Current Events: WSD, OO, FX, IMP, (previously PF & Mock Trial)

K.Bennett Judging Paradigms:

LD:

General:

Flex Prep is fine if all debaters agree

Roadmaps are preferred at the beginning of the speeches. I will not start your time until after the roadmap.

I place a high value on framing arguments.

You should do what you do best and in return I will do my best to adapt to your style and give the best decision I can at the end of the round. Remember this is your debate and you should do what you are most comfortable with.

Speed:

I prefer a slower round but if you spread do not sacrifice speed for clarity. I know spreading will happen so to ensure you get your speaker points slow down on taglines, authors, and provide summaries of your cards after you read them. If I cannot understand you, I cannot flow your argument. I will say “clear” two times before I stop flowing the argument. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!

Theory:

I prefer substance to theory unless there is clear abuse in the round

Kritiks:

In my opinion a K debate is good when it is well explained and contextualized. I catch on pretty quickly when arguments are explained well. Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. I like a K that has specific link arguments. I cannot vote on a K if I cannot understand the link arguments. Do not assume I am well versed in the literature/theory you are using.

Framework:

Framework is a great way to contextualize the round. Please explain your framework. Traditional framework cases should have a value and a value criterion/standard to weigh the value. I like cases that have a very strong link between the warrants, impacts, value and value criterion/standard. Highlight the impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I prefer real clash to unwarranted ideas or ill linked impacts.

Arguments:

I am fine with most arguments as long as they are properly presented and explained, unless they are racist, sexist, heteronormative etc.

How I vote:

NR and the 2AR are the main speeches on how I decide my vote. Only give voting issues that have been extended through all speeches in the round and please be comparative. How does this outweigh the other side? Please use big picture voters. I will vote on the most weighted offense linking back to a pragmatic framework.

I am not big on technical wins. Just because your opponent drops an argument doesn’t mean you win the round.

Congress:

I like creative speeches. I rate good passionate persuasive speeches over a speech with tons of evidence. Please engage in the debate rather than reading another speech that presents points that have already been brought up by other students. I think it is good to act like a member of Congress, but not in an obnoxious way. Questions and answers are very important to me. Ask smart questions that advance the debate. Standing up to just ask a question just to participate will hurt you. I would rather you ask a few really good questions than a lot of mediocre questions. I like a P.O. who is fair and efficient. The P.O. has a very high chance of making my ballot unless they make several big mistakes and/or are unfair. The P.O. must keep a clear precedence list. If you think the P.O is not being fair, call them on it. The P.O. must have the basic knowledge of parliamentary procedures to run the chamber. If the P.O. is not qualified to run the chamber, they will not make the ballot.

Hi All you gooners and goofballs. Welcome to my paradigm......

My name is Cruz, some also call me Crusty Cruz, Leader of the Crust.I also go by BeanboyCruz, which is quite comedic if you ask me.

Strake Jesuit ‘26--GO CRUSADERS!!!

Pronouns: He/Him/Ze/Zer//they/them

[ITS A WORK IN PROGRESS. TAKE A CHILL PILL YOU YOUNGINS]

Feel free to ask any questions, I'll do my best to answer. I can pretty much evaluate anything....YES ANYTHING....Huzzah!

Worlds:

Do what you know how to do and do your best at it :D We're all here to grow and I hope this activity helps us. I hope you have fun and we have productive rounds.

I've never debated World Schools but I've watched a few rounds- treat me as if I have some basic understanding but am not familiar with all the norms.

I'm probably going to evaluate the round from a little more technical point of view but I'm still going to be a lot more "lay" for World Schools.

General:

Give at least 30-35 seconds before each POI.

For MS, 30 sec protected time at the start and end of each speech.

I think the reply speech is the most important speech in the round- It's what I'm going to be looking at first and foremost as my reasons to vote for you.

Postrounding is okay but I will not change my ballot- I think it's educational for you to understand my thought process and holds me accountable as a judge.

Content v Strategy:

Strategy is most likely what's going to decide the round for me, smart responses that help you win a lot cleaner on the flow are going to be my reasons to vote for you. However, I do think the presentation matters in World Schools so it's still a balance of the 2.

Content

I'll boost your speaks for filling up the speech time and keeping the round in order, it makes the round super enjoyable as a judge.

I'll give more leniency on content points in rounds where you learn the topic right before.

Good weighing can easily you the round and will boost your points for strategy and content.

Style:

+1 point if you signpost clearly

Don't yell

-1 point for every extra POI if you spam POI's(no more than 7 POI's a speech)

style points start from 27 going up or down from there depending on how you do.

Being funny will boost your style points, making the round enjoyable makes me happy.

Strategy:

This is where I'll give points based on how you're doing on the "flow" and if you're technically winning arguments- This is most likely where I’ll vote off as well combined with content.

Clever strategies like cases with spikes in them will boost this of course.

Public Forum

Tech > Truth

Send a speech doc before Case and Rebuttal.

Speed is fine, but it needs to be somewhat coherent.

If it is not extended I will not vote off of it.

Prep ends, when you finish compiling the doc.

+.5 Speaks If you’re not in a suit.

You should probably give a Content Warning if your speech is super graphic

Truth breaks clash if no one breaks it for me. ( but break if for me )

Larp

Defense isn’t sticky, 2nd Rebuttal must frontline.

New (not intuitive) implications Second Summary onwards won’t be evaluated.

Implicate what you say.

Turns w/o Uniqueness and Weighing are defense.

Flex Prep is allowed.

Open Cross isn’t.

I like Unique arguments.

I won’t hack on evidence, unless told to check and it’s egregious.

Weighing: Strength of Link isn’t real weighing, probability needs to be super well implicated

Good weighing wins rounds, make it comparative and link weigh please.

Weighing is fine all the way into the 1FF, but speech after can always respond

Weigh as early as possible, like 1st Rebuttal early. Please.

Link-In’s, Short Circuits, prereqs, etc. need timeframe weighing, or else it doesn’t matter (unless it’s like really really intuitive ig).

Speaks:

Speaks start at a 25 going up or down from there- they start high because speaks are really arbitrary.

If you lose when reading Tricks L 15. Cmon bud. So not Sigma.......

Progressive:

You don’t have to extend Theory, Framing, trix, or a K in rebuttal.

Discourse is NOT an impact on anything- You will have to weigh it like crazy cracked or smthn

Framing:

I default Util.

Framework should be read in constructive.

SV should actually be SV, not [x] minority isn’t prioritized often, or util but prioritize [x] minority more.

I can probably understand Phil, but err on over-explanation. Not kant tho

Cost-Benefit Analysis is not a real framework.

Pre-Fiat Frameworks are… stupid

Interesting Frameworks are really cool and underutilized, things like Anthro, Polls etc.

Theory:

I default CI’s> Reasonability, DTD, Text > Spirit, No RVI’s.

^ All of the above can be changed through paradigm issues.

Friv is fine.

I think certain norms are good, but I refuse to hack for them I won’t evaluate Theory incoherent, dumping on a procedural claim is very much so problematic.

Kritiks:

Err on over-explanation.

Understand the authors you read, Please. It’s obvious when you don’t, and I’ll probably dock your speaks for it.

Topicality is a fine response; It needs a definition though.

Kritiks must have REAL Alts- discourse doesn't do anything and I really don't think anything could convince me otherwise.

Trix:

shouldn’t be too complicated/have too many layers.

Honestly there’s no tricks judges in PF so I’ll judge them ????.

They shouldn’t be bracketed inside evidence.

They should be in the doc.

St. Johns '26

Email: lchen.debate@gmail.com

I've done PF for a bit and I am currently debating worlds.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Feel free to email me whenever if you have questions about any round or my paradigm.

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

PF STUFF (scroll for other events)

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

Logistics:

Please send me your case docs, set up an email chain with your opponents, and preflow BEFORE round.

If you are flight 2, please flip before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

I do not care about speaks. That being said, I have been screwed on speaks at many tournaments. Although I won't give out auto 30s, 29 is the lowest speaks I will give, unless you are being sexist/racist (among many other things). I probably will drop you if you are hurting debate as an activity by being discriminatory/hateful.

If you debate without your computer, you will get an auto 30 (in-person only).

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

For Middle School & Novice Tournaments

The preferences below are directed towards varsity-level debaters. If you don't understand what any of it means, just ignore it and debate to the best of your ability in a style you are comfortable with. I will attempt to meet you at your style and understanding of debate.

If needed, I will evaluate the round from a more traditional perspective. For example, if it is clear both teams are debating for the for the first time, I won't vote off of technicalities like whether stuff was extended properly or not.

However, if it is clear one team understands the basics of flow debate, I will revert to the preferences listed below. That means you must clearly extend the link and impact of your offense in every speech!

If you do want to learn more about what any specific part of my paradigm means or if you have any questions in general, feel free to ask me! The entire reason I signed up to help judge at these tournaments is to help younger debaters!

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

General:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Current sophomore in high school- extremely busy in school- do not expect me to be up to date with the topic.

Most likely tech > truth unless its extremely stupid- everything needs a warrant.

Please send email chains. Documents are fine but not preferable. Showing each other evidence (for in-person debate) is substandard in my opinion.

I will try to vote for whoever won off of offense/weighing/defense etc. Probably will get lost in the sauce if you go too fast and miss many warrants.

Please do not go super fast. I can probably flow <250 words a minute, but no guarantees. If you are unclear, I will yell "CLEAR." If I need to say it twice, speaks are getting docked.

Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Extensions (with warrants) are necessary for everything through at least summary for it to be a factor in my decision.

Any argument should be responded to in the speech after or else it is conceded.

If you are going to concede something strategically, it requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument.

If I look confused, I probably am.

I'm okay with skipping grand cross for 30 seconds of extra prep.

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

Extra Details:

Framing needs to be run in constructive.

PLEASE GIVE ACTUAL EXTENSIONS. No extension = Dropped argument. Extend every part of your argument- the link, warrant, and impact.

Weighing is also incredible important. Absent weighing, I will intervene- and you do not want that happening. Weighing needs to be comparative. In my opinion, short-circuit > link-in > structural violence framing >extinction > magnitude > timeframe. This order can be changed freely in round, depending on the context of the weighing and the meta-weighing warrants provided.

Probability is not weighing. "Nuclear war is improbable" is not weighing; it's a response with no warrant.

Implicate and weigh turns, especially if they have a separate impact. Absent weighing and implications, I have no idea how to evaluate turns in-round without intervening myself.

I most likely will be paying attention to cross, simply because I find it funny when teams have no idea what they are saying when they stole their case off the wiki and doesn't understand any part of it. However, none of it will be flowed, unless somebody brings it up in speech.

A strong analytic with a warrant beats any piece of evidence without a warrant.

If you do have a piece of evidence, please make sure it says what you say it says. If your opponents are blatantly lying about it, then call them out in speech and implicate why it matters.

In principle, defense is sticky. If someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. However, ideally you extend your defense in case I miss it on the flow.

Please send all requested pieces of evidence ASAP (<5 minutes). Taking a ridiculously long time will lower your speaks. The only exception is when there are technology issues (WiFi Slow, Paywalled Evidence, etc.).

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

Progressive Arguments:

Be sure to note that I barely have any experience evaluating these arguments. Baby me through the round and tell me why everything matters in the context of the debate.

There are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate.

Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)

Prep Time is Set (3 minutes)

I will vote for one team and one team only.

However, I will evaluate theory.

Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)

Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - friv theory, 30 speaks

50/50 on Disclosure and Paraphrasing. Convince me!

If you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.

I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.

Personally, I believe that RVIs are a good thing to check back on abusive and frivolous theory.

K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments. Basic understanding, read a total of 1 Kritique!!! (Securitization)

At the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, but reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox isn’t it. Unless its a K. I love learning and hearing these arguments.

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

WORLDS (better event)

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

Given my PF background, I think I'm pretty comfortable with the newer and more modern ("USA" Debate, as I've heard) thats faster and more technical.

I'll evaluate the round as it goes, and look for the central clashes that you as the debater give me to understand how I should evaluate the round. Remember, worlds is a clash-centered form of debate on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Each question/clash will be decided independently. That means you should weigh each clash (as well as arguments) so I as the judge know which argument to look too first. If you don't, there will be a lot of intervention that you probably won't like. Also, be sure to give a comparison on how your world is better than your opponents. Its not significant that your world is good; why is it better?

In my personal opinion, I prefer if there is a central push/narrative coming from a team, as I think its a lot more compelling and makes for better public argumentation skills.

Everything should be warranted, but it should also be true. In this event, I am very much truth > tech unless I don't know if the statement is accurate or not. That being said, if you want to be funny and run funny stuff (ie. a theory shell), I'll accept it as long as both teams agree for a funny round -- just ask your opponents and me before hand to let us know.

Please, please, please make sure your principle is a principle, and weigh why the principle matters more than any other practical arguments.

I genuinely don't care if you knock a bunch (unless I can't hear) or ask no points. However, if you answer a point well or ask a strategic point you will be rewarded.

Speaks from 67-73, unless special circumstances apply. You will not be screwed by presentation, but speaks will be influenced.

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

Speak Specifics:

Content: Self-Explanatory. Did you make good arguments? Responses to POIs?

Style: Most of this category will be measured on how you structure your speech and how easy it is to follow. I will evaluate eye contact, intonation, gesturing, etc in this category, but it will be very minor. I think debaters should be rewarded for having good presentation-- it's why these events exist. Again, you will not be screwed by presentation, but speaks will be influenced. Anything you cannot control (ie. appearance, voice, etc) will not be considered. Wear slacks if you want, I don't care.

Strategy: Remember to push for the same strategy on how you try to win the round; create the narrative. First speech will be measured on how good the case is. Second and third will be measured on how effectively they adapted their strategy to the opponents, and if its consistent.

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

ANYTHING ELSE

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

For debate, I literally have no experience in any of these events. Please refer back to my paradigm, as I will probably be voting using that part of my brain.

For speech, I also have no experience in any of these events. I'm probably just going to be voting off of presentation/fluency etc.

Hey, I'm Josh (he/him). 3rd year at Dulles High School. 3 years LD, 1 year policy (alongside LD). As such, most of my views on debate have been influenced by people like Eric Schwerdfeger (mostly) and Patrick Fox.

- TFA CX '24

joshcheng250@gmail.com, add dulles.ld.db8@gmail.com to the email chain as well.

• Racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc. all mean anything between dropped speaks to stopping the round. If someone asks for accommodations, please try your best to fulfill them. Basically, don't be rude. Treat people like humans. Thanks.
• I'm okayish for some sort of speed - maybe 75-80% of the fastest debater on circuit would be a comfortable pace. Please give me time between flows.
• Write my ballot. Judge instruction makes my life easier and makes me think less, which is always a good thing. Layering and weighing should be obvious by the end of your last speech.
• I'll be as tab as possible. Tech > Truth
• Be nice to novices, maybe try to use the round to help them learn? (as in I will drop speaks if you're making the round a nightmare or being a jerk to them. Make it something they can learn from and I'll give you more speaks)

As of rn there is no world where I'm getting on a pref sheet lol... but if it helps

Shortcuts

K (generally) - 1

K (identity) - 2

LARP/Policy - 2

T/Th (substantive) - 3

Th (friv) - 5

Tricks - 5

Updated for the MS State! '23 -

General

You'll probably see my face change a bit. This probably has little indication of how the round is going, but you can almost certainly tell whether I vibe with the arg or not. Maybe use it as a speaks metric? Do as you like.

Presumption flips... neg, in most cases. I can be convinced pretty easily it flips aff. If the 2N is a separate advocacy, flips aff. Permissibility flips neg.

No judgekick - unless warranted.

In the honor of making rounds feel less like debate bots, drop me a song rec either before round or play it during cross if your opponents are chill with it. +.5 speaks for all you kids who have life in you at tournaments. Y'all the best.

K's (aff or neg)

Mostly am running these - they can be really strategic, but, please, actually know what you're reading and how it interacts with other theories of power. When ships pass in the night because neither team knows what each advocacy is it makes it a kinda sucky judging experience. Comfortable with stuff like cap, set col, security, etc. Very open to voting on pomo, but definitely explain a ton - the better I know the theory, the easier it is to get a vote - ask me before round. Identity is chill, just know what scholarship/space you want to promote well.

In general: Please know what your case does, and if it doesn't do anything, be ready to defend why that's a good thing. For affs, explain why the aff is good enough to be read on aff and why the resolution is a bad stasis. SSD and TVA are very compelling - shut them down for any shot at winning vs T.

Props to you if you can run a K and explain it passably :) (Props can be a pretty significant speaks boost in some cases.) Do with that as you will. Note - if your entire explanation is just skimming the tags of your cards I'm gonna combust. And so will speaks.

On the flip side - check with your opponent first if they're good with speed or K stuff. If you're reading it against someone who's gonna be completely lost... I'll give you the ballot but speaks probably won't be great. Make the round educational pls.

LARP/Policy

I'd like to think I'm not terrible at judging this - probably going to be the bulk of my rounds for a while. Weigh case, win framing, etc. If you're going for this consistently, please have strong links - it sucks to vote on 0.1% risk of link to whatever DA or CP you're going for. For CP's - please prove competition. It's been a year and the Dulles coaching squad still trolls Vishnu for "not understanding CP competition" - I dunno if he did or not, but, yeah, don't die to the perm.

Phil

I'll vote on it. Give me reasons to prefer contextualized to the actual theory instead of vague consequentialism indicts and the like. Explain more obscure positions and why it's uniquely necessary to good moral judgment (or why there is no such thing??) TJFs kinda silly. A few boosted speaks for this one too.

T/Th

I'm definitely a much better judge for T and substantive theory than frivolous shells. I have no plans on voting on santa hat theory in the near future, but if you win it... you win it, I guess. Topicality shells need more than one silly limits thing, if they make an I meet after you read a disad that links to their aff, I'm gonna be inclined to buy it. Probably not the best judge for 1AR restarts and 1NC's with 4+ shells, but if that's how you roll, I'm not one to stop you.

I'll assume DTD, CI, and no RVI for all shells unless explained otherwise. Defense on standards and I meets are not enough to win RVIs - read a counterinterp if you plan on going for it.

Tricks

Please don't. Like, if you can conceivably win any other way I would enjoy it so much more. If you absolutely have a burning desire to read your spikes, then sure, but unless they actually can't come up with anything to take it out, you probably won't be getting the ballot or amazing speaks.

Speaks:

I'll default to 28.5 for most circuit/flow rounds - [Both sides will probably enjoy their speaks a lot more if the round is techy... I'm just sayin'...]

Expect around a 28 for most lay rounds. Up or down probably reflects how likely I think it is you'll break.

Below 27 means you've done something bad. Debate what you debate well and I'll reward it as such.

Judge instruction please. I am a simple man with very little brainpower. If you make me think less there's a much smaller chance I accidentally screw something up on the flow or miss the tiny weighing claim you made in the middle of a massive chunk of analytics in the 1AR.

I am a lay judge. Please speak in a moderate speed and be respectful of each other. I would prefer a roadmap to know what I should expect. I am not a tech judge.

General things:

• Be respectful to your opponent(s)
• I will NOT tolerate racism, homophobia, sexism, or xenophobia. Any form of offensive rhetoric will cost you the round.
• Any specific debate questions concerning my judging philosophy, just ask, and I will answer to the best of my ability :)
• At the end, somebody must win the round; my decision shouldn't determine your value as a debater or individual.

senior in highschool been debating for 4 years

please give a roadmap

paint the ballot for me(tell me why you're winning)

im fine with progressive or traditional debate do whatever you want

fine with speed-send doc

email is nikgab2005@gmail.com

I can understand all larp debate, theory, Ks, probably not super complex phil or Ks

tech>truth

For trad debate, the value debate is super important to me

ask for specifics or email me pre-round

hi I'm melissa!

i've participated in LD, PF, and policy at heights for the last 2 years.

i'm probably best for larp arguments, but i'm tab and will vote on anything with a claim warrant and impact.

make sure u do a lot of judge instruction and voters to crystalize the round for me.

have fun, be respectful, and remember to have a good time! :)

Speak clearly.
Points are distinct and unique.
Questioning and behavior must be respectful to others.

Ok, who is this?

Hi, I'm Anderson! This is my third year debating for Northland Christian School in Houston and I'm a junior. I am a pretty mid national circuit LD debater, and I've done a lot of traditional and progressive LD. I have one career bid round, qualed to TFA State 2x, broke at TFA State my junior year, and I have qualed to NSDA Nats 2x in LD. I've also dabbled in extemp, and I qualed in WSD for NSDA Nats.

LD

General

I want the doc - email is anderson_hendrix@northlandchristian.org but I definitely prefer speechdrop

I take judging very seriously, and I will treat every round as equally important. I am very open to postrounding as long as you are kind, as debaters we should be able to defend our decision (won't be able to change it tho).

Probably one of the worst flowers in the nation, you will find me in the back typing with two of my fingers. Spreading is totally fine, but with that being said, PLEASE SLOW DOWN on analytics, I would consider myself as a 7 out of 10 in terms of speed. If you have the need to go fast, please send analytics, otherwise I won't feel bad if I don't catch an argument.

Be kind to novices - You don't need to spread to beat a novice. Do what you need to do to win, but please don't be intentionally uneducational. The higher your kindness, the higher your speaks will be. Also, please don't waste all of your speech time if you are clearly winning.

I have low toleration for rudeness- there's definitely a fine line between being perceptually dominant and being rude. Sassiness is fine - being a jerk will irritate me and I will TANK your speaks. Showing decency to your opponent is appreciated.

Tech>Truth to the highest extent ethically possible -will eval any arg with two exceptions: 1] If the argument isn't warranted in the first speech that it is read or in the extension and 2] If it makes the debate space unsafe

I do keep time - but feel free to time yourselves. I will stop flowing once you go over time. Finishing a sentence is fine, making a new arg is not.

Please collapse - especially if its the 2NR

Here's myjunior year wiki for reference to see what I read

Traditional/Novice LD

If you do these four things, you will most likely get my ballot.

1. KNOW YOUR CASE & EXTEND - I feel that a saddening amount of rounds are lost bc people don't understand what their case says, if you can give me a well-warranted explanation behind your arguments and do good extensions, your case will seem really strong, and you will be far ahead if you are doing a better job than your opponent.
2. JUDGE INSTRUCTION - tell me where the most important arguments in the round are, and where I should be voting.
3. WEIGHING - explain to me why the impacts of your case are the most important, and TIE IT BACK TO YOUR FW. You could be winning every argument that you make, but if your opponent is the only one who is doing weighing you WILL lose the debate.
4. BIG PICTURE ANALYSIS -compare worlds for me, explain what the aff world looks like versus the neg world, this can be a huge tiebreaker, especially if the debate is close on the line by line.

Progressive LD

Shortcuts (based off of how comfortable I am with judging them):

T/Th - 1

Policy - 1-2 (see below)

Phil - 2-3 (see below)

Tricks - 2-3 (see below)

K - 4

K Pomo - Strike

Things I won't vote on

• Anything that changes the LD format (6-3-7-3-4-6-3)
• Hack for me because I am x identity
• Anything that tells me how to evaluate a speech during or after that speech i.e. I won't evaluate "Give me new 2ar args" in the 2ar but I will if it is introduced in the 1ac or 1ar. This means I won't evaluate "eval after the 1ac/1nc".
• No speaks theory - speaks are my choice

Policy

Love it! It's what I read most. I'm pretty much cool with anything in this category, and I will give really high speaks for high quality larp v larp debates.

In Policy rds, I really enjoy 0 off case strategies as well as 5+ off strategies with t shells, cps, and das. My favorite 2Ns are Adv CP + DA or case turn & DA + Case. I really enjoy when aff debaters execute turns on net benefits and DAs and such. I also really enjoy solvency deficits to CPs that are creative and contextual to that CP.

PLEASE do lots of impact calc and judge instruction - pretty much who does a better job of this in larp v larp debates wins.

I don't necessarily read evidence after debates, bc I don't want my interpretation of the evidence to change the evaluation of the round -however, I will read evidence if you flag it and tell me to look at it

DAs---Biggest thing here is impact calculus - every 2nr going for the DA should have analysis such as "DA turns case" + "DA ows case" etc. You will lose the round if you don't do some sort of weighing with the aff. Link specificity and evidence quality are important in these debates. I won't automatically not buy it if the evidence is bad, but it will make 1ar and 2ar link pushes extremely persuasive.

CPs---Every cp should have three things: 1] CP Text - explain in thorough what the cp implements 2] Net Benefit - a reason why the world of the cp is better than the world of the aff 3] Competition - a reason why your cp can't be done with the affirmative. Default to no judgekick, you should tell me if you want me to. I enjoy cps that are cheaty (delay, consult, etc.) but be prepared for a theory debate - because I also really enjoy cp theory :)

Competition---Probably not the best judge for very dense competition debates, I would consider myself pretty average here. Err on the side of over-explanation in these debates

Case Debate---Please do case debate. Put some defense, put some turns, do something. Not only does it give you more viable 2nr strategies, but it also gives the aff more things to respond to.

Impact Turns---Love them. Spend 7 minutes, read non-policy stuff and make them your case page. Do impact calc. Also, don't impact turn stuff like racism or homophobia etc.

Soft Left Affs---Also cool, my career has been spent mainly reading hard right policy positions, but I have read soft left affirmatives here and there. I think 1acs should have strong justifications and reasons why you should prefer structural violence impacts and reject extinction arguments.

Theory

Also love this! Will evaluate any shell and there is no such thing as a "frivolous" shell - anything else is judge intervention. I won't "gut check" shells j because I think or you think they are silly. If you think it is a bad shell, you should able to beat it back.

Defaults---Fairness=education, DTD, CI, No rvis, text over spirit, and norm setting model, changed with one warrant though.

Reasonability---So underrated. I am pretty persuaded by good reasonability arguments with a clear bl, especially if the violation is small. This argument can be very strategic if you are able to couple it with other arguments.

RVIs---Don't get the hate honestly. It's a great way to punish bad shells and create more outs. I find Yes rvis vs no rvis very engaging, and I will be very pleased if you successfully go for an RVI.

Disclosure---You should disclose. I read anything in my career from round reports to contact info and winning against disclosure is going to be difficult. I think that generic disclosure shells are super winnable but violations like round reports are justifiable. I think disclosure is very true but I will not be happy if you read it against someone who clearly doesn't know what it is or have access to the wiki. Sure, you probably will get the ballot, but don't expect high speaks from me.

Evidence Ethics---I think that reading ev ethics as a shell is much better than staking the round. I think winning it as a shell is super easy and gets out of lots of trouble. If you decide you do a challenge, I will instantly end the round and there are no takebacks. If it is a false accusation, you will receive the L.

T

I also really enjoy a good T debate. Every 1NC I read on the JF24 topic pretty much always had at least one T shell. Please do lots of judge instruction when it comes to these debates and tell me in 2nrs and 2ars what arguments come first. If you are winning your definition, tell me why that matters. If you are winning a limits standard, tell me why I am still voting for you, even if the aff wins their PICs DA. Caselists are also good, especially if you are reading a ground standard.

T-nebel/leslie/bare plurals/wtv you call it---T shells that require high levels of semantics are probably not my cup of tea, probably bc I am not that smart. I'm sure Nebel is awesome, but I think that just reading regular t-can't spec is more persuasive then using cards from a debate blog. There is probably always a better t violation to read in front of me then Nebel.

Phil

I actually have started to really enjoy phil arguments even though I struggled with them for a major chunk of my career. I am not by any means good at phil debate, but I am interested and enjoy these args. Just know that I have a major lack of experience, and I definitely don't read phil lit.

I have a basic understanding of fws such as Util, SV, Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, Contracts, Polls, I-Law, Constructivism, Pragmatism, and Determinism. Anything else is still fine but just make sure you are explaining your syllogisms and connecting the dots for me. Impact calc that explains how you weigh offense are also extremely helpful.

PLEASE SLOW DOWN -lots of phil debaters blitz through tons of analytics which makes it super difficult to keep up.

PLEASE do more offense debates - no one does debates on the contention layer in phil rds which makes me sad. I would love to see someone concede to their fw and go for the offense debate if its dropped or undercovered. I also find CPs that do the aff or that have offense under the aff fwk to be extremely strategic.

Util v Other Phil---Good for this. Have been on both sides of this debate and really enjoy these when they are executed well. I am a big fan of calc indicts and TJFs in these debates.

Phil AFFs---I enjoy phil affs that have framing + contention + util advantage, I think it is extremely strategic (unless if you read it against someone who definitely won't read util).

Phil v Phil---Not fantastic for this, but I definitely want to see this debate. You are going to want to hold my hand and do lots of fw interaction.

K

Iffy judge for this at best. It's not that I have a general distaste for these arguments, I just don't have a great understanding of them and probably wouldn't be able to adjudicate these debates well. I have a very surface-level understanding of cap, setcol, security, and afropess, but I'm not familiar with any other lit.

K Affs---yeahhh I just read fwk and pics against these so I don't know much about them. I have a higher threshold for solvency for KS than most judges, you should explain why the advocacy solves the impacts of the K, otherwise I will be extremely persuaded by a 2NR presumption push. I do find K affs that are T and defend some sort of material action to be extremely lit though.

Ks---I know Ks aren't CPs, but if u are going for the alt, you should probably explain the alt to me like a cp. Explain why it solves the links of the k, why it's competitive etc. I like independent analytical links and I think that links that quote lines from the 1ac are super strategic.

2NRs---I feel like there is a trend in K debate where the 2nr makes tons of new extrapolations and explanations, I don't love if there are framing interps, rotbs, are new justifications that are introduced in the 2n, and I will have a pretty low threshold of answering them. I also HATE long overviews, please do not read K overviews that last the entire speech or that "answer" the aff arguments, I will likely miss some arguments if u do that. Shorter overviews that explain the thesis of the K are appreciated, just don't script your speech. Point is, do work on the line by line in the 2nr, don't read a super long overview.

Framework

I definitely lean more towards fwk, and have really only debated on this side, so I probably will be biased for this argument. I strongly do believe that affs should be tied to the topic in at least some capacity, but I will attempt to put that opinion behind me and try my best to be 50 50.

Going for t-fwk - Good for any impact you want to go for such as fairness, education, or clash. I think it's best when you read standards with offense under different impacts so that you have multiple 2nrs to go for. 2NRS on this probably should touch case, especially if your opponent is reading arguments on T that rely on their TOP.

Answering t-fwk - If you are going for a DA or an impact turn on T, please just explain it to me and why it ows the neg arguments. Defense against standards is also good for me, highly encourage lbling them. Also explain why the tva is violent/bad is to me, if you concede a tva it's probably game over. I'm probably missing a lot of things so just ask me.

Tricks

Fine with them as long as they have warrants - won't pull the trigger on them if the warrant isn't complete.

Don't love one line blips that are hidden in huge blocks of text - persuaded by ableism ivis on these

Good explanation is key - I am perfectly comfortable giving an "I don't get it" rfd - if i cant explain it back in the rfd I am not voting on it

SLOW DOWN - these debates can get incomprehensibly fast - please do not blitz through analytics, I also won't vote on it if I didn't catch it within a hidden block of text

Please don't overdo it - I don't want to see a 120 point underview and I still want to see some sort of debate on a substantive layer

Preferences---Enjoy theory related spikes, those can be pretty fun to evaluate. Less good for truth testing offense debates/substantive tricks, but still have debated these several times.

Speaks

My range of speaks that I give is from 26-30, and I start from a 28.5 and move up or down for there. My speaks scale is also like this

30 - Omg I'm inspired, late elims at least

29.4-29.9 - Fantastic debater, will reach mid to late elims

29-29.3 - Did a great job, early elims

28.5-28.9 - Did good, Bubble round

28-28.4 - Getting up there, possibly bubble round

27-27.9 - Can be improvements to your strat, but you have potential.

26-26.9 - Probably not ready for the event/division

Lowest speaks I can give - isms/phobias/ev ethics/clipping/stuff of that sort

Keep in mind that my speaks change depending on the difficulty of a tournament - its much easier to get a 30 at a novice ld local than it is to get a 30 at the TOC (I can't judge at the TOC but you know what I mean).

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU GOOD SPEAKS:

• Critical thinking!!!! (not reading off a doc for 13 minutes)
• Making jokes and just making the debate entertaining
• Ending your speeches early and still winning (if you lose tho ur speaks will be lowered)
• Good strategic decisions
• Being kind!!!!!!
• Clear signposting and speech organization

THINGS THAT WILL GIVE YOU BAD SPEAKS:

• Being shady in CX
• Being repetitive with your arguments
• Unclear spreading
• Being rude
• Sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, anything of that sort

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

PF

• I don't know the topic, treat me as a less experienced judge.
• You better not paraphrase
• Probably more receptive than most judges to framing args because that is the LDer in me
• K's in PF seem silly, I dont think 4 mins is enough to develop a good K + respond to other args, but I'm not a good k judge to begin with sooo
• Spreading is fine with me, but j make sure ur opponents are cool with it, ik that lots of ppl still don't spread in PF, If you want to be a super technical debater, you should probably do LD or CX.

I have mostly Worlds School experience, as well as congress, impromptu and extemp.

WSD:

• Good clash, structure, framework
• I really like a well developed principled argument, especially when it’s cleanly carried out.
• Weigh your arguments
• No rehashing, if you do I will not be listening.
• Strategic POIs are appreciated

Congress:

• Add to the debate, rehashing arguments will be counted against you
• Do not just give me rhetoric, provide analysis and weighing
• Good strategy is appreciated

Extemp:

• Have good structure and time utilization
• I like good and well developed content, in-depth analysis is appreciated
• Be creative with your speech

Have fun & be kind :)

email - uzair.jinnah0@gmail.com (Email chain or speech drop required for every round pls)

vhs '26

tech>truth

9/10th Grade - PF

• semi nat circuit debater

I am fine with judging speech - Don't really have much experience but I know what's going on and what to look for

Congress - Middle School

Please make sure to have fun! That's the central point of debate so enjoy it

PF -

Theory - Disclosure, Round Report, Paraphrasing are all good. Anything further I'll probably not vote on but if you want to go for it have fun with it. Meta-theory is cool so if you can run it run it. ONLY RUN THEORY IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY RUN THEORY. From experience, messy theory rounds are a pain to vote on and I'll probably just move to sub if it gets too messy. Also, I hate it when people run theory to just abuse it for the win. I believe that theory is only and strictly only for norm setting cus that was it's intention. It honestly shouldn't even be in PF in the first place but I like it to an extent so DON'T BE SCARED TO RUN IT. If it's the right way to go then go for it.TELL ME IF YOU ARE GOING TO RUN BEFORE THE ROUND SO I CAN CONFIRM...

Substance - Impact weigh. That's what I vote off. Meta weighing is fine just do it right.

1A and 1N - I value quality over quantity. I would much rather have 1 contention that is very well thought out with iron-clad links and a good impact than 5 bad contentions. I love squirrel arguments/out-of-the-box arguments. I think they allow for the realm of debate to be expanded and just makes the round more entertaining/better for debate. They also just help critical thinking. Don't spread. I can usually understand fast reading. Always share a speech doc through an email chain/speech drop.

2A and 2N - Sign-post. Don't make me fill in the gaps for you because I won't. If you don't weigh it's a lot harder for me to vote for you at the end of the round (just try and always weigh lol). Respond to all arguments made if you're going 2nd otherwise I will flow dropped arguments through. ON THAT NOTE READ BELOW.

3A and 3N - Sign-post. Weigh, weigh, weigh (it's really important). If you're opponent drops an argument BUT you don't extend it, I'm not going to vote on it. I know this kinda violates my tech judge persona but I am making this explicitly known that even if you're opponent drops something doesn't automatically mean it's winning on my flow UNLESS you tell me that it's winning. Do the work for me. COLLAPSE IN THIS SPEECH PLEASE. IT'S BETTER FOR DEBATE :)))

4A and 4N - Just have your fun. Impact weigh. Don't try and sneak new arguments in cus I will catch it and I don't really like when people do that.

Non-negotiables:

You guys know the drill. Don't be racist, homophobic, etc. I'll drop you automatically if you are. Be respectful at all times BUT that doesn't mean don't be aggressive during CX for example. Overall, debate's supposed to be fun, civilized, and educational. Don't harm those aspects and idc.

Strake Jesuit PF Freshman, 2 years debating

add me to your email chain: ttkirichenko27@mail.strakejesuit.org

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARADIGM ASK ME BEFORE ROUND

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

PF:

General:

Try and give a roadmap

Don't yell in cross, especially grand.

10 second grace if overtime

I'm good with postrounding idc

Substance:

Tech > Truth, I'll evaluate any argument as long as it's explained clearly throughout every speech

Weighing comes first.

No new arguments past 2nd summary

Speaks:

Clear Signposting + 0.5 speaks

For novice, frontline = extension, + 0.5 speaks for a clear extension past rebuttal

All speaks start off from 27(unless you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

Misc:

If everyone agrees you can have open cross, or we can skip grand for one minute of prep.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Worlds:

I've never debated world's, much less judged it. Treat me as if I don't know what I'm doing.

I'm probably going to end up judging this from a PF standpoint.

General:

Give at least 30-35 seconds before each POI.

For novice, 30 sec protected time at the start and end of each speech.

I think the reply speech is the most important speech in the round.

Don't postround, i'm gonna have to think about my decision for a little bit.

Content v Strategy:

Even though strategy is technically weighted less on the ballot, I still think strategy matters more, I honestly don't think it's fair for me to judge you harshly based on what I think should be in your speeches. If you respond well on the flow, I'll up your strategy points. You're going to see the biggest difference between you and your opponent's strategy points, rather than you and your opponent's content points. Strategy decides the round.

Reply:

I want to see weighing.

I think you should at least go over some of the stuff in speech 3, you don't have to go really in depth.

Content:

+ points if you fill up your whole speech time.

-1 point if your arguments are untrue

Style:

+1 point if you signpost clearly

Don't yell

-1 point for every extra POI if you spam POI's(no more than 7 POI's a speech)

style points start from 27(unless you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

Strategy:

I'll buy any argument, as long as it's explained clearly throughout every speech, and if your opponent doesn't attack it.

Weighing comes first.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

General:

Truth > Tech in pretty much all aspects

If you decide to run theory make sure its not frivolous and you baby me through it. I don't understand theory too well so make sure you make it very clear where the violation is ect ect.

Signpost alot. Tell me where you are going to do in the beginning of the speech, and tell me where you are going during the speech. If I dont know where the arg should go on the flow, I probably wont flow it.

If I cant understand what you are saying, or cant flow what you're saying i wont evaluate it in the round.

Follow the general NSDA guidelines and rules

Worlds:

Using a computer or any electronic device will result in a auto down.

Dont run any sort of theory in worlds. If there is a blatant violation (racism, homophobia), call out the opponents in a POI or during your speech and i'll flow it down.

Im fine with more techy or fast worlds, but if I cant flow your args they arent going to be considered in the round.

I'll evaluate the round as it goes, and look for the central clashes that you as the debater give me to understand how I should evaluate the round. Remember, worlds is a clash-centered form of debate on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Evidence should be kept to a minimum, a couple of statistics at most. Most of the debate should be purely analytical.

Each question/clash will be decided independently. That means you should weigh each clash (as well as arguments) so I as the judge know which argument to look too first. If you don't, there will be a lot of intervention that you probably won't like. Also, be sure to give a comparison on how your world is better than your opponents. Its not significant that your world is good; why is it better?

In my personal opinion, I prefer if there is a central push/narrative coming from a team, as I think its a lot more compelling and makes for better public argumentation skills.

Everything should be warranted, but it should also be true. In this event, I am very much truth > tech unless I don't know if the statement is accurate or not.

Speaks from 67-73, unless special circumstances apply (racism ect. for lows, insane speaking/pres for highs).

I wont ever style screw and will go more off the flow, but bad style will be accounted for in speaks.

I give a 15 second grace period for speeches in Worlds, but going over will result in docked speaks.

Since POIs are the only way for opponents to directly interact during the round, take 1-3 POIs per speech, any less will result in docked speaks

Also excessive knocking will result in docked speaks (knocking so much I cant hear the actual speech)

Village 24, Rice 28

Please put me on email chain!

Email Chain: lihungpaneric0827@gmail.com

I found my past paradigm to be way too depressing so here's a new version.

General Info:

I was a fairly mediocre circuit debater. Not TOC level, but should be qualified enough to adjudicate a majority of the rounds. I specialized in philosophical arguments (Kant and Hobbes) and did some policy and tricks as sidekicks. I'm ok with most of the debate styles out there even though I'm really only proficient in phil.

Graduated debaters & coaches that I was influenced by: Alex Yoakum, Issac Chao, Jackson Hanna, Jacob Smith, Lily Broussard, Arjun Verma, Christian Han, Chris Castillo, Regina Blenda, Alice Water, JD Kollar, Paul Aldritch

Graduated debater that have won against me and make me feel mad: Mark Bishop

Debaters that I was influenced by who are still on the circuit: Ansh Sheth (he knows me as "Bing Bing"), Sophia Tian,Spencer Swickle

Friends & ppl I like on the circuit: Laura Huang, Audrey Finch, David Xu, Max Gu, Selina Zhang

Paradigm:

I don't believe there's such thing as a "no-no" in debate. That is to say, I will evaluate everything you said even if it might bemorally repugnant. I think you should be able to run anything you like-- even if it is argument like extinction good. I will presume everything you said to be true as long as it falls to a reasonable margin. However, principle of sufficient reason does apply. For instance, if you claim climate change is not true, please at least have a card that says so. Additionally, please bear in mind of my limited intellectual capacity. It is not likely that I will understand some of the nuanced of substances that are not phil.

You can be funny, even somewhat meanie meanie funny. But unlikely how I approach substances, I do think respect is necessary. I might not down you for it but might dunk your speak (If both sides have fun though... different story, boasting speak)

Preference:

Trad 1 (Every judges can judge trad, I feel like it could be interesting at time, if debated well)

Phil 1 (if it is util vs Kant, will boast speak)

*Tricks 2

LARP 2 or 3 (I know how it works, but it depends on how dense they are)

Theory/Topicality 4 (I know how it works, I'm just terrible at it)

K 5 (I think I know how it works, but I have only won one K round in my entire debate career, so eh)

*Tricks here refers to substantive tricks that are educational. I know it is vague, so here's a rule of thumb: If the other side have ground, than it is a permissible trick in my opinion. In other word, I don't find a priori educational, I do find truth testing & permissibility trigger & skepticism great. Regardless of its nature, I'll judge it to the best of my ability, but the threshold might be lower

Speed:

I have difficulty listening to spreading that goes too fast (anything above 300 wpm). I'll try to yell "loud" or "clear" if necessary. Please pause after reading the taglines, it helps a lot. I flow on paper & I'm pretty bad at flowing so please keep that in mind.

I understand how difficult spreading is.... as someone whose first language is not English, I feel it. Therefore I don't normally punish a debater on clarity unless it is too far. In other words , if you ignored "loud" or "clear".

Theory:

Friv theory has to be contextualized, the threshold of response would be low, but I will vote for it.

If you go technical please explain them well. If they are innovative and understandable (preferably with in-round abuse), there will be high speak.

Not a fan of RVI but I do recognize that it could be justified under some limited circumstances, such as friv theory.

Don't extempt theory shell if possible. Because I have a terrible flowing with regards to theory shell.

Tricks:

Be my guest!

As mentioned, I don't like A priori. But I'll vote on it and it should have no impact on your speak if you did not go for it. If you win on it I might reduce speak depends on the circumstances (not a lot though)

Stuffs like Neg should not have prep time or evaluate the round after the 1AC is funny, but I look forward to the justification. Response threshold is probably low.

Long underview? Annoying, but effective. No comment.

LARP:

Not too familiar with CPs, but please go for them. Be creative, but don't be too creative. For instance, I'll have lower threshold for Consult and Delay CP

My personal belief is that PICs are fine as long as they are reasonably justified to be different from the plan post-fiat, i.e. no word PICs. But, your call.

If there's something unconventional, please explain them.

Please weigh and collapse

Interesting impact turns like sparks and wipeouts are very fun.

General impact turns are good too.

If you don't respond to calc indict you lose :) (threshold is low, of course)

Phil:

My favorite...do whatever you want, I got you

Philosophy is open to interpretation. I don't care what Kant or Hobbes actually said. I only judge what you said and what I could understand.

I feel like Phil debate is underappreciated... technically in so far as you win the fw debate, it is almost always an auto W absent pre-fiat or theoretical impacts.

I feel like Moral skepticism and determinism are more phil than tricks, but it doesn't matter anyway.

I really really hate extinction outweigh, so please stop making your opponent win on this argument.

Kritik:

Used to hate it because I don't understand it. Now I have reconcile with it. Unfortunately, I still have difficult evaluating K simply because my limited knowledge about the literature and just generally how they interact with each other and other positions.

Please make the alt has some kind of solvency, whether discursive or physical. I met many debaters do not even know what the alt is doing... and it is... not good.I evaluate phil framework at the same layer as K. This is because K being a higher layer is dependent on you winning your thesis and your ROB, but in that case, you will win the debate anyway. I don't see how K is an automatic higher layer. But this could be shifted by like one line.

Prepare a case list of Aff that fits your K which your opponent can read. If you fail to do so when your opponent asks for them in CX, you lose. K debate is meaningless if it is impossible for the aff to not violate the thesis.
I'll take the "ROB is arbitrary" kind of argument if you do not respond to them.

Identity K should probably be read by someone from that group. Reading Yellow Submarine or something like that against Asian debaters when you are not Asian is beyond my understanding. It is true now that set col., queerpess, disability-pess, etc. are now widely ran by debaters who do no belong to that group, and I understand. My threshold is whether you appropirate the agency of that group. I understand the brightline is extremely unclear, so I'll try not to intervene. But the problem is... I don't know how not to intervene, which means bias is inevitable.

If you would like to play it safe, please strike me.

Defaults.

Epistemic confidence > Epistemic modesty

Truth Testing > Comparative Worlds

Argumentation > Persuasion (In traditional round, the latter may or may not affect the speaker's point, depending on whether it affects the clarity of the argument, probably only +-0.5 max)

Theory > Kritik/Framework (Util & Phil) > Contention

Presumption negate and permissibility affirms

Speaker Point

I try to keep the mode around 28.7, probably won't go below 28.3 unless there's a good reason. +-0.2 if you are slightly better or worse than average. Never go down below 27.5 no matter how bad you did technique-wise.

Will give a 25 in very limited cases under exceptional circumstances. Will give 29+ rather frequently. Will give 29.5+ occasionally. Only 30 if the round is like WOW, so like... not likely.

I'm more lenient in local than national circuit. Additionally, if I know you try hard, I'll also boast your speak.

I used to run benatar on novices, so I'll permit that. You will not punished for that in so far as you are not mean to the novices & does not have that superiority complex. If you are the novice, I'll make sure your speaker point is above the mode if you had tried your best.

Easy way to boast speak

If you brings me bubble tea with 50% sugar +0.5

If the debate is fun +0.2

If you can name my favorite debater (impossible difficulty) +0.1

For Traditional Debater (If you have no idea what everything above is, you probably are)

Just do your best. I will use your skill of persuasion to determine your speaker's points. Because I think that's what traditional debate is: argumentation + persuasion.

For Circuit Debater:

I really want to say do whatever you like, but really I can't. Simply because I'm too stupid to understand some of the arguments, so please forgive me about that.

If you have any questions, email me, and have fun. Nothing cheer me up better than a good debate.

For PF;

Everything above applys. I debated PF for 1.5 years so I have adequate amount of experience.

Email: liamneedsadebateemail@gmail.com

[UPDATE FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STATE] If you feel uncomfortable with someone's Parent, Coach, teammate, etc. watching your prelim round, speak up. I will do what I can to make sure that they leave, and make sure that you are comfortable.

Hi, I'm Liam, he/they. I am a sophomore in high school doing LD at Northland Christian School. I qualified to state last year and this year, qualified to nationals this year, and have a fair amount of experience at tournaments on the local and national circuits. Try not to call me judge, liam works.

Ask me questions before the round about anything you need clarified

Important stuff

1] No Racism, homophobia, you get it, I will intervene and vote you down.

2] Identity K > Cap, Security, etc.

3] Accessibility matters.

4] Don't be mean

5] Speaks are default to 28, and i'll take points off or add depending on speech.

6] Evidence abuse checks stop the round immediately, if you stake the round on evidence miscut or clipping cards, its either a L0 or W30. Make sure to have the rule violated pulled up and be able to reference it. We'll check with tab on how it should be resolved.

7] If you don't extend it I don't evaluate it, all it takes is a few seconds of extension.

8] If you feel uncomfortable in a round that I am judging feel free to either send me an email or pull me aside, the highest priority in the round should be you and your opponent's safety and I will do what I can to ensure everyone feels safe.

9] Please time yourselves.

Quick Hack sheet

K- 2

Phil- 4

Policy- 2.5

T/Theory- 1

Trad- 1

Tricks- 1

• Format less important than what you are saying.
• Tech > Truth for Policy
• Tech > Truth for Theory
• Tech < Truth for K until the point that Tech overwhelms Truth
• Spreading fine, but slow down for tags, author names, and interps.
• Send round docs
• Yes FlexPrep

Novices-

• Know what your case means,
• Be kind to each other, you're high schoolers/middle schoolers doing this for fun
• Try to be as clear as possible, especially if you're online
• Feel free to ask questions after the round (to an extent, I don't want to hold up the tournament)

K-

I'm not super familiar with Ks other than Afropessimism, since that is pretty much the only one I read, do with that what you will. That doesn't mean I won't buy it, just explain what you're saying and why it matters. Slow down on ROB and Alt. I do understand how they work within the round and can tell when you know what you're doing and when you don't. Clearly articulate what the alt does and I'll be a lot more receptive. On identity Ks specifically, I will not even consider voting on anything hinging on calling a group you are not a part of socially/ontologically dead. I frankly don't care to hear your justification on why that is okay, I will intervene and down you. You should not take it upon yourself to preclude the possibility of progress from a group you are not a part of. Err on the side of overexplanation.

Phil-

I understand util and kant, anything else make sure you explain it and how it interacts with the round. I will vote on it.

LARP-

How I and most others started debating. Just make sure to weigh and explain how everything interacts in the round, highest layer, etc. I am a big fan of impact turns. I will not be a good judge for dense larp rounds, please try to make it easier for me, I'm a K and theory debater who isn't a big fan of most larp debates

Topicality-

Don't just read framework blocks for thirteen minutes and expect me to vote for you. Explain why T is the highest layer and provide a good abuse story. The TVA is something that is in my opinion very underutilized in T v K debates and that usually benefits the K debater, just because I am usually on the K side of those debates does not mean I will be biased against you.

Theory-

Theory my beloved. If you think theory is strategic in this round go for it, make sure to explain the norm you're setting/the abuse in round. Don't go for theory if you don't know how. Not enough line by line in theory debates.

Tricks-

About the same as theory. Try to use good round vision and know when it is strategic to go for them. I'll evaluate it like any other theory arg if its conceded, however the threshold for responses on blippy spikes is lower than other args. That being said, no matter how stupid a blippy spike is, if it's conceded I'll vote on it.

Trad-

Good trad debates are fun. I would say I'm good at traditional debate, and I have a good understanding of it. Don't be rude to someone if they choose not to debate you traditionally, but in return the side not debating traditionally shouldn't be rude either.

General-

Debate how you're good at debating. I'd rather you read something I don't understand as well and explain it than you read something you don't understand poorly because I know it. At the end of the day debate how you are comfortable and have a good time.

Speaks!-

Default to 28, and I take or add points depending on speech, I'll take points off if you go over time by 10 seconds or more, I'll also stop flowing. Strategic decisions get you more points.

1] No preference to standing up or sitting down.

2] Don't care if you're eating unless you're chewing with your mouth open.

3] Don't care about attire.

4] Speech evaluated by articulation, fluency, speed, and way of speech, (If lay round, eye contact.)

I like personality, I don't like debate robots. Being funny and making an enjoyable round will boost your speaks.

Please recommend me music before the round to listen to while I make my decision!

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

PF

• I don't know the topic
• Please don't paraphrase
• Probably more receptive than most pf judges to framing args
• Most of it crossapplies from the above LD stuff
• Spreading is fine with me
• I don't know the structure of pf so please be gracious

Strake Jesuit '25

Email: shahqdebate@gmail.com

Please set up email chain before round

I'll vote on literally anything. That being said, all I ask of you is to be clear when you extend stuff and extend a warrant. I really don't want to have to not buy a good argument just because you never extended a warrant, so please don't put me in that position. Conceded arguments have lower thresholds for extension and I will not vote on arguments that do not have warrants or arguments I do not understand. This should go without saying, but weigh, signpost, and slow down on analytics.

Explain arguments as if I didn't know the topic. Be explicit with why I should vote for you and write my ballot for me.

In Depth:

Tech > Truth, 99.9% of the time.

Pref Shortcut:

Theory/Policy - 1

Tricks - 2

Phil - 3

K - 4

Speaks:

Probably not gonna go under 28.

I evaluate speaks on strategy.

Defaults:

These can be changed.

-DTD

-Competing Interps

-No RVIs

-Fairness/Education Are Voters

-Comparative Worlds

-Permissibility/Presumption Negate (Presumption goes to the side of least change if the 2NR does not defend the squo)

-Util

Non negotiables

• I won't evaluate arguments that tell me to change the times of speeches
• I won't "evaluate after x speech" if you are reading it in "x" speech unless it's conceded entirely, just saying no is sufficient defense.
• I won't evaluate ad-homs or out of round practices that don't pertain to the round.
• Poorly ran tricks will lower speaks.
• Compiling the doc is prep, sending is not.
• Warrants for spikes must be extended even if conceded.
• Answer cx questions.

village high school '26

I did Congress across middle school and PF across high school

General Things -

Biggest thing, remember that your supposed to be having fun. This is the reason yall are here today so please treat your competitors with equal respect at all times.

PF/LD-

RovereMatthew@gmail.com please add me to the email chain. I'd really rather you don't use google docs as evidence practices are probably worse comparatively. I believe that maintaining good evidence ethics in debate should be a priority, therefore I encourage you to point out (in a speech of course) if your opponents evidence ethics are especially poor.

Tech>Truth
Defense is sticky

If you win the flow you win my ballot. I can flow around 230 wpm well so try not to go over that. Please don't spread, if I can't understand you I can't flow, I won't flow off a doc. Please time yourselves as I will time but stop flowing when time runs out. Cards need to be properly cut. Don't power tag your evidence, and don't spend more than 30 seconds to find a card. I pay attention to cross but make sure to bring everything up in a speech that you want me to take notice of. I would recommend for you to signpost well through your rebuttals, it keeps the round very clean and speaks will reflect that.

For Speaks I start at 28 and go up and down from there.

I disclose unless specifically told not to by tab and if it's not flighted I'm more than okay post-rounding.

PF Specifics -

In rebuttal specifically please make sure to really implicate responses, don't just card dump and expect me to fill in the gaps for you. I've seen a fair few amount of rounds where teams just read off evidence without implicating it at all, just don't do that. That being said, expanding off of your implication in summary is completely fine and encouraged, just make sure you implicate it somewhat in rebuttal. Whatever is in Final should most certainly be in Summary. Strategical Collapses are a really good thing to. You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Also since this is middle school I will almost never vote for theory, and won't vote for out of round abuse.

LD -

All trad is good in general. I probably only get some prog stuff so tread carefully. If your running something somewhat progressive I would recommend talking to me before the round because chances are I might not know how to evaluate it. I think I'm decent with theory but really don't know much about K's so if your going to run them please do it well I guess. I'm not going to vote for Tricks in any scenario.

Worlds -

I care more about the arguments themselves compared to presentation.

Congress -

I expect yall to adhere to a typical round cycle. Please try your hardest not to rehash and remember to clash way more as the cycle progresses. In terms of PO's as long as you don't mess up terribly expect a respectable rank, minor slip ups are fine and it is the role of the chamber to make note of it. Unless it is major, judges probably should not interfere with the round.

Interp -

Do your thing

LP's -

I did some of this in middle school so same thing just do your thing

Keep me entertained, If you leave me speechless or give me a good story to tell ppl about the round = auto 30 speaks!!

Credentials - I went to TFA Texas State Championship 2023 and 2024 and to the NCFL National Championship in 2023, all for PF (public Forum debate).

General info -The main thing to remember is that it's never that deep and debate is supposed to be educational and fun at the same time! Therefore I don't tolerate any sort of disrespect. While I am a tech judge, I can also be very lay. Given I won't be doing the work for you, please make sure your links are clear and extend the contention(s) throughout the round for me to consider it in my ballot. Note that the Impacts of those contentions are what I consider most in my ballot. I am usually good with moderately fast speed but please refrain from full-on spreading, you MUST BE CLEAR NO MATTER WHAT. Please share a speech doc if you plan on spreading. But ultimately, I won't flow it if I can't understand you. I'll give you a verbal warning two times before I stop flowing. You have a grace period to complete your sentence, so make the most of your prep time. Please also give me an off-the-clock road map and signpost as you go along in all your speeches.

Cases, Definitions, and Frameworks -I'll evaluate the frameworks given by each team. But if just one team provides a framework and the other team does not provide a framework or a clash, I'll judge based on the provided framework - the same goes for definitions. I expect arguments that are easy to understand, concise, and easy to flow.

Flowing + clash - I will flow everything said in round unless you are too fast and (unclear you haven't shared a speech doc w me.) Throughout the round, please keep highlighting any points or supporting evidence you would like to evaluate especially in the summary and final focus. If you don't carry your points throughout the round, I'll consider them dropped. Please avoid k args but theory is fine. Make sure to clash on all args while also providing both offense and defense. I will only evaluate case turns if they are extended in summary and final, and encourage you to collapse on similar args.

Cross-ex - Use Cross-ex carefully as I will assess it. I understand that there might be a lot of tension in Cross, but please don't be rude. I will drop any new points that were never brought up again after the cross.

Summary and FF -Most important speeches in round and they will determine my ballot. In summary, please make it clear what args you're going for, extend all offense, turns, defense, and most importantly, IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT. If something isn't addressed or extended in summary and is mentioned in FF, I will simply ignore it. In FF, I want you to write the ballot for me, tell me exactly why you win and why your opponents loose, and continue to extend your impacts.

Speaks -I start all my speaks at 28 and will go up and down accordingly.

To boost your speaks by .5 :

-If you do a spin whenever you say a turn

-Make a joke that's actually funny

-Make a relevant pop culture reference

WSD - Do your thing, only difference from what I said above is that I will pay extra close attention to your presentation skills.

Feel free to ask any questions and please include me in the email chain haanasalemi@gmail.com

Credentials - I went to TFA Texas State Championship in both 2023 and 2024. I went to NCFL National Championship in 2023. I specialize and am experienced in PF as this is my event for these tournaments.

Overview -I will not tolerate anyone being purely disrespectful. While I am a Tech judge, I can be very lay. I am tech>truth. I will not do the work for you so make your links as clear as possible and explain all arguments you want me to consider when making my final decision. While I know speed can be useful please refrain from spreading, If I can't understand you I will not flow it. I will give you two warnings before dropping my pencil. Debate is an event based upon communication so communicate clearly. Use prep time wisely and you have a grace period of one sentence.

Framework + Case Structure -I will evaluate the framework given by both teams. If only one team offers a framework and there is no clash or framework given by the opposing team, I will judge based on the framework given. I expect clear and concise contentions that should be easy to follow and flow.

Flowing + Clash -I will flow all contentions and subpoints plus evidence, AGAIN IF YOU ARE TOO FAST OR UNCLEAR, I WON'T FLOW. Any evidence you want specifically considered or any arguments please continue to emphasize throughout the round. You must carry your arguments throughout the round otherwise I will consider them to be dropped. I am fine with theory cases but try to refrain from K args. CLASH on all arguments and provide offense plus defense. I will evaluate all case turns and I am fine with you collapsing similar arguments.

Cross Ex - Please use Cross Ex wisely. Try to refrain from making arguments but rather set traps to exploit in speeches. I will evaluate Cross Ex. While I do know Cross Ex can get heated, refrain from being disrespectful. If something is mentioned in cross but not brought up again I will consider it dropped.

FF -Make it clear what I am voting on. Weigh throughout rounds but especially in FF. IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT. When I vote I need to know what happens when I vote AFF vs when I vote NEG or vice versa. Basically, why should you win, and why they should not.

WORLDS -

I will evaluate the two best arguments in the round and compare them and that will win my ballot. You can drop args in the round but the one you collapse on needs to outweigh and have stronger links than the other team's strongest arg. Presentation matters just as much as argumentation. My flow and clash + framework and case structure cross-supply to worlds as well.

Any other questions feel free to ask. (Yes put me on email chains - Devon.stevenson08@gmail.com)

*NOTE - I HAVE NOT DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THE NEW APRIL TOPIC - TREAT ME LIKE I'M CLUELESS*

Debate is great. At its best, it teaches amazing critical thinking, research skills, and teaches us to engage and clash with others' ideas. I'm pretty flexible on what counts as debate arguments but pretty persuaded that prepared opponents produce better debates.

Some aspects that are critical for me:

1: I don’t judge often which means I likely won’t be able to keep up at the rate many circuit debaters prefer. About half as fast as your maximum is probably acceptable for me to flow and think (but no faster).

2: Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

3: Arguments must be extended in each speech.

4: Read and have your evidence ready.

5: Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments.

Things that are good and you should probably have/do
Confidence
Flagging important issues in the debate
Jokes
Respect
Great and strong CX questions and answers

Effective crystallization is critical. For me to vote for you I need to know specifically what arguments you won, why, and how.

She/Her

I'll give you +0.5 speaks if you tell me ur favorite song from The Tortured Poets Department and if you haven't listened then just tell me ur fav Taylor Swift song and if its a 10/10 I'll give you the extra points anyways

For email chains: meganwaters03@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Megan, I've done policy at heights for 2 years and recently started doing LD. I think very similarly toAlice Waters, so if you want a super long version of this go there

Tech>Truth excluding anything morally repugnant, but I'll vote on anything with a claim warrant impact as long as there's clear judge instruction.

THIS IS V IMPORTANT TO ME!! I don't like rudeness and I do NOTTTT like lying plz don't do it.. I don't think you need to be aggro to win a round so I'd rather u just be nice especially to ppl who clearly aren't as experienced as you. I really really really care about this bc I'm super sensitive so I feel for ppl who are lowk being bullied in round lol. You'll get good speaks if ur nice so just do it

Speed is fine but my tolerance is prob like a 7/10 I'm not a great flower tbh

Order of arguments from my fav to least fav and probably also the order of what I'm best for:

1. LARP
2. K (best for structural Ks)
3. Theory
4. Dense Phil/Tricks

I've can comprehend most K lit, but I understand how structural Ks like set col or cap function the most, probs not great for pomo or dense Ks.

Theory is so fun! Idc how dumb the interp is just don't make it anything ab ur opponent's identity or appearance. I default theory as the highest layer unless u do weighing. You should slow down on these debates for sure.

Most phil is probably okay, I only know kant and levinas, but if you explain it to me like I'm a toddler I'll be fine.

I'm not great for blippy tricks at all. Eval after (x) speech is dumb but other stuff can be okay as long as you can justify why that means u win.