

I am a parent judge and am new to debate. Please speak slowly and clearly and avoid using jargon. Ensure that all of your impacts are clearly stated to allow me to most effective judge the case.

Hey everyone!

My name is Alice (she/her), and I am currently a sophomore and varsity PF debater at Lexington High School with 2 years of PF experience.

Please add me to the email chain: 26stu037@lexingtonma.org

Short version: Extend your arguments throughout the entire round, signpost, and weigh. Be respectful, and most of all, have fun!

More details:

• I will vote you down if you are exclusionary in any way. Respect the pronouns of everyone in the round, be kind, and do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
• Speed: No spreading, but I am fine with speed as long as you are CLEAR. I vote off of my flow, so anything I do not catch on my flow because you were unclear will only harm you. Send speech docs!
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH, especially comparative weighing. The first place I will look at when I sign my ballot is the weighing debate. If you have extra time in your speeches, dedicate that time to weighing!
• Tech>truth/tabula rasa (blank slate). That being said, if you say anything -ist, I will drop you.
• Signpost! Again, I vote off of my flow, and if I don't know where you are, I will not be able to write your responses where you want me to.
• Extend your argument completely (including uniqueness, links, and impacts) throughout the round, as well as frontlining and extending defense.
• Cross: I may listen to crossfires, but I will not flow or vote off of them. If something important happens in cross that you want me to take note of, bring it up in your speech!
• Summary/Final Focus: The speeches in the back-half of the round should mirror each other, and no new responses in the final focus. Weighing should also be more prominent in these speeches!
• Theory/K’s/other progressive arguments: I do not think these arguments should be run in novice, so please keep the round substance-based.

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me before the round. Finally, be respectful and have fun!

Hello debaters, this is my paradigm. I suggest reading through all of it, but the TLDR is at the bottom.

In my paradigm I'll be answering a few common questions:

- Are you OK with spreading?

I'm not OK with spreading, so if you decide to spread, please send me your speech doc so I can read you case more thoroughly.

- Truth>Tech

Actually, I prefer Tech>Truth, and I prefer strategic arguments and carded responses. Analytics are fine, I would prefer carded responses more, as they are easier for me flow and evaluate.

- Do you allow for my camera to be off? (ONLY APPLIES TO ONLINE COMPETITIONS)

Strictly no, I don't trust turned off cameras just in case it isn't you actually debating. It is fine if you turn off your camera if you're not speaking, but when you're speaking please remember to turn it on, or else I will remind you.

- Is it OK if me and my partner talk during my opp's speech? (ONLY APPLIES TO IN-PERSON COMPETITIONS)

It's fine if it's a soft whisper that I can ignore. If you're laughing or talking loudly, no matter if you are friends with your opponents, it'll be an automatic speaker point deduction, as it's taken as rude offence by both the judge and the opp's.

- How would I get a 26 or 30 for speaker points?

If I hear someone use derogatory or racial language, it's an automatic 26 for both that person and their partner. To get a perfect 30, speak concise, and I would prefer if you spoke in the middle, so don't speak too slow, as you can't get out all the information, but don't speak so fast that I can't understand what your saying. Additionally, I know that crossfire isn't really important to most judges, but I care about crossfire. It can show me how much you understand the topic (and what you're saying). Don't be too aggressive though, try to calmly answer the questions but if your opponent keeps on mistaking/misunderstanding you question or fails to respond to it correctly, I will be sure to note that down. I definitely take off points though if you bring up new evidence in summary, grand cross, or final focus.

TLDR: In short terms I am a tech leaning flay judge. Speak concisely and clear, no stuttering or stumbling, and please no making up evidence. That just makes the job of me and your opponent harder. No bringing up new evidence after second cross. That's basically it. Further details in my actual paradigm.

Where I am

<-Lay----------Flay---↑------Tech->

Remember debaters, your score doesn't define how well of a debater you are. It only defines how well you did in that specific round. If you get a slightly lower score than your opponents or partner, don't feel discouraged because it's just once and you have many more rounds and debates to go. So no matter if you take the L in the round, remember that you all are great debaters, and keep pursuing your passion in debate! (Unless you're forced by your parents to do debate).

I value the following when Judging:

- Clear, articulate speech. Speak at a moderate pace, enunciate clearly, and use appropriate volume.

- Well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning

- Strong clash, pointing out inconsistencies, logical fallacies, or weaknesses in opponents arguments

- Strategic use of time, clear organization of arguments, and adaptation to opponents arguments and rebuttals

- Avoiding personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior

add me to the email chain: krishivmanyam@gmail.com

pretty standard tech judge imo

defense isn't sticky - everything in ff needs to be in summary

frontline in 2nd rebuttal

all argument is both summary and ff have to be extended, warranted, and weighed for it to be on my ballot

speed:

Frankly not the best with flowing so send speechdocs if you’re gonna spread

theory:

don't have too much experience with theory outside of disclo and parphrasing but I can probably evaluate most shells as long as they are clearly explained and warranted.

my personal beliefs are that friv theory and paraphrasing are bad, and disclosure is good, but I will not hack for these args.

Non-Topical Positions/Ks

have close to zero experience with these and probably can't evaluate them at any level

if you want to run these, please strike me

Speaks:

as long as you are respectful and don't cheat, you wont get lower than a 27

IF YOU STEAL PREP, I WILL TANK SPEAKS

Speaks are capped at 27.5 in any varsity pf round if you dont sent constructive speechdocs

I will boost speaks if you:

- Send Rebuttal speechdocs(+0.2)

- Read only cut cards in Constructive and Rebuttal(+0.1)

- Weigh in Rebuttal(+0.1)

- Take less than 2 mins to compile and send all evidence(+0.2)

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

hi y'all! i'm a junior at lakeville (mn) and I've done pf for 3 years

feel free to ask me about my paradigm or judging preferences before the round!

please add both a.g.mc1357@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain and send both case and rebuttal docs before speech

IN GENERAL

tech>truth within reason

disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad (see bottom of paradigm tho)

please read cut cards (how to)

no isms (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc), I will immediately drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible

**FOR THE MIDDLE SCHOOL TOC

the easiest way to win the round is to:

a) extend at least one of your arguments in BOTH summary and final focus

- extend the uniqueness, link, and impact so I know what I'm voting for

- however, you don't need to extend in rebuttal - use that time to argue against your opponents case and respond to their arguments!

b) weigh the argument

- tell me why your argument should be preferred over your opponents

- prereqs, link ins, and short circuits are also a great way to win a ballot (if done correctly)

- start weighing as early as possible! if you weigh in rebuttal it puts you ahead in the round

- weigh comparatively please, don't just tell me you outweigh on timeframe, also tell me why your opponents don't win on timeframe

c) respond to your opponents arguments

- even if you feel like you don't have anything to say, something is better than nothing

other things

- I have very limited experience with progressive arguments, I would really rather not judge a theory or K round
- don't speak super fast, I don't expect this to be an issue, but if you're planning on reading fast make sure that a) you are enunciating your words and b) you send a speech doc to everyone in the round >>>this is especially important in an online tournament, since it's harder to understand fast speaking online

- hostile cross is not fun to watch, so please be respectful or your speaks will suffer

- jokes are encouraged (as long as they are funny)

- remember that one bad round will not define you, so relax and have fun!

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

he/they

Email: david@notiosolutions.com

Experience: Debated in high school and college, now coach.

Paradigm: Persuade me. Warrant it.

...no really, that's it. Persuade me. You can persuade me using any number of techniques, but whether I'm voting off the flow, on theory, or topically on a well impacted argument, I'm still just voting on what I find the most persuasive.

I'm ok with speed. However, If I can't understand you, I'm not being persuaded. If you are going to spread, share your case with both me and your opponents.

If an argument is important, make sure you've clearly communicated it. If it's an online debate, make sure you repeat or slow down when making important points. I will not vote on arguments not carried throughout the round.

If only one side in a PF debate gives me voting criteria or framing, I will most likely be voting for that side.

I will highly favor teams which actually interact with their opponent's case as opposed to simply reading a counter card and not addressing substance.

A few other things:

-Nazis equal Nazis. If you are going to link to Nazis or the Holocaust, do so carefully and avoid trivializing Nazis or the Holocaust by comparing everything to them.

-if you have a preferred pronoun, please let me know how you would like to be addressed prior to the start of the round.

-If you are reading a case that might be upsetting/triggering to your opponent, please provide a content warning at the beginning. If your opponent requests you not read triggering content, I will seek guidance from Tab and see if a side switch or other accommodations can be made. However, just because content is uncomfortable does not automatically mean it should not be read.

Debate is great have fun and dont get mad - its never that deep

tldr: tech > truth, tabula rasa (as much as it can get), win the weighing = win the round

add me to chain - deanmrkva@gmail.com

Signpost - Warrants - Collapse - Weigh

For MSTOC

If you dont understand what this paradigm says, take a deep breath and just debate as best as you can. MS Debate is where you learn the fundamentals, feel free to ask me any questions about anything, but most importantly have fun.

General

1. I'm good with speed - In the front-half of the round ~300 wpm with a doc is the max that I'm confident to flow and keep track of - going higher, especially without a doc risks losing me on the flow. In the back-half go slow, going fast usually means I can't keep track of everything going on in every part of the flow, going slow ensures I keep track.
2. Dont feel the need to go fast - Just because i'm a tech judge, don't just go fast thinking I will pick you up. I prefer slower paced debates with good clash and argumentation over blippy speed rounds. Put simply speed ≠ skill
3. I will Disclose - I will disclose and give RFD every single one of my rounds unless the tournament prohibits it. Post-rounding is educational, so do it.

How I evaluate

1. Weighing first, whoever is winning the link comparison (i.e. prereqs, link-ins, etc.) is usually ahead. I prefer having 1 solid link weighing mech over 10 spammy impact-weighing mechs. Make it comparative, so I can determine the highest layer of offense.
2. The cleanest offense, whichever args have the most weighing comes first but after that, I look at defense on different args. If there is no weighing on either side, the offense with the least amount of defense on it is winning.

Substance

1. Warrants are everything - I won't vote on an argument even if it is 100% conceded if the warrants aren't explained and extended, this goes with turns, DAs, and responses as well.
2. Signpost Well - Good signposting means I understand what arguments and points you are making more clearly, always do it.
3. 2nd rebuttal has to frontline offense - I think it is more strategic to frontline all your offense in 2nd rebuttal, but it isn't necessary. You HAVE to frontline the offense you will go for in the back-half, I won't evaluate any new responses/front lines in the back-half.
4. FF is a summary mirror - Everything that is said in FF must've been in summary as well, this means I won't evaluate any new weighing or implications in FF because of the time skew.
5. Clarify the weighing - All weighing should be comparative and not just blips - Frontline your weighing and respond to theirs, not doing this leaves me to intervene to see which is the most important since no one else mentioned it in the round. USE URGENCY TO BREAK THE CLASH, having 2 competing link comparison mechanisms is always hard to evaluate, break the clash with urgency to see which is more important.

Speaks

Ill start speaks around 28, but here are some things u can do for high speaks -

Put a lyric to a good song in the tags of cards that is actually relevant - HAS to be good, i.e. no Taylor Swift

In cross get your opps with some sort of joke, dont be offensive tho

Dont call me judge, just say dean

Send all cards for speeches

Use carded weighing

Have some cool terminal defense in case or some unique round strats

Have a lay round, I won't flow so it's true lay evaluation - just let me know beforehand

Prog Debate

1. Dont run Ks - I'm not experienced enough in PF K debate to evaluate it correctly, if you want to run a K don't expect a good evaluation.
2. Theory - I haven't had too much experience with Theory debate so I don't suggest running it. If there is an actual violation feel free to run theory, but my evaluation wont be perfect. If you run it at MSTOC against complete novices who dont know what they are doing, I will still give you the win if you debate it correctly, but your speaks will be tanked.
3. Framing - I think good framing debates are really interesting feel free to run it, but explain your framing well and implicate it as much as you can.

Extra Stuff

Here are some debaters that I like and agree with

Joseph Nahas

Sully Mrkva

Ishan Dubey

I am a parent judge. I have been coached by my son about the structure of the debate. I have gone through the main ideas of topic and I am little familiar with it.

I understand that in some cases you have to speak fast and cover much information, and I am fine still you are clear with it which I can follow and connect, I am ok with medium speed.

I will be tracking how you will prove your case and defend and negate your opponent's case. As far as you do it convincingly, you are good.

Best wishes,

Tejaswini.

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

I h I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I l pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

a.

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

School affiliation/s - please indicate all - None

Hired - yes

If HIRED - what schools/programs in Texas do you work with if any: none

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years - n/a

Please list ANY schools that you would need to be coded/conflicted against - none
Currently enrolled in college? grad school University of Texas at Dallas

College Speech and Debate Experience - parliamentary debate

Years Judging/Coaching - 4

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event - 25

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year - lots

Check all that apply

_XX___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_XX__I judge WS at national level tournaments

Rounds judged in other events this year

xx_ PF

xx__ LD

xx__ Extemp/OO/Info

xx__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

Have you chaired a WS round before? yes

What does chairing a round involve? facilitating between speeches

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else? equal burdens

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate? flow

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain. I think there needs to be a balance of both.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? for strategy it's a matter of addressing the arguments in the round and how well they adhere to the norms of their speech order.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast? style

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read? which side presents more compelling logical warrants as to why something is true.

How do you resolve model quibbles? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels? whichever side does a better job of explaining why we should prefer theirs

*updated 10/17/20*

Hi, welcome to my 30 second tutorial called, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, and then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

Now onto the stuff about me...

NO SPEED IN DEBATE. If it's faster than you would talk to a parent or teacher, don't do it. I will say clear once, then I will take off speaker points if I have to say clear again. I find speed problematic for two reasons. 1) it does not promote an inclusive debate space, because participants who are new or rarely compete cannot truly participate. 2) it is completely ableist to assume all of your competitors and judges will be able to meaningfully understand your speech. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed.

***Whether it's prelims or elims of LD, PF, or worlds, at the point that you disregard my ability to participate in the round, you will not win my ballot. You might think you can win the other two ballots in an elim round, but it's not a great idea to have a 50% chance of winning/50% chance of winning/0% chance of winning when you could go slower and have 50% chance of winning each judge.*** Please note that I rarely am put in policy rounds, but sometimes I am needed. In prelims I expect a slower round. In elims, I will not be offended if you go your regular speed, but you have a greater chance of winning my ballot by going slower, as pointed out above. If you are in LD, PF, or worlds I WILL be offended if you go faster than my preference, and offending judges is not a great look.

In terms of argumentation, I will consider anything that isn't offensive. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

I vote more on the big picture - overall impacts, overall strategy. I want to see you show why your side of the resolution is comparatively better than your opponent's. I do not like overwrought impacts. I am going to buy the impact about a million people that has a high probability of happening and a strong link chain over an existential impact that has a shady link story. If you think your opponent's impact is ridiculous, I probably do, too. Point that out to me so I can vote on yours instead. Every time a debater makes an argument that extinction level impacts have a zero percent probability, an angel gets its wings and Tinkerbell can fly again. You want to save flying paranormal creatures, don't you? Then be the person who isn't impacting to extinction.

Lastly, be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

I am a Parent of Quarry Lane School Student and am new at judging. I would prefer debaters:

• show respect to their opponents,
• speak at a reasonable pace,
• make strong impact calculus starting in the summary,
• only make arguments in the summary/final focus that exist in the prior speech ("no new args"),
• use cross-fire for clarification and resolution (and not brand-new arguments),
• and read direct quotes when first introducing evidence in a debate (i.e., do not paraphrase).

Hi, Its my first time judging so I'd consider myself a lay parent judge. Please introduce yourselves before the debate and state which school you're debating for. I will allow a 5-10 second grace period after speeches.

Be polite during cross.

Hi! My name is Sachi (she/her) and I did Public Forum at Quarry Lane for 4 years on the national circuit. I am now a freshman in college and coach for Quarry Lane. Add me to the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

-- UPDATE FOR JV POLICY, GBX/BERK --

I'm familiar with policy but don't have a super extensive background in it. I recommend using my PF paradigm below to understand my judging preferences -- the main principles are the same (weigh well, extend properly, send evidence promptly/adhere to prep time, etc.). For specifics, see the first half of this paradigm.

-- Public Forum --

**Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech. I have more tolerance for less experienced debaters, but if you're in JV/varsity and aren't doing this, your speaks will most likely be getting docked.

Tech > Truth

Good with speed as long as it's clear, if you’re going >250 wpm just send a doc. And please SIGNPOST.

Frontline in second rebuttal → If you don’t frontline defense on an argument you’re going for and your opponents extend that defense, I will evaluate it as conceded.

WEIGH!! very very very important. Make it comparative + the earlier the better, I look to the weighing debate first when evaluating rounds. Hearing smart, well-warranted weighing (clever link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, etc.) makes me happy.

Collapse if it is strategic (most of the time it is). This means collapsing on your own contentions/case args but also collapsing on responses on your opponent's case (Quality > Quantity). Note** I am fine with you dropping case and going for turns on their case. It's fun if you can pull it off well (please weigh).

GOOD EXTENSIONS MATTER. Fully extend case args w/ uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. and responses should be well implicated. This can be as simple as pre-writing case extensions and reading them in the back-half, but for some reason it is still poorly done, which is sad :(

Any offense you’re going for in final focus must be in summary. Defense is not sticky.

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

Feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

Progressive Args:

I will try my best! Generally lean towards disclosure good, paraphrasing bad but I won’t hack for either. I can probably evaluate a decent theory debate … anything outside of that realm run at your own risk.

Speaks:

Strategic round decisions = good speaks !

Not sending speech docs, stealing prep, being disrespectful = bad speaks :(

Finally, this goes without saying but don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped.

Have fun!!!

I am a software professional with responsibilities in managing Engineering orgs.

Although I have not competed in public forum debates, I have been a parent-judge for few tournaments now and understand the process and its intricacies.

Here are few things I like :

1. A good rebuttal, not just questioning an argument : It doesnt just help questioning your opponents argument but providing a counter argument aka rebuttal adds true weight to your argument.
2. Clear communication
3. Focus and stress on your key winning points.
4. Good evidence : Reasonable logic is good but a legit evidence can trump a good reasoning given legit evidence is based on research by a reputable organization. As a judge, participants are welcome to question either the source of evidence or the content within by providing counter evidence. I will intervene when there is a contradiction in interpreting the evidence / card.

Here are few things I do not like :

1. Running away with words : Communication is about your ability to get your message across to your listeners. If your listeners are unable to catch your words, your message is lost. When you run away with words, to me its more about you vomiting words more than communicating.
2. Back your statement with legit evidence : Do not throw statements that you are unable to backup with legit evidence.
3. Going tangential and not Sticking to the topic and its scope : Don't play scare tactics. Such as calling out potential nuclear war for topics such as "High Speed rail" or "Single Usage Plastics ban". The result will be counter productive since I perceive this as a lack of an understanding and being focused on the immediate impacts.

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

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

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

PF:

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

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

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

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

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

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

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

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

All:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence

My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP but I do not hold you to that standard, as a competitor or fellow coach. In high school I participated in every debate related activity for a small town in East Texas called Athens. My main successes, at that level, were in speech events, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. Fundamentally, debate is one big joke and, technically, I leveraged that to my advantage as a frame of reference and debate style. My grace and indebted thanks for helping me understand that goes to Nicole Cornish, Jordan Innerarity, and Carver Hodgkiss; without them, I wouldn’t come close to understanding the purpose of speech and debate.

I was lucky enough to pursue a bachelors of science, with Integrative Studies, and compete for the University of North Texas. Parliamentary Debate kicked open the joke, in full-swing, and I got to tour the country in the pursuit of this knowledge. Brian Lain and Louie Petit, along with the incredible alumni of the program, produced content that allowed me to understand this joke from a perspective where I could laugh, and cry, about this “game we play”.

This “game” produces dogs and cats. It’s hard to understand this concept without a full visualization of my philosophy but I’m also certain that the ontological threshold to “understanding” is held within the eye of the beholder. In essence, I was introduced to this concept, within this space, by Jason Jordan, Matthew Gayetsky, and Gabe Murillo. We are simple creatures that, rather simply, have near-zero relationship to ourselves and we reproduce tools in order to filter, with extreme amounts of success, the communication to our “self”. My telos begins at the conception that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this cycle and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful at stopping this joke from occurring. Side-hustling as a dog trainer opened up synchronicity into my paradigm and vice-versa. Without that realization, I don’t think I could still enjoy coaching, judging, or training. To those three for that help, I am indebted.

At a few moments in time, I did think it was important to write a several page paradigm about my philosophy about "DisAds", "Condo", "CP Theory", etc., etc. but I've discovered we're in a struggle between competitors who are having to "10x" their flows versus institutionalization. I do not see the importance in either. Rather, I defend that debate is a space to have fun and explore. In the time that I judge, I derive purpose from the quality of character and clarity of forensic mapping while producing a decision from what's given. To me, this means I'm not a "tab" or "tech > truth" but rather a "real judge"; and I will agree: "whatever that means?". Though, the more you read through this, and hopefully ask me questions, you will find that I'm simply calling the plays that are given and executing based on the "score" at the end of the debate. Additionally, this means that I weigh topicality in relation to its position on the lemniscate curve where my firmbelief is that it's the extreme finite position; since I know that's your question after reading all this. Brendan Dimmig, Jimi Morales, Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco, and Friedrich Hegel are responsible for ingraining this portion and I thank them for simply helping me find this path.

Lastly, I lost a ton of debates in my career. In doing so, I learned more than the wins ever taught me. Without being too "tongue in cheek", Slavoj Žižek taught me how to lose with grace, Sam Cook taught me how to lose on the flow, Will Harper taught me how to lose on framework, Rodrigo Paramo taught me how to lose on character design, and I lost on the "K" to Matt Hernandez, True Head, and Jose Sanchez; without those characters, I'm sure I'd be taking this joke too seriously. To Mom, Dad, and all the cats and dogs out there: you keep me learning and you inspire me to keep going.

TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.

================================================================================================

FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.

Hi,

I'm a parent judge so please don't spread, be respectful, Truth > Tech, and no theory. Any theory run will be an automatic speaks dock and will generally lose you the round. Signposting and explanation of cards would be appreciated. Please send speech docs to my email: rayqiao@gmail.com.

I consider myself a lay judge.

Overall, just make sure to have fun in the debate!

I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.

I competed in high school speech and debate for three years, and I take the event seriously regarding the quality competition. There are a few things that I will consider, no matter the debate event.

1. Be Civil; far too often, I witness debaters who take the event to an unfortunate extreme and get unnecessarily aggressive with their competition. This makes for a worse debate overall, but it will also cause me to not even pay attention to what you are saying as a debater. So Please act civil with those you are debating.
2. Impact your arguments; as a debater, it is far too easy to state what your ideas are and assume that those observing know why your argument matters, but please IMPACT them to me. Tell me why your argument matters more than the others in the round or why your opponents don't.
3. DO NOT SPREAD. I am a flow judge, and I can flow at high speeds, but just because I can, does not mean I will. The purpose of debate is to cause you to become a more effective communicator; speaking as fast as you possibly can does not do that. No one talks like that during their day-to-day life; you are debating and while speaking at a slightly faster rate than average conversation is normal there is such a thing as talking too fast, so speak quickly but still fast enough to be understood by a normal individual. If you start spreading or talking at an incredibly fast rate, I will put my pen down and cease to flow until you slow down your speech, so please debate as if I knew nothing. 
4. Have fun; in the end, this event is to further your education, but ultimately most of you are here because you enjoy the activity and the competitive aspect.

(Assistant) Coach @ Shawnee Mission South

Put me on the email chain :) jrimpson123@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is amust. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .1 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Will have a high threshold for voting for out-of-round violences, but if provided with receipts it's not impossible.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing”you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

I am a parent judge. Speak slow and clearly, explain your arguments well

Hi! I am a newer judge, but I am good at knowing what to look for. I value quality of speaking, meaning good speed, emphasis on impact, and consistent tone. Also, I judge based on how you make, counter, and refute arguments.

My email is vsardana08@gmail.com if you want to email me anything.

Hello! I‘m a high school novice debater and I’ve been doing debate for around 3 years.

For middle school TOC:

I’m pretty familiar with this topic so speed won’t be much of a problem but there is a limit to how much I can write down depending on how fast you spread, so keep that in mind if you’re planning on reading fast.

theory is fine with me, although I do prefer traditional debate as of now due to my lack of experience with progressive debate.

tech>truth

if you want me to flow your responses please explain, don’t say things like “this just doesn’t make sense” or “don’t buy this argument”. Even if the argument is super techy and lowk unrealistic, you still need to make efficient responses or I’ll consider it conceded

the way you present urself won’t make a difference in the ballot but it will help your speaks. If ur funny I’ll give you a 30.

if u rap your entire rebuttal I’ll give u 30 speaks :’)

time urself!!

If u miss an argument inrebuttal, it’s ok to bring it up in summary imo. Obv Don’t bring up new arguments in final

imo collapsing is the best strat for summary and final, or else you’ll have a harder time fitting everything you need to say into final. Remember, some arguments won’t necessarily help you if u extend them especially if u didn’t frontline well.

Pls weigh in summary and final, Its ok if u miss the weighing in summary but it’s super important to weigh in final. I need to know how I should evaluate the round and which impacts I should prioritize. If ur gonna weigh, do it well, explain why ur impacts matter more and why you outweigh. also if ur in a time crunch, prioritize extending your arguments.

GL! :D

I am a head debate coach at East Ridge High School in Minnesota with 10 years of debate under my belt and 15+ years of speech coaching / judging experience as well. I love both activities, and I love seeing creative / unique approaches to them. I've sent several students to Nationals in both speech and debate categories for the past several years.

In 'real life' I'm an intellectual property attorney. I love good arguments in all types of debate. But I will NOT make logic jumps for you. You need to do the legwork and lay out the argument for me, step by step. I LOVE legal arguments, but most of all I love a good Story. Frame your arguments for me. Make the impacts CLEAR. (e.g. in PF / LD - WEIGH them.) Tell me how and why to write my ballot for you and I probably will!

Voting Values
I vote on topicality in any type of debate that I judge. If your arguments are non-topical, and you get called on it, they will be struck from my flow. Everyone got the same resolution / bills, that's what I want to hear arguments about.

I am NOT a fan of Kritiks - you got the resolution ahead of time. Debate it.

SPEED

THIS IS A COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY. Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating.

If you make my hand cramp taking notes, I'll be crabby. I am a visual person and my notes are how I will judge the round. If I miss an argument because you were talking at light speed, that's your fault, not mine! :)

Attitude / Aggressiveness

100%, above all, you are human beings and citizens of the world. I expect you to act like it. I HATE rudeness or offensive behavior in any debate format. Be kind, be inclusive. By all means, be aggressive, but don't be rude.

Public Forum: I am a huge framework fan. You have the evidence, frame the story for me. If you give me a framework and explain why, under that framework, your evidence means I vote for you, I will. Don't make me do summersaults to get to a decision. If only one team gives me a framework, that's what I'll use.

Re: Summary / FF - I expect the debate to condense in the summary / final focus - and I expect you to condense the story accordingly. Look for places to cross-apply. I do need arguments to extend through every speech to vote for them - but I do not expect you to reiterate all evidence / analysis. Summarizing and weighing is fine for me.
WEIGH arguments for me. Especially if we're talking apples and oranges - are we comparing money to lives? Is there a Risk-Magnitude question I should be considering?

Re: new arguments in GC/FF - I won't weigh new ARGUMENTS, but I will consider new EVIDENCE / extensions.

Re: Argument / Style - I'm here to weigh your arguments. Style is only important to the extent you are understandable.

I generally don't buy nuclear war arguments. I don't believe any rational actor gets to nuclear war. I'll give you nuclear miscalc or accident, but it's a HIGH burden to convince me two heads of state will launch multiple warheads on purpose.

Lincoln-Douglas: If you give me a V/C pairing, I expect you to tie your arguments back to them. If your arguments don't tie back to your own V/C, I won't understand their purpose. This is a values debate. Justify the value that you choose, and then explain why your points best support your value.

Congress: This is debate. Beautiful speeches, alone, belong in Speech categories. I expect to see that you can speak well, but I am not thrilled to listen to the same argument presented three times. I expect to see clash, I expect to see good Q&A. I love good rebuttal / crystallization speeches.

I DO rank successful POs - without good POs, there is no good Congressional Debate. If you PO well in front of me, you will be ranked well.

World Schools: This actually is my favorite form of debate. I want to see respectful debate, good use of POIs, and organized content. I've judge WSD at Nationals for the last several years and I do adhere to the WSD norms. Please do not give me "regular debate" speed - I want understandable, clear speeches.

Dear Debaters,

As a parent lay judge, my focus is on the combination of content and delivery. I appreciate clear and logically structured arguments, delivered at an understandable pace, and supported by quality evidence. I expect you to maintain a respectful tone, engage with the audience, and manage their time effectively. Please articulate your points clearly and remember that I may not be familiar with complex debate terminology.

I am here to appreciate your efforts and evaluate your performance based on the strength of your content and the quality of your delivery.

Good luck!

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a sophomore in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF (mainly middle school and novice).

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Speed is fine but don't full on spread, especially if we are online.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Fix it, I'll be happy. Don't, well it will reflect in your speaks and possibly in my decision.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but online people are just starting to take prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

Weighing is cool, you should probably do it. I enjoy a good prereq, linking into your opponents' contentions is one of the best things you can do.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long it should take to exchange evidence, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

Frontlining is very important and should be done as soon as possible. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up and says that only frontlining in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Sonal Setty

POLICY PARADIGM

Hi debaters! I'm a sophomore at Lexington High School and have been doing policy debate for 2 years. Please add me to the email chain -->sonalnsetty@gmail.com

TLDR -

Clarity>speed, Tech>truth (unless you're reading problematic arguments - make the debate space safe or I'll vote you down). Do line by line - I'm going to be pretty sad if I don't see you flowing/looking at your flow during round. I'll give you good speaks if you are smart on the flow, i.e, grouping arguments and contextualizing things from other flows! Read arguments you understand and contextualize blocks to the rounds. I'm good with open CX, but don't dominate your partner -you guys are a team, act like it! I won't flow CX, but I will listen carefully. Bring those arguments up in your speech if you want them in my RFD! Just be kind and respectful (disclose well, don't be discriminatory), use your brain and HAVE FUN!

*Update - go for less arguments later on in the debate so you can go more in depth (ideally, 1-2 positions in the 2NR and not every advantage in the 2AR). This will boost your speaks and increase your chance of winning!

CASE

Please don't drop case (for both aff and neg, but especially aff)! However, if you do, I'll vote on well articulated presumption arguments by the negative. Tell me your story and what your aff does pretty clearly --> if you have good internal link explanations I'll give you good speaks because most novices don't do that. In the rebuttals, impact calc is key! Tell me why I should vote for you and write my ballot for me. For the negative, relying only on defensive arguments will diminish impacts and risks, but offensive arguments like link turns and evidence indicts help a lot.

DAs

Read uniqueness, link, and impact in your 1NC --> in the block, have some more link cards and your arguments will be stronger. Similar to case - do LBL and make both offensive and defensive arguments (If I hear the words "the DA turns case" I'll be so so happy) For rebuttals - the biggest thing is to be organized. Go down the flow for each part of the DA, extend your arguments, and don't drop turns! If you want to get really good speaks here, make specific indicts of their evidence and cross apply things from other flows (like case).

CPs

There aren't many good CPs on this topic, but if you have one you like and debate it well, I love them. Understand what your solvency and net benefit are - explain to me clearly why perms don't solve and why your counterplan does. On aff, perms and solvency deficits are the way to go as long as you explain them well!

T

Honestly, T was my favorite 2NR for a good while. Have a good counterinterpretation (I love good, competing interps, and they will be central to my decision), standards, internal links, and impacts. On FW debates, there needs to be clashing arguments, not just reading down blocks. T should be a good amount of the block and I really don't love it when 2NRs on T have other stuff in them. It's a procedural, it comes first! Speaking of that, T should be the first offcase you are responding to on aff. Don't drop it!

Ks

Since you're probably a novice, read simple Ks you understand, and make sure I can understand them when you are debating them as well. I'd like to think I have a good understanding of most theories of power and the way that debating the K functions as I normally go for the it. Your 1NC should have a link, an impact, and an alt, and the more specific to the aff, the more likely it is that I'll vote on it.

I wouldn't love to see Ks on the novice level just because they are complicated and aren't the cleanest when people don't know how to argue them.

However, if you are going for them, be good about every level of the K and be organized. Don't read down your varsity's blocks and articulate your thesis well early on in the debate (aka, don't avoid clash). Even if you are talking about an in-round impact, I still need impact calculus and both offensive/defensive arguments, and I don't mind k-tricks here as long as they make sense! I love Ks if you do them well; these are often fun rounds!

On aff, if you are responding to the K, I think that the strongest FW arguments are ones that have an impact of either fairness or education (preferably education *clash isn't in an impact in my mind*). Do lbl on FW the same way you would for a DA or CP; be precise and don't drop offense!

Theory

Again, you need an impact here and coherent standards. Even if theory goes dropped, you must still weigh its significance in the round. I'm going to be way more happy voting on condo or a 50-state fiat-type argument than a small obscure theory violation that you made up to get an easy path to the ballot (like l-spec).

PF Paradigm

TLDR -

Clarity>speed, Tech>truth (unless you're reading problematic arguments - be nice or I'll vote you down). Doline by line - I'm going to be pretty sad if I don't see you flowing/looking at your flow during rounds. I'll give you good speaks if you are smart on the flow, i.e., grouping arguments and contextualizing things from other flows! Read arguments you understand and contextualize blocks to the rounds. In Grand Cross, don't dominate your partner - y'all are a team! I won't flow CX, but I will listen carefully. Bring those arguments up in your speech if you want them in my RFD! Just be kind and respectful (disclose well, don't be discriminatory), use your brain, and HAVE FUN!

Please please signpost. Not enough people do that, especially in middle school, and it is automatically easier to vote for you and give you more speaker points if you let me know where you are on your flow.

I am generally good with understanding theory and Ks/framework, but I will be sad if you read these types of arguments at this tournament because you are middle schoolers and chances are it will be a messy, unclear debate. Don't let theory be a cheat code out of actually prepping and reading cases that are applicable to the topic.

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

Hey I am Ahan, a Var PF Debater for QLS. I dont mind speed but if its incoherent I wont vote for it. Just reading cards isn't real argumentation, explain your arguments and evidence. I wont vote on new arguments in the 2nd Summary or Final Focus. Other than that anything goes, make sure to weigh and keep track of the flow. Have fun and keep the debate educational and productive or I will give you a singular speaker point.

Good luck, I look forward to seeing you in round :)

Hi, I'm Mira! Below is some information about me as a judge:

Experience: I've competed in PF for 2 yrs and competed for one yr in Policy.

Argumentation: I place a strong emphasis on argument quality. I value well-reasoned, logically structured, and evidence-backed arguments.

Speaker Points: I'll award points based on clarity and articulation.

Speed: I can handle debates at a fast pace, but clarity and articulation must not be sacrificed for speed. I'll flow the debate to the best of my ability, but if I can't understand your argument due to speed or if it's unclear, it won't be given weight in my evaluation.

Role of the Ballot: My ballot ultimately goes to the team that persuades me of their position based on the evidence presented in the debate.

Occupation: Software Development

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley High School

Years of Judging/Event Types: 2nd year of judging, PF, Congress, Speech

Speaker Points: Fluency, voice inflection, passion, structured speeches (easy to understand in a logical order) I start at 28 and go up. Obviously I'll drop it if you're rude, racist, sexist, etc.

- Don't spread, speak at a moderate pace, NO JARGON. If I look confused or like i'm falling behind, probably slow down and explain a bit more.

I do take notes, but I will also try to just listen as much as possible to understand your arguments to the best of my ability. Don't sacrifice content just for "lay" appeal.

How heavily do I weigh the following (1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily):

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 10

Real World Impacts: 10

Cross Ex: 5

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 5

Help me evaluate the round:

A cohesive narrative should start in Rebuttal. Explain why your impacts are really important and spend a lot of time on your warrants, convince me as to why your impacts will happen and to the extent that you claim. Don't just falsely claim DROPS or CONCESSIONS but do point them out if they actually happened, and why they mean I should vote for you. Explain your evidence well. Fluency and passion show me that you are confident in your research and argumentation.

HAVE FUN WITH THE ROUND!!!

Hi everyone! I have been debating for 2 and a half years and I am excited to judge you all and see what your thoughts are on various topics. With this in mind I do have experience and understand how debate works so keep that in mind throughout the round.

1. Try to speak clearly so I can understand you all, but if you have to rush I will understand
2. Don’t disrespect your opponents and be mature and respectful throughout the round. Don’t speak out of turn and do not speak over others.
3. I will judge based on the round itself and the points brought up, so make sure you have strong arguments as I will weigh the impacts.
4. I will give high speaker points to people who present well with a clear voice, eye contact, and those that add special elements to there speeches (humor, voice modulation, etc.)

Have a good round everyone I look forward to hearing your debates!

Hello, My name is Siraj and I am Varsity Debater. I have been debating three years and I am purely a flow judge. I expect evidence to be clear, true, and concise. I would prefer that speech docs are shared with me and cards are exchanged throughout round or before the round. Also, your arguments should be spoken at a normal pace (no spreading) in order for me to understand your arguments. Please be kind to one another and have fun.

Some background on me: this is my 5th year in Policy debate (4 years of high school and now 1 year of college). I was mainly a K debater in high school, but I did a little bit of everything. I have also debated in PF, LD, and Congress.

For judging:

I am pretty tab so I can judge whatever; just debate how/ what you like. Be respectful of me and your opponents and we should be good.

Resl227@g.uky.edu

Hello y'all!!

My name is Schylar and I just enetered my junior year of college at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I debated all four years of high school at Timberline High School in Boise, Idaho. I did policy my freshman and sophomore year. My junior year and senior year I did PF. If you have any more questions, you should ask me before the debate. I will try my best to put everything on the ballot, but if you have more questions you can email me. My email is schylar.jordan.smith@gmail.com. I am not familiar with any of the topics so try and explain them without missing the more niche parts of the debate! Debate is supposed to be fun and educational so I am fine if you do pretty much anything you want. I have some specifics laid out for the different debate types so read those :)

I hate overviews!

I think that they use up valuable speech time and aren't strategic. Also most overviews are just arguments that can be put somewhere else on the flow.

Policy:

I am basically a TABS/ flow judge in policy. I am fine with any argumentation but you better know how to execute it. On topicality you need to go slower than regular to make sure I get all the standards and voters. On disads I am looking for clash. If the aff hasn't done enough coverage and I still think the impact of the disad is reasonable, I will vote neg. If the 2NR goes for a disad or two I still want to see sufficient extention of the case debate. Other than that I want strategic debating. For Ks, I am pretty fine with anything. I am the least framiliar with them, but still understand the debate. Framework on the K is really important to my voting so don't just wash over it or go through it really quick. I am fine with any speed but slow down on tag lines so I can flow them. I rarely flow author names so refer to the arguments by author name and what the argument is. You can tag team in CX but if one partner dominates both answering periods or questioning periods, I will give you both lower speaker points. Put me in the email chain... its at the top :)

PF:

I have the most experience in Public Forum. I went to nationals in PF in 2021 and 2022. I view PF as the debate type that any one can judge. That means that you should be very good at explaining and persuading the judge. Other than that I think you can do anything that you want. I think that you should have some sort of framework because that helps me evaluate the round. Cross fire periods should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If someone dominates then I will lower both you and your partner's speaker points. Final focus is the most persuading to me if you clearly lay out voters. A lot of debaters try and touch on both sides of the flow, but with so little time this is not very helpful.

LD:

LD is very interesting to me. When it comes to arguments I am basically a TABS judge, although I still want the value/criterion debate. I vote on a few things when it comes to it. (1) If the other side proves that your case doesn't fit under your value or your criterion. (2) You should try to prove that your value and criterion are best for evaluating both sides. I am fine with any argument, including CPs on the neg. CX should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If you dominate the CX periods, you will get lower speaker points. In other words, let your opponent answer/ask questions.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

kentucky '25

annastockstill11@gmail.com

- please please format the email chain correctly -- tournament name -- round # -- name (aff) vs name (neg)

POLICY

- do what you want, i genuinely don't care what you run and will listen to every argument within reason

- make my ballot for me -- don't make me have to debate the round for you because i won't -- tell me why i'm voting aff/neg and what i'm voting on

- cx is binding and i will flow it

- i enjoy watching methods debates but am probably a better judge for clash rounds

- the case debate is under-utilized in most debates

- i love impact turns (please nothing offensive though)

- condo is probably good - i can be persuaded otherwise but if it's less than 5 it will be an uphill battle

- i LOVE a good T debate

- "better team usually wins |---x---------------------| the rest of this" -- dave arnett

+0.1 speaks if you can make me laugh

- have fun and if you have any questions, just ask!

PF

coach for ivy bridge academy

- explain your arguments well -- i will never vote on an argument that i don't get a full explanation of

- crossfire is binding and i will flow it

- final focus should be writing my ballot for me -- tell me why i should vote pro/con and what arguments i'm voting for

LD

- i have limited experience judging/coaching LD and will judge it like its a short policy round

- i'm probably better for k or larp rounds

- i'm not sure why teams think that perm double bind is sufficient enough to win a round on

- i do not like voting on egregious theory but i begrudgingly will - that being said if theory/tricks comprise your core strat i will not be pleased

- since LD rounds are pretty short, i prefer when you really commit to one strategy

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Steven Szwejkowski - steven.szwejkowski@SASchools.org

High school - Renaissance Charter School

BA, Philosophy | Queens College

Although I have not formally competed in a debate league, I did recreationally partake in stimulating discourses in the Philosophy Club at Queens College while I was a student. We had many engaging debates, in which we explored highly theoretical and practical topics, ranging from consciousness to politics. Furthermore, my focus when I was an undergraduate and as of now is twofold: socioeconomic concerns and rational frameworks. To fully understand and extend the material in these topics requires an elevated level of researching, writing, and defending your conclusions, all of which are integral in debate.

As a side not, feel free to be as theoretical as each resolution/topic allows.

The following are two criterions by which I use to assess each debater and round:

Speeches: Must display clear articulation, confidence, poise, and appropriate speed. (Do not spread!)

Cases: 1) Must have clear and relevant contentions. 2) I favor quality rebuttals and the team that does a better job at attacking the opposition's arguments to which they may respond weakly. 3) I will take into account the team who asks better (leading) questions during the cross-examination rounds. 4) Lastly, the team that contains the most uncontested statements, i.e., dropped contentions, by their opposition usually wins under my judgement.

I am a lay judge with no real experience. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. Debate jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Talk loud and clear and keep the speed low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me.

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Paradigm: I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging PF since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric. I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

Hi, my name is Ryan! I currently debate for Lakeville North High school. Call me judge, Ryan, of whatever you please Send all email chains to ryantung30@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com

Middle School TOC:

Be friendly to each other, you guys still have a long way!

Read anything you want. (Not going to be good at evaluating prog, but if you all want to read it, go ahead)

Don't care about speed (Will clear you if you become too hard too understand)

Make sure you weigh and do it comparatively! Extending offense and weighing will be very helpful in your winning!

Speaker points will be decided on level of strategical argumentation and how well you speak

I DO DISCLOSE.

I am a parent judge.

I would prefer if you spoke clearly and a bit slowly, but I do understand that in debate, you need to speak fast sometimes. I would also request that you signpost so that I am able to follow your arguments. Make sure your points are organized so that I am able to follow the flow of the round.

I highly value respect in the round. Any disrespect will not be tolerated.

I will follow your arguments to the best of my ability.

Thanks,

Vijaya Ulsala

I’m Jack (he/him), a 4th year pfer at Durham Academy (class of '24)

General Stuff:

My email is 24vail@da.org for email chains or questions.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misgender anyone, etc. It’s an L and minimum speaks for anyone who is discriminatory.

If we’re in round early feel free to talk/ask questions. Same with postrounding, I’ll always answer questions about my decision (time permitting) but the ballot won’t get changed.

Speed <250wpm is probably fine but if you plan to go that fast send a speech doc. I will not flow off a doc so I have to be able to understand you. The more I can clearly hear and process what you're saying the more likely I am to vote on it. I will clear you.

Time yourself and your opponents for prep and speeches, I usually do too but might forget.

Substance:

I'll vote on any topical argument, but that doesn’t mean you can’t warrant (the less true the argument, the lower my threshold for a response).

Extend the whole argument (with warranting) for me to vote on it in both backhalf speeches. This is non-negotiable. I don’t usually flow evidence names so explain what your evidence says in the extension.

You should collapse by summary, please don’t make all our lives difficult by going for all your case arguments and four turns, just pick a few things you’re winning and win them.

When I vote I look to weighing first and then whoever best links, so do good weighing and meta-weigh (tell me why your weighing is better than theirs). I will not vote for an argument with 0 risk just because you win weighing however.

I listen to cross but bring up important points in your next speech. Let your opponents speak and don’t lie.

Evidence:

I won't vote on misconstrued evidence that is either called out or that I read myself (note: misconstrued evidence is different from bad evidence).

If something violates NSDA evidence rules I’d rather you challenge it than read an IVI or shell about it.

Please be able to share evidence quickly, it's really annoying to sit around and wait for someone to find/send a single piece of evidence. Similarly, please only ask for evidence you need and don't call for excessive evidence to get extra prep or throw off your opponents. It makes it easier to just send docs before speeches but I don't require that.

If evidence is important to my decision I’ll call for it, otherwise I probably won’t unless you tell me to.

Theory/Ks:

I’m definitely not the best judge for these rounds, I have some experience with both but not a lot and am not particularly familiar with critical literature. I can flow these arguments but will make no guarantees about my ability to evaluate them correctly, so if you go for them make sure to explain everything really well and slow down. The more complex, the slower and more explained everything should be.

If you don't understand the argument/can't make me and your opponents understand it by final focus, I won't vote for it. If you're reading a K I expect you to understand your literature/arguments very well and you should be able to convey that understanding to myself and your opponents.

You should have really good norms if you read theory.

Interps should be read in the next speech after the violation.

For theory I have no strong preference for yes/no rvis or counterinterps/reasonability. I default text over spirit and that will be hard to change.

I don't have a strict rule about when to/not to read these arguments, but I don't think anyone gets anything out of a round where a newer team is just shelled with progressive arguments and will be receptive to arguments about that.

I won't vote for tricks or theory I think is frivolous.

Speaks:

My speaks will probably be higher than other judges. I reward good debating (strategy, partner cohesion, etc.) and don’t particularly care about presentation (sitting vs. standing, eye contact, fluency, etc).

I like humor and won’t tolerate rudeness towards your partner or your opponents.

Random Thoughts:

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline what you plan to collapse on and turns, anything not covered is conceded.

Defense isn't sticky, you have to extend everything you want in your final through summary.

There shouldn’t be anything new in final focus.

I will not evaluate any arguments made in round from AI.

I would rather start early.

If you use a beeping timer hold yourself to the same standard as your opponents and let it beep at the end of your speeches as well.

jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.

I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.

Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!

I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.That being said, I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.

Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.

PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.

Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.

Professional Experience: For more than ten years, I studied criminal justice and received undergraduate degrees in criminal justice, criminology, and dispute resolution. I earned a Master's degree in Human Rights Law from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and over 5 years of professional experience in legal research, argumentative writing, and debate in criminal courtrooms (arraignments, trials and hearings). Since September, 2023, I have been a coach and judge in PF.

Debate Strategy: It is critical that the argument structure flow smoothly and follow a framework that is clearly topical. If a team drops their argument in multiple speeches and the opposing team fails to notice, emphasize it and explain why it is important, I will not intervene and consider it an offense against you because it is critical for debaters to flow and discredit their opponent's arguments. Card dumping should be avoided. You should be able to explain your own theories with cards as evidentiary support for your theories, as opposed to having an argument that was solely cut from cards. Lastly, I will provide detailed verbal feedback and extensive written feedback.

Technical preferences: Keep track of your own prep time. Standing or sitting during rounds is up to the discretion of the speaker. Medium speed is acceptable, but voice projection must be good and articulation needs to be clear (avoid spreading). Conceding time is only a good strategy when the argument is strong; otherwise, it can be extremely harmful for your argument. It is important for debaters to demonstrate good time management. However, if a question is asked during the CF and GCF rounds, I will allow scholars to finish their sentences should the timer interrupt. I award speakers points for confidence and sportsmanship. Be cool, calm, and respectful throughout the rounds. However, I always appreciate humor and wit.

If you are doing an email chain, you may add me : Prisilla.Villalobos@saschools.org

Good luck!

Hello! I'm Angad, I'm a Junior and I debate on the national circuit and it's my 2nd year in debate.

Email Chain: (angadkv1225@gmail.com) Send speech docs with cut cards

you can call me whatever idc judge is fine if you want

FOR MSTOC

No pressure, just take a deep breath and try your best! If you don't understand everything in this paradigm that is ok, here is a simplified version. If you are more experienced feel free to scroll to the bottom. I debated the topic so I have some experience and I'll evaluate any argument you give me as long as it is warranted.

For Novices

1. Extend the argument you want to go for, by this I mean repeat the idea of the argument again which includes claim warrant impact, this is important because I need to know which argument you are going for in the round and why to vote on it.

1. Do Comparative weighing between your argument and your opponent's case. If you just say "We outweigh on magnitude" that doesn't give me a good comparison between you and your opponent's argument. A better example would be "We outweigh on magnitude because nuclear war causes extinction which outweighs the impact of a recession in the US because that harms significantly fewer people and leads to far fewer deaths". (This will make your chances of winning 10x higher and make the job easier for me as a judge.

1. Warrant everything. In PF debaters usually forget to warrant most of their responses and arguments, I need a warrant to fully evaluate it, by warrant I mean a reason for why it is true. Imo warranted evidence > warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence > unwarranted analytics

Signpost. By this I mean tell me where you are in your speech, i.e "on their c1" "on their weighing". This will help me flow better so i can evaluate your arguments cleanly without missing anything.

TLDR

• Tabula Rasa Tech > Truth (to an extent)

• If you win the weighing debate you win the round, but please do good and comparative weighing, so I don't have to intervene.

• Signpost, It makes everything easier on the flow.

• Speed is fine but send docs

• Send speech docs for case and rebuttal with cut cards before you speak

• Extend properly (link, uq, impact)

• I stop flowing 3 seconds after times up

General

• I presume neg if there is no offense in the round unless given warrants to do otherwise. If the round is a progressive round, I presume the team that spoke first.

• If something is dropped in 2nd rebuttal then it can't be in summary.

• New Weighing in the 2nd summary is fine, but there is no new weighing in either of the FFs. Except new metaweighing is fine in 1st FF.

• No new responses in FF

• If both teams agree we can skip grand cross and I'll give 1 minute of prep.

• I default to Util/CBA as a framework unless given a framework.

• You must read trigger warnings if your case contains sensitive content. This is to make the debate space safe and accessible

Evidence

• Don’t take too long with evidence exchanges, please.
  
  

• You MUST read from cut cards, no paraphrasing, that is the only ethical way to present evidence in PF.
  
  

• Refer to NSDA rules for more.
  
  

• I rarely will call for evidence unless it's the center point of the round.
  
  

• Send speech docs with cut cards, however, you don’t need to send analytics.
  
  

Prefs:

• I'm a flow judge so I will be flowing. Tech > Truth to an extent, I'll evaluate whatever you put on the flow unless it is blatantly false or is severely unwarranted. I won't intervene.

• I tend to ignore Cross, but please try to be respectful.

• I prefer if you go line by line (grouping responses is fine too) but it's just helpful on the flow.

• Collapse, extend well, and SIGNPOST, please. You can go for 2-3 args if you want but please fully extend them (extend claim warrant impact)

• A few well-warranted arguments > a bunch of blippy arguments, if you are missing crucial warrants it's hard for me to evaluate your argument, even if I am tech >truth you still need a warrant.

• I'm okay with speed, I can flow up to 300 wpm but send docs to me and your opponents for case and rebuttal to make it fair.

• Don't be blatantly rude or I will lower your speaks. Racism/sexism/homophobia will result in me auto-dropping you with the lowest speaker points I can give.

• I'm fine if you whisper to your partner mid-speech i.e. summary but I won't evaluate what is said unless it is said by you.

[How I evaluate the round]

• I see if both teams are winning their arguments. If one team is winning and another team is losing, I'll end up looking at the team that wins. If both teams fully extend and get full access to their offence. I then look at the weighing debate.

• The weighing debate is what my ballot comes down to, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because nuclear war causes extinction" Please do good comparative weighing. Metaweighing is great and can help me decide my ballot faster and I will boost speaks for good weighing/metaweighing.

• Extend defense on your opponent's case and explain why it's terminal or why they lose their arguments, if you are winning your case and weighing the ballot can be easier for me to decide.

• You should be getting full access to your offense for the weighing to matter, for example, if your opponent is extending defence you concede saying "Nuclear war won't happen", I won't evaluate your “magnitude weighing” since you aren't winning the argument.

Prog

I treat theory as the highest layer. So generally theory up-layers substance and the K.

Theory

• I won’t evaluate theory on the local circuit

• Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad

• Default to Competing Interps > reasonability unless convinced otherwise

• Default to No RVIS unless convinced otherwise

• I won't evaluate blatantly friv theory and I will tank your speaks.

• You need to read a CI or we meet after the speech theory was read or you don't have offense on the theory layer.

• If I'm judging at a camp tournament, please do not read prog on novices/inexperienced prog debaters, it's unfair, and I will drop you with 25 speaks. But If both teams agree to a theory debate I will evaluate it.

Ks

• Limited experience with them.

• If you choose to read one, do it at your own risk because I'm not the best at evaluating them.

• I won't evaluate performance/nontopical Ks so please don't read them.

Please do not read tricks.

Speaks

• Starts at 28 and goes up and down from there.

• If you're blatantly rude I will lower speaks.

• I'll boost speaks based on good strategic decisions in the round.

• I'll boost speaks if you do anything funny. i.e

• If you do a 360 when reading a turn

• Funny contention/tagline names

• Make jokes

• If you say "The earth is flat at" the start and end of every speech instead of "we affirm/negate, thus we affirm/negate"

After Round

• I will disclose if both teams are alright with it and If the tournament allows it.

• I believe postrounding is good since it holds judges accountable so if you want to postround feel free I won't tank speak but please try not to get too heated.

No pressure, it's just Debate. Good Luck and have fun!

Add me to the email chain: keeratvirdi255@gmail.com

Email me after the round if you have questions!

(Bolded is parts I regard as incredibly important/things you should always look at)

Novice/Basic Paradigm

• I'll evaluate any argument you make as long as it isn't blatantly false, don't worry about the content of your case
• Be respectful and relax, debate is a fun activity
• Weigh your argument against your opponent's and your chance of winning increases 95%
• Extend the argument you feel the best about in summary and final focus. This means to repeat/summarize your most important argument again. I judge whatever is left for me to evaluate in final focus, so it's important to bring those things into your speech.
• Narrow the later speeches down, it's a lot harder for you to try and go over every single thing that has been said already.
• NOTE: You don't have to tell me how much prep time you want to use, just use as much as you need.
• I'll primarily base speaker points off your performance rather than speaking, because debate doesn't have to be speech.

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

REGULAR PARADIGM:

PF Debater from Eden Prairie, MN

TLDR: Flay/framework judge, add me to the email chain (with speech docs for rebuttal and case, email is above), don't steal prep, I presume neg unless told otherwise

Truth-----------------------------X-------Tech

I'm more of a flow judge, but I'm not completely tech because flow judge ≠ tech judge who will evaluate your 19 off and 13 "conceded" prereqs read at 2000wpm

Speed: I'm fine with spreading in case, but if you must, your speaking has to be very clear and send speech docs to me and your opponents. I'd prefer you to slow down in rebuttal (DEFINITELY in summary and FF)

I stop flowing five seconds after time is up.

Structure the email chain with the tournament name, round, team names, speaking order, and sides.

Example: Debate Tournament | Round 2: Eden Prairie VV (Aff 2nd) vs Eden Prairie VV (Neg 1st)

Clash: Break the tie. Explain to me how your argument short circuits theirs or why I should prefer your argument over theirs. This goes the same for evidence.

Good weighing will help very much with this, but you still need to win your argument and get full access before you weigh.

(Note: I won't evaluate your weighing if you concede crucial defense on your argument)

*** You must weigh in summary otherwise I can’t evaluate your argument

Evidence: Don't paraphrase, have cut cards, don't do evidence exchanges and call for 30 cards. It’s fine if it’s just one card, but if I see you or can tell you’re stealing prep I’m giving both team members an automatic 25 which will not be changed.

Framework:

I always vote on the framework, no matter how undercovered it is. I don't vote on util unless given a really good reason to do so, so it's up to you to run a counter framework or link in.

I like structural violence framing, but make your contentions really clear how affirming/negating makes it better/worse.

Crossfire:

I do not pay attention but will probably be able to tell by your tone if you're being rude which will make me lower speaks. If something important is brought up tell me in a speech, cross isn't a voter.

Speaking/Speeches:

• Don’t be rude to your opponents.
• I’ll start speaks at 28, and will adjust depending on your performance. I usually give relatively high speaks.
• If your opponent concedes something, explain why that’s important and how they lose their arguments. I don’t want your speech to be “THEY CONCEDED SMITH 23” without an implication. EXTEND WARRANTING!
• Stick to your road map.
• PLEASE signpost. Your argument can't be evaluated if I don't know where it is.
• I’m fine with all jargon.
• Don’t run racist or homophobic arguments, I will give you an auto 25.
• Keep your road map brief. "Our case, weighing, their case". Anything longer is kind of annoying.
• Tell me your favorite NFL team after the round for +1 speaks. Packers fans get an automatic L25 (jk)
• If you do a 360 when you read a turn +1.5 speaks
• If you make me laugh +1 speaks

Progressive Arguments:

• Theory: I don't have a lot of experience with theory, but I understand how it works and will evaluate it. Run any theory (disclosure, spreading, paraphrasing, TW, etc.) besides friv theory and I'll evaluate it.I don't really have any bias towards anything, so I'll pick the best warranted standards/arguments. I won't evaluate it on the local circuit.
• Note: Theory is not dark magic. Treat it like a regular argument. Your school getting no funding doesn't mean you can't use YouTube to learn how to respond to theory in your free time.
• Kritiks: no
• Tricks: no

Final Focus:

My decision will come down to what's in FF. I flow pretty well but I’ll probably miss a few things, so its important you extend your best arguments. Things I'm looking for are comparative weighing, terminal defense (to give me no reason I can vote for them), and you winning your arguments + taking out any defense on them.

Postrounding is good, it helps both the judge and debater learn from the debate.

Hi. I am a lay judge for pf (all other events, treat me as a VERY lay judge) , don't spread, run prog, or run silly args. Still a truth > tech judge except that I can flow and vote based off that.

I understand basic stuff like basic weighing terms (magnitude, probability, scope, timeframe), but definitely not K's, theory, trix, framework, etc. My daughter did debate from her freshmen year to senior year, and now is in college. My son is currently debating as well.

I value clarity over speed. However, please don't spread, even if you are very clear. I can't understand it that well, and can't flow that fast. I also WILL NOT accept speech docs.

Don't run 20 contentions. Focus on a good amount. (Quality > Quantity!)

An argument/contention is claim, warrant, impact. No impact, no warrant, no claim -> no argument.

Be nice. Not doing so might impact speak point if that's in the tournament I'm judging.

PLEASE WEIGH AND EXTEND!
Or else, what am I going to vote based off of?

If I'm interested, I might ask for cards after the debate is over. If you miscut it or powertag it, I might drop you.

No matter how good this paradigm is at english, my first language is not english. Please don't use too superflouous words (get what I did there)? I understand stuff like card, contention, block, but not turn, nonunique, delink, or stuff like that.

P. S. This was made by his son because his previous one was 28 words. In round, his english will not be this great, and he definitely won't make puns. Don't expect your RFD or comments to be this great either. Use the following example to see his paradigm expressed by him alone.

His previous paradigm was:
The following is what I will consider more valuable in the debate: clarity over speed, quality over quantity, argument = claim with warrant, attitude=nice to others

Hi! I'm Yuling (she/her). I graduated from UCLA with an econ dgree, I have 10 years of PF debating/coaching experience.

wangyuling1999@gmail.com for email chain/questions before or after round.

On top of my paradigm: I'm judging in a different timezone i.e. if you are doing a US tournament that means I may be judging at 2/3 am; that means I probably won't be able to handle spreading that well.

Bottom Line: be nice/don't be discriminatory in round.

Preferences:

Narrative Debate shapes my view of debate. Give me a cohesive storyline on why your side's view on the topic is more correct/important really helps me a lot in the decision making process.

Weighing matters, need extension and comparisons in the second half of the round.

Arguments need to be responded in the next speech - i.e. frontline in the second rebuttal.

Speed:
I am able to handle first constructive here (actually a bit faster than this is fine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxiQYogqyIs&t=38s

but not really https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnDL_bIDEqg

Eventually I'll vote on a team that clearly tells me where should I vote on, how did you win there, and why should I vote there.

Theory/Ks: It's still new to me / the circuit I coach in. I'll try my best to flow and understand, and I also appreciate a chance to get educated on progressive debate, but the reminder is I'm probably not qualified enough to decide this type of round.

Friends, it has been a few (several) years--so dumb it down for me! xoxo

General Notes:

-Include me in email chains: olivia@thewhiteleyfamily.com

-Clarity over speed

-Overviews, Impact Calc, and Line by Line or else

Argument-Specific Notes:

-Kritical Affirmatives/Framework: A well-run framework argument is compelling to me. I am willing to vote for a limits/fairness argument. For kritikal affirmatives, the alt debate matters to me. Win it.

-Topicality: If fleshed out, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Fairness is also legitimate. I lean truth over tech in these debates--but tech still matters.

-CPs: If enough work is done on the theory debate, Process CPs, Advantage CPs, and PICs can be legitimate. Work means engaging with the other side's arguments; repeating your shell in the rebuttals is not enough.

-DAs: DA and case is a strat. Generics are fine. Politics is my jam.

-Ks: Contextual link work and a clear, direct explanation of how your alt works may get you the ballot. Explain your jargon. I'm not down for "we're a K so as long as we win the general thesis of the argument, it doesn't matter if we drop stuff." Dropping stuff matters. If you make that argument, you will probably lose.

add me to the email chain please: alice.wu130@gmail.com

send all speech docs and evidence u provide

be respectful

ill flow everything

im okay with speed but if ur not clear i might not understand (for mstoc, probably dont speak as fast cause its online but go with what ur comfortable with)

only spread if both teams consent

tech > truth

no new args in final, u must extend stuff, collapsing is generally a good idea

weigh

credits to e chen chen (ethan chen) for helping with my paradigm, feel free to message him (ethanchen.5555@gmail.com)

Hi, my name is Joyce.

I'm a lay judge, but I do flow arguments and might ask for evidence, so don't get any ideas :)

My son debates PF and used to do World Schools.

Please send your docs to this email: bearxiongbear@gmail.com

----

Public Forum Debaters:

You will not be judged on how fast or slow you speak. All I care about is stating your arguments clearly and effectively.

Please do not forge any evidence; I might ask for a card if it sounds questionable. Anyone who does this will automatically lose speaker points.

If no framework is provided, I will judge it by whatever seems fit.

Please do not use pathos to push your arguments.

I am becoming more of a tech over truth judge (tabula rasa)

No discriminatory language. You will automatically get the lowest possible speaker points possible for the tournament, but I know none of you will do this :)

Criticize your opponent's arguments, not their personality or for who they are as a person.

Most importantly, have fun!

I believe that debate is not only about presenting arguments but also about learning and engagement. I value clear, well-structured arguments supported by credible evidence.

I expect debaters to clearly outline their arguments and provide logical support. Effective rebuttals are crucial for a strong debate. The quality and relevance of evidence are key. I prefer evidence that is clearly linked to the argument it supports.

Clear and confident speaking is important, but I also appreciate debaters who can engage with the audience and their opponents respectfully. Respectful interaction and adherence to the rules of the debate are non-negotiable.

I will balance content and delivery in my decision-making process, looking for the team that best combines strong arguments with effective communication.

I will provide oral feedback after the debate, focusing on strengths and areas for improvement.

My name is Shan Yang, and I am honored to be your judge for this Public Forum debate. As someone passionate about the art of debate and critical thinking, I am excited to witness the intellectual exchange that will unfold before us.

In my role as a judge, my goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to both teams, fostering an environment of growth and learning. I value clarity, coherence, and well-supported arguments. Each debater's perspective and approach are respected, and I encourage you to not only present compelling cases but also engage in a thoughtful and respectful exchange of ideas during the crossfire and rebuttal segments.

As we delve into the debate, I ask for your commitment to the principles of sportsmanship, adherence to debate rules, and a demonstration of your best analytical skills.

I look forward to an exciting and insightful debate.

Hi! My name is Tiffany. My email for the email chain is: tyangrt2012@gmail.com. My pronoun is she/her.

I am a parent judge; I judged for the Middle School Debate before.

1. I like to take notes while judging, so please do not spread (speak conversationally).
2. I am tabula rasa, meaning I do not have any background knowledge on the topic
3. I like well-organized speech, meaning your speech with a topic + enough supporting points/references
4. Impact scenarios are good
5. Speaks based on strategy, not speaking ability
6. I will not disclose rounds
7. Good luck, and Have fun!

i debated pf under flintridge prep cy. we qualified/were invited to gold toc twice plus nationals, state (california), and round robins, and did pretty well

add me to the chain: avaye@outlook.com

general (this is all pf specific)

• tech>truth
• frontline in 2nd rebuttal
• extend everything ur going for in summary
• collapse
• weigh & metaweigh PLEASE IM ACTUALLY BEGGING YOU. IF YOU DON'T I LITERALLY HAVE NO WAY OF EVALUATING THE ROUND AND VOTING. also when u weigh dont just tell me why ur impact is good, pls actually compare ur argument to ur opponents
• if its not in summary it cant be in final; unless its new weighing in first final
• i got carried by my partner every time we debated prog so read theory at ur own risk & absolutely do not read Ks. i love a good substance round; if u have absolutely no prep id rather u read tricks or beetle facts or sing

my judging habits (feel free to disregard but could be important for speaks)

• dont go overtime
• slow evidence exchanges r my absolute least favorite parts of debates so make it quick, preferably just rly quickly send cut cards before speech. also taking over 30 seconds to find a card is so sus
• dont call me judge in ur speech every 10 seconds
• down to skip grand cross if everyone is
• pls do not make the round boring i beg u

ultimately: be respectful, dont be problematic, make the round run smoothly, and have fun. cheers to an educational and enjoyable debate

In evaluating debates, I prioritize the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

Misrepresenting evidence is unacceptable. Integrity in citing and referencing sources is crucial in debate. I will call for cards if there are concerns about evidence accuracy or misrepresentation.

Extreme speed and/or overuse of jargon could negatively impact your performance. If you can speak quickly while maintaining clarity, that's perfectly fine. However, if your speed compromises the clarity of your arguments, I strongly advise you to slow down.

I do not disclose my decision after the round to keep the tournament's pace and maintain fairness across all debates. The ballot will be the sole determinant of the round's outcome.

served as Public forum debate judge for over dozen of times for both middle and high schools. always tried to judge based on how the actual argument was made and avoid personal bias. Value clarity more than speed, Value respect over rudeness during debate

I am a Quarry Lane Computer Science Teacher and am new at judging. I would prefer debaters:

• show respect to their opponents,
• speak at a reasonable pace,
• make strong impact calculus starting in the summary,
• only make arguments in the summary/final focus that exist in the prior speech ("no new args"),
• use cross-fire for clarification and resolution (and not brand-new arguments),
• and read direct quotes when first introducing evidence in a debate (i.e., do not paraphrase).

1/ I am an avid supporter of signposting: Using transitions and naming the contention is general good practice -> I follow general good practice in presentation.

2/ I am always looking for strong links and logic in combination with performance and presence.

3/ Have fun, do your best!

There is also hundreds of judges who have better specifications listed... I would say I'm a kind grader who is somewhere farther from lay and leaning towards tech.