I am a parent judge with 5+ years of PF/LD/ Policy experience. Please consider me a Flay Judge.

• Speak as fast as you would like, but I will ask you to slow down if I cannot understand. No spreading please. I am fine with 15 seconds of grace time.
• Please be respectful of your opponents and give them a chance to speak. Do not keep interrupting or be rude or condescending. If not, I will drop your speaker points.
• Please do not read any form of progressive argumentation (theory, kritiks, etc.) as I cannot evaluate them and will not give you credit for them.
• Off-time roadmaps and sign-posting are encouraged. It helps me follow your debate better.
• My decision will be based on your contentions, evidence, rebuttals, impacts, summaries and weighing. I will evaluate all those on both sides to come to a decision.
• I like to see well-researched cases backed by strong and credible evidence. Please include me in the email chain to share cards as I like to review them as well.

Good luck and have fun!

Email: anar.s.anand@gmail.com - feel free to add me to the threads

I am a parent judge and an alum of the Stuyvesant High School Speech and Debate Team in NYC. I have a few simple ground rules and requests.

Speech / IE

These are long rounds and I expect you to be alert and engaged throughout the round regardless of your speaker order. This is basic courtesy and you yourself will perform better when your audience is engaged so please extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors. I come with no pre-conceived notions about your topics or performances so your choice of topic or argument is not what I'm judging. My feedback will be based on delivery, presence, soundness of reasoning and how you develop your points/arguments/characters. Most importantly, enjoy yourself up there and have fun with it - if you're not comfortable, we'll know.

LD / PF

Be respectful of one another and of the platform you are given as a debater. If you ask a question in cross, allow the other person to actually respond. If you've already presented something in an argument, restate your point concisely rather than say you've already stated it earlier. These are skills you're building for life.

Debates are won by those who make good arguments, not those who have the loudest voice. Make strong arguments with supporting evidence, present your case with confidence, drill into your opponent's case with challenging questions.

I'm not a fan of spreading as I believe the mark of a good debater is to make strong arguments and get your point across clearly and concisely rather than try to pull a confundus charm on your opponent. While I won't deduct points if you do it, keep in mind I can't judge what I can't understand. It is your job to convince me why your arguments and presentation of them should win you the round.

Keep it simple, make it interesting, have fun with it!

I prefer a logical argument with voice that is understandable. Your ability to present convincingly your structure, arguments and cross will earn you speaker points. 

I am a parent judge.

I have little experience with judging and only started last year.

Please speak slowly, and do not spread.

I only know the core fundamentals of debate so don't run Ks, Theory, phil, etc...

I judge Tech > Truth

Please weigh your impacts. I need to know why your arguments are better than your opponents.

Make sure you give me clear voters. If you are unable to provide me with a good reason to vote for you, I will not.

Ilan Boguslavsky (he/him)

Head-Royce '24

UC Berkeley '28

Add me to the chain: ilan.boguslavsky@gmail.com and hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com (policy only)

Top-level:

Read what you want. I read a policy aff my first two years of high school and a k aff my last two years. Now I go for only policy arguments in college.

Tech > truth, I'll pretty much vote for anything if won technically and will do my best to minimize judge intervention

Judge instruction in the rebuttals is crucial and slow down if its something important

Well researched and specific neg strats > generics

Quality of cards > quantity of cards

Topicality:

Specific and well thought out t debates > generic t violations

Competing interps > reasonability

Counterplans:

I am good for advantage cp's and aff specifc pic's. Not great for competition debates

Judgekick is fine but the 2nr needs to say it and justify it

Disadvantages:

Not much to say here. Explicit turns case and impact analysis makes the DA a lot more persuasive.

Mitigating the case is very important.

Kritiks:

I am familiar with most common K literature

Throughout high school we went for: afropess, black feminism, racial cap, security, deleuze, cybernetics, beller, etc.

I'll probably know what you're talking about but you should have a coherent explanation of your theory of power

Specific links to the aff >>> generic links

Explain your impacts. a lot of times teams k teams read a link without doing any impact calc

I'm fine if you go for framework + a risk of a link or a material alt that solves the links but I think the latter requires a lot more work on mitigating the case and answering da's to the alt

Framework is usually the most important part of these debates

K-Affs:

K-affs should be unique to the topic

Explain what your aff does and how it resolves the impacts of the 1ac

If you are vague about your advocacy or shift what your aff does throughout the debate to skirt da's or case turns i'll err neg

K-affs need to affirm something not just say that the topic is bad

I don't think you need to win spill-up claims or that debate shapes subjectivity but I want to know why the ballot is good

Framework vs K-Affs:

I do not care if you go for fairness or clash/skills, fairness can be an internal link or an impact

Debate has game-like elements but I can be convinced that it's more than a game

I prefer a counter interp but am fine for a straight impact turn strategy

The counter interp will never solve the neg's offense but it can mitigate limits explosion arguments

Affs need specific answers to tva and ssd

Its an uphill battle for the aff if the neg wins that the tva allows for a discussion of the aff's harms and they can read the aff on the neg in other debates

Neg case debating is key because most aff fwk da's are embedded in the case

K v K:

These debates usually come down to the perm so the neg needs specific links that are opportunity costs to the aff

Affs need to defend their literature and authors instead of no linking arguments that probably link to the aff

Theory:

Anything but condo is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

Condo is good up until 5 or 6 then I am more persuaded by theory arguments.

I have a low threshold for answering cheap theory shots

LD stuff:

Everything from the rest of my paradigm applies

Good for policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, k v k, theory

I haven't seen much of phil debate but it seems fine-- make sure to explain arguments thoroughly though

Would prefer not to judge tricks but will still evaluate them

No RVI's

Random stuff:

The death k is a valid argument

You can insert rehighlightings if the lines in the card have already been read by the other team but you must read any new lines/warrants.

Tell me if you want to stake the round on an ethics violation and I will stop the round, otherwise debate it out

Hello. My name is Dan and I'm a parent (lay) judge.

I enjoy playing team sports, card games and anything else that involves strategy and friendly competition. I love to learn and am excited to gain new perspectives and knowledge from my time judging debate. I care deeply about integrity and am relying on you to be truthful with me - please don't trick me into choosing your side with questionable or misattributed evidence.

I studied product design and have spent most of my professional life starting companies and helping other people to start companies. I am inherently optimistic and believe that everything we do (be that in life or at work) can be done better. I respond well to arguments that are data driven and propose new (and sometimes crazy) ways to fix broken systems or improve working systems.

I subscribe to the philosophy that strategy is the art of sacrifice, meaning that doing a few things well is preferable to trying to do too many things. As it relates to debate and judging, I will look to the quality of the arguments over the quantity of the arguments.

I also believe strongly in civil discourse and the healthy exchange of dissenting opinions - I look favorably on respectful disagreement but find anything that feels personal or petty as distasteful.

I'm excited to meet you and learn from you - if you have any questions of me in advance of a round, please feel free to ask questions before the round starts or email me at dbomze@gmail.com.

I am judging based off of:

• Speaking Style:
• Sound confident and project your voice
• Speak slowly and accentuate your main points (ESPECIALLY YOUR IMPACTS)
• Please do no use confusing jargon and define uncommon words
• Sportsmanship:
• Be respectful and polite throughout the debate
• Preparation:
• It is YOUR job to time yourself and your opponent
• Make sure your cards are prepared and everything is ready to go
• If a card is dropped say it! I won't know otherwise
• Be very clear in your responses to arguments

Hi, I am a parent judge, starting 2023-2024 year.
My decision will be primarily based on

• Clearly presented arguments
• Evidence supporting the arguments
• Clearly differentiating their position during clash
• Well addressed rebuttals
• Being courteous to others
• Keeping time

For debate events, I tend to value logic, evidence, and delivery over theory. That said, here is some guidance to win my ballot.

Tag your arguments so that I can follow them easily. Fully support your them with well-sourced evidence, and give me an impact for why it matters to your case, or why it is a reason itself to vote for you. A framework/criterion/value is not necessary in every debate format (within reason). I can use net benefits if you give me a reason to prefer it over the other team's proposed weighing mechanism. Any A Priori issues like definitions or criterion/framework/value should be backed up with a reason to prefer yours over the other side's.

Respond to all of your opponent's arguments even if it's not the best response. Dropped arguments matter even if they are sub-par arguments.

Give me voting issues in your final speech. Organize and tag them. If the other team gives me the voting issue of whoever is wearing purple, while you gave me no voting issue at all but gave better arguments, I will vote for the team wearing purple. Tell me what to think, how to think, and why to think. The judge is always right, but the judge is also an idiot.

I do not appreciate speed, though I can follow it. If both teams engage in spreading, I will evaluate accordingly, but I will reward teams who emphasize rhetoric.

Speech:

Well organized content , clear articulation of ideas with real world examples. Good use of hand gestures and voice modulation, movement, expression to engage the listener and enhance the speech.

Debate:

I look for the strength of the arguments backed with evidence, significance of the arguments, how well the aff arguments are refuted convincingly.

I will focus on clear communication and articulation that will make good justice for a well articulated debate discussion.

I am a parent and am new to judging. I do not understand most debate jargon. I will do my best to remain objective, take notes, and evaluate your arguments as they are presented. Please ensure that your pace is appropriate, your speech is clear, and your arguments are understandable to a layperson. I greatly value the spoken word and will listen very carefully. Spreading will make it very difficult to follow what you are saying. Thank you

I focus on the quality of the arguments - how well they are backed up with data. I am fine with vigorous counter arguments and debate but do not appreciate personal attacks or rudeness.

Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Presentation High School and Public Admin phd student. I debated policy, traditional ld and pfd in high school (4 years) and in college at KU (5 years). Since 2015 I've been assistant coaching debate at KU. Before and during that time I've also been coaching high school (policy primarily) at local and nationally competitive programs.

Familiar with wide variety of critical literature and philosophy and public policy and political theory. Coached a swath of debaters centering critical argumentation and policy research. Judge a reasonable amount of debates in college/hs and usually worked at some camp/begun research on both topics in the summer. That said please don't assume I know your specific thing. Explain acronyms, nuance and important distinctions for your AFF and NEG arguments.

The flow matters. Tech and Truth matter. I obvi will read cards but your spin is way more important.

I think that affs should be topical. What "TOPICAL" means is determined by the debate. I think it's important for people to innovate and find new and creative ways to interpret the topic. I think that the topic is an important stasis that aff's should engage. I default to competing interpretations - meaning that you are better off reading some kind of counter interpretation (of terms, debate, whatever) than not.

I think Aff's should advocate doing something - like a plan or advocacy text is nice but not necessary - but I am of the mind that affirmative's should depart from the status quo.

Framework is fine. Please impact out your links though and please don't leave me to wade through the offense both teams are winning in that world.

I will vote on theory. I think severance is prolly bad. I typically think conditionality is good for the negative. K's are not cheating (hope noone says that anymore). PICS are good but also maybe not all kinds of PICS so that could be a thing.

I think competition is good. Plan plus debate sucks. I default that comparing two things of which is better depends on an opportunity cost. I am open to teams forwarding an alternative model of competition.

Disads are dope. Link spin can often be more important than the link cards. But
you need a link. I feel like that's agreed upon but you know I'm gone say it anyway.

Just a Kansas girl who loves a good case debate. but seriously, offensive and defensive case args can go a long way with me and generally boosters other parts of the off case strategy.

When extending the K please apply the links to the aff. State links are basic but for some reason really poorly answered a lot of the time so I mean I get it. Links to the mechanism and advantages are spicier. I think that if you're reading a K with an alternative that it should be clear what that alternative does or does not do, solves or turns by the end of the block. I'm sympathetic to predictable 1ar cross applications in a world of a poorly explained alternatives. External offense is nice, please have some.

I acknowledge debate is a public event. I also acknowledge the concerns and material implications of some folks in some spaces as well. I will not be enforcing any recording standards or policing teams to debate "x" way. I want debaters at in all divisions, of all argument proclivities to debate to their best ability, forward their best strategy and answers and do what you do.

Card clipping and cheating is not okay so please don't do it.
NEW YEAR NEW POINT SYSTEM (college) - 28.6-28.9 good, 28.9-29.4 really good, 29.4+ bestest.

This trend of paraphrasing cards in PFD as if you read the whole card = not okay and educationally suspect imo.

Middle/High Schoolers: You smart. You loyal. I appreciate you. And I appreciate you being reasonable to one another in the debate.

I wanna be on the chain: jyleesahampton@gmail.com

I am a parent judge.

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

- 4 years of traditional LD
- 4 years of APDA college Parli
- 11 years of coaching

_________________________________________

Clash and clarity are the essential characteristics of great debate, and argumentation is always comparative.

Every round is an invitation to learn and an opportunity to have fun, and everyone is capable of being kind & respectful.

SUMMARY:
- experienced “truthful tech” flow judge from a traditional background
- prefer strategic topical case debate or substantive topical critical debate
- you should weigh well-warranted, terminalized impacts to get my ballot
- sit/stand/handstand, whatever’s comfortable for you works for me!

CAUTIONS:
- not a fan of non-topical / clash-evasive progressive debate
- don't know how to evaluate high theory, AFF Ks, performance
- I have a high threshold for warranting relative to other experienced judges
- speed is fine, but never use it to exclude an opponent – L20 if you do
- I don't follow along in speechdocs; it's an oral communications activity

LARP/POLICY:
- never voted for de-dev/spark, sorry!
- AFFs must prove risk of solvency to win
- NEGs must disprove/outweigh the AFF
- love smart counterplans lots
- love smart perms more
- don't love conditionality

THEORY:
- friv is L20, unless mutually agreed in a down round
- competing interpretations > reasonability
- access > fairness > education
- ambivalent about RVIs, persuade me!
- lean DTA > DTD

TOPICALITY:
- reasonability > competing interpretations
- pragmatics > semantics
- no RVIs > yes RVIs
- DTD > DTA

KRITIK:
- most receptive to stock Ks (e.g. capitalism, anthropocentrism, securitization)
- links should be cited examples of wrongdoing; links of omission aren’t links
- explain the K’s thesis in plain English – don’t hide behind poorly cut gibberish
- I won’t evaluate anything that asks me to judge a student’s innate identity
- rejecting the AFF/NEG is not an alternative; the alt must advocate for something

I am a parent judge with more than a year of experience judging High School LD debates.

**Stephen Stewart: I'm not usually an LD judge so please don't use any jargon and let me know of the timings before your speech.

I'm a parent judge as my daughter participates in debate.

kindly please send me your case before the round starts.

jysjin@yahoo.com

Don't Speak too fast but clearly. Definitely no mumbling. If I can't get your arguments down and fully understand what you're saying, then you have lost the round.

Be specific with your contention, warrants and impacts as I'll vote my ballot based on those.

I will not flow everything, but take notes.

Be polite, respectful and patient to the other.

Hi, my name is Sreenivasulu Kankanala.

I am a flow parent judge, so please avoid spreading and make sure you weigh a lot in your final speeches. Please add me to the email chain.

Email: skankan@gmail.com

In my judging, I prioritize three things.

1. Speaking Clearly. Make sure you speak clearly and slow down for taglines so I understand your case. If you want to go a little faster, make sure you send your cases and speech documents to my email.
2. Arguments. Have well fleshed out arguments where you explain the warrants and have a logical link chain.
3. Final speeches. Always weigh. Ensure that you always talk about what argument your are going to refute in your rebuttals. Move cleanly from 1 contention to another and try not to jump around on the flow. Do not bring up new arguments in your final speech.

Debate is supposed to be a safe space. Don't bully anybody. Have fun debating!

Hi!

This is my 2nd year as a parent judge. Please tell me which speech you're on (e.g., affirmative constructive, negative summary), and don't use technical debate terms.

Please keep time for yourselves & each other. I'll note timestamps in case there are any disagreements.

Looking forward to a fun & fair debate!

My vote belongs to the speaker who builds a bridge of logic and reasoning, leading me across it to their point of view. Show me the data, paint a vivid picture, and leave me convinced that your vision is the one worth pursuing.

I am lay judge, my vote goes to the speaker who can melt my defenses like butter on a hot pan. But if you're spitting out words like popcorn kernels in a microwave, I'll be reaching for the extinguisher, not the ballot:)

Please add me in the email chain: R40135@Gmail.com

hey competitors!
I am a parent judge with some experience judging a debate round.
please keep in mind the following:
1. please please do NOT spread or rush thru your evidence.
2. explain what you're saying clearly. pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever. do this well and I'm more likely to vote for your side.
3. please refrain from complex philosophical arguments, they're a little hard to understand.
4. be respectful to your opponent. Any xenophobic/misogynist etc comments will tank speaks and will probably lose you the round too, so just no.
LASTLY HAVE FUN :) debate is an educational experience - the ballot isn't the end of the world. if I vote for u, keep it up! if I vote against you, improve from ur mistakes and keep going!!!

I am a former LD Debater. I mostly competed in traditional LD and not in circuit. As a result, I don't like spreading. I will only judge based off what you say in your round, so make sure to emphasize the impact of your arguments. Most importantly, be creative, be respectful, and have fun! For speaker points, be confident but do not be rude to your opponent.

My philosophy and decisions regarding Debate judging is based on the following...

1. Do the debaters have a good strong point of contention to the side they are speaking about.
2. Do they provide references to the information given or quoted.
3. Do they have statistical data that backs up their claim.
4. Does their cross examination challenge the point of contention.
5. Are the debaters speaking clearly, concisely and understandable.
6. Is there some eye to eye contact with the opponent and the judge.
7. Does their final speech capture all the points and rebuttals discussed.

This is my first tournament that I'm judging. I would prefer really slow paced talking and no spreading. I will not be able to keep up with you if you start speaking fast. Since this is my first time judging ever, I will need you to clearly spell out your arguments, rebuttals, and points during the round. Make sure you tell me why you or your team should win the round and why your arguments matter. Thank you and good luck on your rounds!

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.

Prior experience:

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years. Went almost exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Judging:

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

Jameslogandebatedocs@gmail.com

A majority of my debates have been one off/K Affs so do with that what you will. Im a sucker for a good Security/Cap/Settler Colonialism Kritik. However, this does not mean I wont vote for a policy argument. I love debate and do not have a predisposition towards particular styles. At the end of the day my rfd is a referendum on who debated better. That being said, do not try and over-correct for me. I think debate is a space for you to pursue whatever you want (as long as it’s not overtly violent like racism/sexism/discrimination good).

Don’t bomb through analytics its annoying to flow and you will lose speaks. The less you act like a jerk the better. Theres a time and place for everything.

Rebuttals are often the most frustrating part of debate. This is when people have to get off the blocks and start thinking big picture. I like debaters who write their ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. More judge instruction will not only get you better speaker points but dramatically increase your chances of winning. Im more than likely not going to vote on ticky tacky arguments, but who has a better big picture analysis for why they’ve won the debate and can flush out the benefits to granting them a ballot. In close debates, impact calc goes a long way. I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating.

extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater

Hello Competitors!

I am a parent judge with limited experience judging a debate round.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. Please please do NOT spread or rush . I like to write down points, if iam not then you are speaking too quickly.
2. Explain what you are saying clearly. Pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever.
3. Be respectful- don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

4. If possible please add me to your email chain- narrapradeep@gmail.com

LASTLY GOOD LUCK & LETS ALL HAVE FUN

(He/Him)

As a judge, I strive for fairness, clarity, and adherence to debate rules. I value logical arguments supported by evidence, respectful conduct, and effective communication. I expect debaters to engage with each other's arguments, stay on topic, and avoid personal attacks. I prioritize substance over style and look for well-structured cases with clear impacts. I'm open to different debate formats and arguments but prefer quality over quantity. Overall, I aim to make informed, impartial decisions based on the merits of the arguments presented.

I am brand new to debate judging and plan to make up for the lack of experience with extra enthusiasm. I have a lifelong interest in history, sociology and political science. Looking forward to clear, concise and well-substantiated arguments.

EMAIL: rajvee.patel12@gmail.com

EXPERIENCE

B.A., Political Science at UC Irvine and upcoming law school student. I competed in LD all 4 years of high school and also coach/judge debate, so that should tell you enough about my experience. I prefer traditional rounds, but circuit is fine too as long as I'm in the email chain.

Congress, PF, Parli, Policy: I've judged a few rounds, so I'm familiar with how these events work.

ARGUMENTS

I like to see well-constructed, logical arguments and rebuttals throughout the round, meaning that your claims should definitely have credible warrants and impacts. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT bring up new arguments in the 2NR/2AR. I hate that. I'm fine with Ks, CPs, Ts, etc. I personally don't like running them, but if you want to, go ahead. Make sure your links are clear and understandable.

My rule of thumb is if I don't know what you're talking about (substance and speaking wise), then it's not going in my flow. Speak clearly and know what you're talking about!

CX

I like debaters that can actually answer questions they're asked vs. beating around the bush. It's pretty obvious if you're just reading off your material vs. having a well-rounded understanding of the topic. I like to see debaters that can explain their content to their opponents vs. being snappy/rude/witty during CX.

VIOLATIONS/SPREADING

Bringing up new arguments in your last speeches will not be considered, like I said before.

DON'T SPREAD. I'm good with fast-paced talking, but remember to speak clearly and at a comprehendible pace because if it's not in my flow, then I'm gonna let it go. I'll do a hand-signal of some sort ONCE if I can't hear you, but if you fail to improve your speech after that, I will stop flowing your arguments and give you low speaks. Debate should be an activity where competitors can actually understand each other!

SPEAKS

As long as I can hear you clearly, you will get normal speaks.

If you speak exceptionally well, you might get a perfect 30 (but don't count on it)

If you don't improve your speech after I signal ONCE, you will get low speaks.

If you are being rude, aggressive, or making your opponent uncomfortable, you WILL get the lowest speaks possible and I WILL report you to tab.

----

Lastly, quality beats quantity. Always remember that.

Good luck!

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.

I am a parent and am new to judging. I do not understand most debate jargon. I will do my best to remain objective, take notes, and evaluate your arguments as they are presented. Please ensure that your pace is appropriate, your speech is clear, and your arguments are understandable to a layperson. Thank you

I am a lay judge. - Judged only a few tournament

please dont spread I like to follow the flow

Keep your own timer

Hi, I am a parent and lay judge. I have presented and debated much as a project manager and took speech in College. Looking forward to participating and being an inspiring judge with thoughtful inputs that helps. Please let me know what I can do to prepare for this role next weekend. Thank you, Sarah

Please no spreading or tech stuff, I'm okay with weighing terms.

Overview

-archan.debate@gmail.com---add me to the chain.

-Eagan LS, Berkeley US. Coached at Georgetown Day Schools and Harker.

-LD at bottom.

-TLDR: Tech over everything. Debate is a game and you should maximize your chances of winning. Judges who say "I'll vote on anything except [xyz]" don't understand what tech over truth means. Everything below in this paradigm are general inclinations on my thoughts for how debate works, so that you can exploit some of the biases that I've gained throughout the years as to what arguments I think are convincing, but you do not need to read any of it. Regardless of what you go for, I will attempt to judge it as fairly as possible.

-Many decisions I've witnessed have been atrocious. Judges don't vote for args they like even though it was a technical crush, they rep out based on coaches poll rankings, or just don't evaluate the tech because they ideologically agree with one side. I will try my hardest to not do any of those things.

-CX is often the most interesting part of the debate. Show resolve and stand your ground. If you defended something in your speech, defend the logical implications in cross. One of my biggest pet peeves is when teams try to weasel out of the hard cx questions.

-Innovation is good---if you have something that is genuinely new to debate, I will be very happy to listen to it.

-Neg terror is good. My most fun 2ACs were always against 10+ off. Aff teams should win theory or counter-terror (straight turn the DAs, read stuff that can be cross applied across the flows and don't cross apply till the 1AR, and impact turn everything).

-The point of debate isn't to maximize clash nor to avoid cowardice. It's to win. Go for dropped aspec, don't send analytics, and generally anything that increases your chances of getting the ballot. I will award strategic decisions more than your attempt to showcase your bravery by flexing about how you made the unstrategic decision to take your opponent up on what they're good at.

-If you win a try-or-die claim, I will pretty much always vote for you---if we're guaranteed to go extinct in one world, I'd always choose a different world.

-Inserting rehighlightings is good and should be done more---it lowers the barrier to entry for ev comparison and deters bad evidence.

-There is no substantive argument that's off limits: death good, hidden aspec, and spark are all fair game.

-Rep means nothing to me. A lot of my prefs as a small school debater my junior and senior year were preffing around judges who we thought would vote for whichever team had more clout as debaters. I will not care about how many bids you have, where you are on the coaches poll, or what school you go to.

-Read more impact turns.

-Ad homs are defined as logical fallacies.

Hot takes

Most paradigms are the exact same and don't give any insights into how to debate in front of them. Judges who don't have any controversial debate opinions haven't thought about debate enough. Here's a (non-extensive) list of mine:

-Plan text in a vacuum is true. Judges who simultaneously hate positional competition and PTIAV don't understand competition. Both PTIAV and competition describe how to determine the mandates of the aff. Any counter-interp to PTIAV is equivalent to positional competition and justifies competition off of that. Eg, if you think that a better standard is cross-ex explanations of the plan, then that's logically identical to having an interp that CPs can compete off of cross-ex.

-How "generic" an argument is has no implication for how well it rejoins the 1AC. No clue why people have a moral panic over seeing the NGA CP.

-Soft left affs should be the norm. If deployed right, the security K should deter all extinction affs because it's right that all of the 1ACs impacts are fake. If aff teams were able to debate framing contentions properly and judges didn't hack for extinction outweighs, the aff win percentages would skyrocket. There's a reason that no one takes debate cases seriously irl, and people just need to be able to import that logic into debate.

-If you're allowed to kick parts of CPs, then that means that every CP text is functionally infinite condo as you can kick any individual letter or permutation of letters.

-Textual competition is terrible. If the norm, I think it would collapse debate. The distinction between only being able to permute words vs being able to permute letters seems to be an arbitrary line drawn to make it work in the aff's favor. But, taken to the logical extent, it would be that you could literally permute any combination of letters or punctuation to make any sentence. Especially because the aff gets to choose the plan and jam as many characters in it as possible, this seems like it would be very hard to beat. The best answer I heard was PICs deter, but under a model of textual + functional, the majority of the PICs wouldn't be functionally competitive, but the ones that are could be read either way, so I don't get how this is defense. With that being said, it was around 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs, so it obviously can be defended in a debate.

-Affs need to be immediate. If they don't, then it makes it impossible to ever be neg. The aff team will always get out of DAs by delaying the plan (the answer that's like normal means = immediate is [a] an assertion with no ev backing it up and [b] taken out if the aff chooses to say that it isn't immediate in the plan). That seems like a big-ish issue, but I think that the bigger issue is that it makes any CP unviable. Teams can always say "perm do the CP and the plan in 100 years". That solves every net benefit ever because they're all based on the squo for uniqueness. It's definitely not intrinsic since the perm just specs the timeframe of the aff (similar to how they can go for PDCP against the courts aff by 'speccing' that the aff is the courts). It would destroy all neg ground. This was still the other 50% of my 2ARs against process CPs.

-Most theory interps should be impossible to win. Nearly all of them don't have a clear interp (what is a 'process CP'?), get rid of all CPs (every CP necessarily has to PIC out of something to beat PDCP), or don't exclude anything (no CP 'results in the aff,' proven by competition args). Neg teams that exploit this will have a very easy time beating theory in front of me.

-There are so many things in LD that would eviscerate the best policy teams. If there was a team that ever got good at phil or tricks, most policy people would not know how to respond.

K-Affs

-Very good for K teams that realize that Ks are a technical tool that is strategic because it has so many good tricks, very bad for for K teams that try to ethos their way out of technical concessions.

-Impact turns > counter-interps. Your counter-interp will always be contrived and incoherent when held up at scrutiny. Middle ground strategies are just harder to thread the needle on. It probably also links to your exclusion DA.

-Ambivalent between fairness and clash---go for whatever you're more comfortable with/what's going better for you in the round.

-Reading T is no different than other forms of engagement vs K affs. It is not "psychic violence".

-Read more stuff vs K affs---word PICs against un-underlined portions of the 1AC or impact turns to stuff like warming are all fair game.

-Go for presumption. When teams choose to give up fiat, they require winning that voting aff does something. It doesn't.

-I think that I'm more lenient on neg teams for links to DAs. If one of your cards says your method does something, impact turns to that definitely link as it disproves that the endpoint of your research practice as a desirable goal.

Ks on the neg

-Neg framework interps should moot the plan. Trying to debate the K like it's a CP means that it'll lose to the perm double-bind. If the aff gets to weigh their plan, extinction will almost always outweigh.

-Framework is never "a wash". It's a theory debate that has two discrete choices---not a continuous spectrum that the judge can arbitrarily chose their default ideological predisposition from.

-Philosophical competition is a worse version of positional competition (you not only get links off of what the 1AC says, but now the vibes that it gives off too?), but teams mess up on it. No counter-interp to philosophical competition = impossible to go for the perm.

-Use more K tricks. I'm very good for it.

-Defend your method---if the 1AC says that Russia is a threat, then defend that Russia is a threat.

-Beating 'extinction outweighs' relies on you winning an alternative to util (or winning fw to moot the impact).

-More teams should go for theory against alts---most are nonsense and fiat way more than should be allowed.

-If the alt is material, it mostly always has some great DAs to go for. Going for heg good vs basically any material alt is almost always a viable strat.

Soft left affs

-They're good. See "hot takes" section.

-Two types of framing interps that are good:

---Discounted util: defend that consequences matter, but the way that we calculate them should be different in some way that discounts the impact. Eg, probability * ln(impact). Of course, this has some problems, but it's a much better starting point than "probability first".

---Alternatives to util: preferably something that says something like consequences are irrelevant combined with a boatload of "consequences fail" cards.

-Most framing contentions are atrocious. These are some args that are almost uniformly awful in debates:

---Probability first: a 75% risk of a paper cut doesn't outweigh a 74% risk of being tortured.

---Cognitive bias: a helpful tiebreaker, but it's not an interp. Also you open yourself up to cognitive bias claims going in the other direction.

---Conjunctive fallacy: doesn't assume debate where dropped args are true, so the diminishing effect, while true irl, is useless for debate.

---Don't evaluate future lives: might be true (probably not though), but largely irrelevant as if they win their interp, 7 billion * 1% will still outweigh.

---Util is racist/sexist/ableist: it still requires you to have a counter-interp for framing. Even if you win that util is the worst thing in the world, if I don't have some other heuristic to evaluate impacts, then I have to use util because it's the only one introduced in the round.

T

-PTIAV is good. See "hot takes" section.

-Good for T debates. Read more cards, indict your opponent's ev, and win the tech.

-Reasonability seems pretty bad. The only net benefit is substance crowd-out, but that's impact turned by just winning that T debates are good (which, I'm pretty easily persuaded is true). It seems to be arbitrary (at what threshold is an interp reasonable?) and the culmination of all reasonable interps seems pretty unreasonable. Despite this, the main answer seems to be "judge intervention," which honestly is probably inevitable.

-Debatability and predictability are often talked about in a vacuum, separated from the actual context of the debate. Everyone agrees that a definition that isn't predictable at all or one that would destroy our ability to debate would be worse than a middle ground that is fairly predictable or fairly debatable. As such, I think teams should spend like time arguing about whether predictability or debatability outweigh, and spend that time explaining how their opponents interp isn't predictable or debatable.

-Tech > truth means that I'll vote on weird interps. Especially if there's some sort of technical mistake (dropping one interp in an interp spam, debatability outweighs predictability, or that overlimiting is good), you should go for it.

CPs

-I've gone for every flavor of bad CPs available: Space Elevators, Future Gens, Consult [x] country. It's very winnable in front of me, but aff teams that know what they're doing will have no problem in easily defeating most of them on competition.

-Saying the words "sufficiency framing" in every 2NC/2NR overview doesn't really convince me of anything.

-All theory and competition debates are models debates. Make sure that you are defending your model, not whatever happened in this round.

-Every CP is a PIC, and they all have a process. Make your theory interp precise.

-I'm very good for condo debates---on both sides. Condo is about the practice, not the number of condo you read in the round---number interps are inevitably arbitrary and devolve to infinite anyways. It's probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team. The only neg impact is neg flex---I don't know why people go for anything other than that in the 2NR.

-Uniqueness matter a LOT in theory debates. Both sides generally agree on the direction of the link (ie, everyone agrees that a world without condo would be harder for the neg), but you need to win uniqueness to make it be a DA against your opponents interp. Obviously there's the generic debate stuff like first/last speech, infinite prep, or 13-5 block skew, but topic specific analysis almost always trumps those. Engage and interact with your opponents warrants for uniqueness, don't just read your generic block back at them.

-Do more work for the debatability DA for definitions.

-Analytical CPs are good. If its obvious how they solve the aff, no explanation is needed. If it's complicated, then you should explain it, preferably in the 1NC.

-Fiating in DAs is underrated and more teams should do it.

DAs

-Politics is a good DA, I'm not sure why everyone seems to hate it. It's a negative consequence of the plan that's probably real for most affs.

-Good for fake DAs that rely on artificial competition. Fiat in more offense.

-I debated on three topics where there was no link uniqueness (Water, CJR, and NATO). Thumpers are extremely useful. If a neg team can't tell you why the link would be triggered by the plan but nothing else that already happened, it's probably a losing DA.

-Uniqueness CPs and CPing out of future thumpers is pretty much always legit in the 1NC, and debatably legit in the 2NC.

-Both sides should read more evidence on what normal means is on most process DAs. Ie, if you're aff facing a resource tradeoff DA, reading ev that normal means is increased congressional funding is often a good argument.

-I think turns case is often overhyped. It depends on the neg winning the uniqueness and link, which the aff team is rebutting anyways.

Impact Turns

-Go crazy. I'm good for anything you have.

-Sustainability is often more important than both sides give it credit for---it frames functionally everything else in the debate.

-Fiat out of aff scenarios!! I will give high speaks for smart CPs---most external aff impacts vs impact turns are very easy to have an analytic CP that solves it.

-S-risks outweigh X-risks. While it's often helpful to have a card for this, I'll automatically assume it absent impact calc from either side and make it a side constraint to avoid a small risk of any S-risk, similar to how judges would evaluate a 1% risk of extinction over anything else even without explicit impact calc.

-Big pet peeve of mine is saying something is "unethical" without engaging the substance of the argument. In most impact turn debates, both sides agree that util is how you frame ethics. So, if the neg is saying that extinction would net increase utility, saying "wipeout is unethical" isn't an argument unless you win that it's worse (in which case, you don't need to say that argument, because you would've won anyways).

-Update your cards---especially for less common impact turns, everyone reads super old cards---don't do that.

-Spark: go for better args. Nuclear winter is obvi made up and is solved by the bunkers CP. Nuclear tornadoes/Saarg (who is actually batshit btw) is empirically denied and taken out by a CP that spaces nuclear attacks out. UV is better, but people in the poles would probably survive. But, civilizational collapse would eliminate all tech, making us vulnerable to all disasters and elimination potential for beneficial AI and space col. Those are S-risks that def outweigh any neg scenario (which, to be fair, are almost always worse than aff scenarios).

-Wipeout: win positive V2L, alien contact won't cause extinction, MCE solves animal suffering, and some random future tech won't condemn us all to infinite torture. These are all very intuitive and true arguments. In evenly matched debates, the aff would always win. However, due to prep disparities (people who are planning to go for wipeout will spend more time prepping it out than an average aff team), these debates are not often evenly matched.

LD Stuff

My background is fully in policy. I've gotten into LD recently---coaching/judging tournaments, and talking about LD specific things. I will attempt to evaluate everything fairly, but your best bet is to go for policy-like stuff.

However, with that being said, the neg side bias seems pretty massive in LD and I'll probably be sympathetic to aff teams that try to use tricks or cheaty args to try to compensate for that.

Prefs shortcut:

1 - policy v policy, policy v k, k v policy, theory

2 -

3 - tricks, phil

4 - k v k

5/s -

-Tricks---I'll evaluate them, and I feel like I'll be better than most policy judges as I went for pretty tricky stuff, but I think that I'll still be worse for you than most judges. I feel like I'll also be more lenient on newer args because I'm used to a format where there's a lot of time to recover if you mess up. I'll be fine for tricks like truth testing, presumption and permissibility, paradoxes, and calc indicts. Probably not so much for things like evaluate after X speech.

-Theory---I'll be pretty decent for you---I'll eliminate most of my biases, and for some stuff (like yes/no 1AR theory), I won't have any biases in the first place. Look at the CP section above for more advice.

-Phil---I'll be okay. I haven't debated this stuff a lot but I'm deep on the lit. I won't know the applications to debate, so you should explain stuff more than you normally would.

-Debate in front of me like you were debating in front of Sam Anderson or Aerin Engelstad

To begin with, I am a relatively new judge and value clear, concise arguments which leave no doubt about stance. What I look for is polite, respectful debaters who present their arguments in an easily understandable way. It is important to me that speeches are delivered at a moderate pace. I try not be biased and am open to unique and creative solutions.

Be polite and most importantly, have fun.

I'm a parent judge looking for clear, articulate reasoning and evidence to back up rationale.

Don't assume I can draw the conclusion you want me to draw. Lead me to the cause and effect through explanation, data, reason or sound judgement.

If you are referencing events in history, or specific data points, please explain the source and the event briefly so it is clear why the example or reference is appropriate.

Normal speed, especially when there is dense content or facts.

I tend to side with data/facts, but am open to believable hypotheses.

Show me you're prepared, comfortable with the content, and poised in delivery and structure of the material. Don't read off scripts or pre-prepared agendas. React to your opponent's arguments and points.

Most importantly, show me you're passionate about the topic and you're having fun!

Hello Competitors!

I’m a parent judge with a few years of experience judging debate rounds.

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Please don't rush or spread. I like to take notes, and if I’m unable to, you're likely speaking too fast.
2. Be clear in your explanations. Assume I have no prior knowledge of the topic.
3. Maintain respect. Avoid any language that is racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

I value well-organized content and clear communication, especially when supported by real-world examples. Engaging the audience with gestures, vocal variety, movement, and expression also helps enhance your delivery.

I prefer a roadmap before the time starts, as it helps both me and the audience navigate the speech, ensuring clear organization and structure.

A typical roadmap might look like this:

• In a constructive speech, the roadmap lays out the order of the main contentions (key arguments) to be presented.
• In a rebuttal or closing speech, it highlights which arguments will be defended, refuted, or extended, and in what order.

I have great respect for each of you. Your hard work and dedication are truly impressive, and I want you to know that I appreciate your efforts.

Here are key metrics I consider judging PF debate:

• Argumentation: Evaluate the strength of each team's arguments and how effectively they support their claims.
• Clash: Pay attention to how well the teams engage with each other's arguments. Do they directly respond to the opposing team's points or just repeat their case?
• Impact Calculus: Assess how well the teams explain the impact of their arguments. Strong debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., economic, social, etc.) outweigh the opponent’s impacts.

• Quality of Evidence: Consider how credible, relevant, and well-explained the evidence is. Are the sources reliable? Do they back up key points?
• Warranting: Does the team clearly explain how their evidence connects to their arguments and conclusions?

• Presentation Style: How clearly and confidently do the debaters present their case? Are their speeches easy to follow, or do they rush or use unclear language?
• Roadmaps: Are roadmaps used effectively to guide the judge and audience through the speech?
• Cross-Examination: During cross-examination, does the questioning team ask sharp, relevant questions that highlight weaknesses? Does the answering team remain composed and give clear responses?

• Framework (if provided): Some teams will present a framework—a lens through which to evaluate the debate (e.g., economic benefits, human rights). Consider how well each team aligns their arguments with this framework.
• Weighing Mechanisms: If both teams provide competing frameworks or ways to weigh impacts, evaluate which one is more convincing and why.

• Defense: Are teams successfully defending their own arguments against attacks?
• Offense: Do they effectively dismantle the opposing team’s case, showing why it’s flawed or less impactful?
• Extensions: Are the teams extending their key arguments throughout the debate, maintaining their importance and relevance?

• Impact Weighing: Good debaters explain why their impacts (e.g., reducing poverty, saving lives, protecting the environment) are more important than their opponents’. They should also compare the magnitude, timeframe, and probability of their impacts.
• Conceded Impacts: If a team concedes an argument or fails to respond, that may be a major point in favor of the opposing team.

• Big Picture: Which team tells a more compelling story overall? This includes how well they package their arguments and how cohesive their overall narrative is.
• Consistency: Were the arguments consistent throughout the debate, or did they contradict themselves or shift their positions?

• Etiquette and Respect: A professional, respectful attitude is important. Teams should engage in civil discourse, not resort to ad hominem attacks or unprofessional behavior.
• Strategy: Consider the strategy used by each team. Did they focus on the most important issues or get bogged down in irrelevant details?

After the final speeches, as a judge, I weigh the arguments, evidence, and impacts presented by both teams. The winning team should be the one that best fulfills the metrics above and presents a stronger overall case within the framework of the debate.

While personal preferences on speaking style or argument structure may vary, staying focused on these objective metrics will help me render a fair and balanced decision.

Best of luck!

(He/Him)

Hello Competitors!

I am a parent judge with limited experience in judging a debate round.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. Please please do NOT spread or rush. I like to write down points, if I am not then you are speaking too quickly.
2. Explain what you are saying clearly. Pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever.
3. Be respectful- don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

(She, Her) I value truth over tech.

Email: mahalakshmi.srinivasan@gmail.com

I'm anti plagiarism- so it feels ethically wrong to do so without asking- but if I could copy Mike Bietz's paradigm word for word, I would (can be seen here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=4969) except I'm ok with flex prep. In addition to everything in here I have a few additional pieces of information.

Note: If you have any questions about how to interpret my paradigm, ask me pre-round. If any of the terminology is something you're unaware of or curious about, feel free to ask me either before or after the round. If you want to look anything up, wikipedia has surprisingly thorough indexes of debate terminology (especially when you're starting out!)

For all Debate:

• Disclosure is good and should be done. Sharing cases is good for fairness in debate. As someone who was in a small program during my high school debate career, the sense that the round was unwinnable because the opponent had 8 coaches giving them prep and resources to my none was incredibly frustrating, and while disclosure doesn't fully solve that, giving people from smaller programs access to evidence, cases and formats from bigger programs helps the health of the debate scene.
• General disclosure rules: Share case right before the speech (aff shares case before their first speech, neg shares case after the aff finishes speech)
• I flow the rounds, and catch what I can. If I don't catch it, it doesn't show up on my flow. Speaking quickly (and even spreading on a circut level) is fine, but you have to recognize your personal limits as a speaker when you do so. Intonation enables the spread, so training yourself as a speaker to be intelligible while spreading is on you.
• When sharing cards, please do so equitably and fairly. Ideally, include myself (and the other judges) on the document sharing doc to ensure that we know the documents are shared fairly, and to prevent frivolous fairness theory being read in the round.
• Debate is, in general, a format for education first and foremost. Fostering an environment that promotes education means that you must enter a round with empathy for your judge, opponent and audience. If a person is confused in a debate round, spend a moment to explain what you mean to them. Creating a debate environment that is inclusive and mindful of diversity gives people an opportunity to meet, learn from and grow with a diverse group of people.
• Related to this, people who push a "old boys club" mentality within debate round, who seek to bully out wins on newer debaters by reading fringe argumentation, or are excessively combative to people who are clearly not comfortable in it don't have a place in debate in my opinion. Remember, although competitive this should be an environment that values being collaborative as well. Debate isn't an environment to get your rocks off and feed your ego by bullying the less experienced, and people who treat it as such will get negative outcomes on ballots from me.
• Above all, remember that debate is an activity that is for fun more than it is anything else. That fun is not just your own; the priority to make everyone enjoy the experience to the best degree you can is important.

For Public Forum:

• PF is not meant to be theory heavy. Philosophy has a useful basis in backing an argument, but being topic-centric is the essence of the debate format.
• Exception: Any independent voters (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.) will be weighed heavily, and if any happen, it will result in an automatic loss.
• On Cross: Being aggressive is good (and encouraged), but you need to give your opponent space to speak. Cutting them off occasionally is reasonable to guide the conversation, but if you ask a question and don't give the opponent space to answer or attempt to railroad a CX by turning it into a soliloquy that will be noted for speaks.
• Impact calculus outweighs argument volume down the flow. If you seek to win on a line by line on argument volume, your opponent will win the debate (if you prove 9 different people will die in 9 arguments, you will lose to the person who proves 90000000 will die in one argument).
• I do flow Crossfire and weigh it as a speech, so cross matters to me as a judge. Don't assume a vote that will be cross-exclusionary. Someone can win in spite of a bad cross, but cross will be weighed in how the outcome is perceived.
• Dedicate summary to expressing Voting Issues and dropped arguments. Extend to why you are winning currently on the flow.
• Dedicate FF to weighing mechanisms and impact calculus.

For LD:

• On Theory: Theory is fine to read, and often makes debate better. One important thing about theory is that I view it as a "pact" that both debaters have to agree on.
• On RVIs: I believe in RVIs as a way to counteract frivolous theory. In general, especially on a circut level, I believe the anti-RVI stances a lot of judges hold on is a portion of what creates the neg skew on the circut. Beyond "fairness" I think that, conceptually, theory takes time and mandates a response and having theory's worst case be net neutral for the team that reads it lacks fairness.
• On Ks: Kritiks are good for debate, but I have a clear line in the sand:
• Topical Ks: Good, make debate better, force flexibility in thought and challenge our implicit biases. Topical Ks further education in round and create a space where we challenge our baseline assumptions in a way that challenges the way we look at the world.
• Non-topical Ks: The only context where I view non-topical Ks as a voter is if an independent voter manifests. Reading "debate is a male-skewed environment and societal burdens placed on women creates inherent unfairness in the debate environment" may be true, something I agree with, and something I prioritize in how I judge, but is not something that I will vote on unless the opponent is engaging in behavior that is exclusionary to that group. And as the debater, you must highlight the infringement.
• On Perms: Perming is good and should be done often. In order to successfully perm in round, you must demonstrate the lack of conflict between the counterplan and the aff.
• Advantages/Disadvantages: All disads and advantages need every plank in order to be considered (uniqueness, link and impact).
• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE 2AR
• Tricks should be called out as tricks if ran against you. If a trick is identified and demonstrated to be a trick successfully, it will be treated as a voter.

Dear Participants,

Welcome to the debate round. I am looking forward to knowing your thoughts by conscientiously listening to your viewpoints on the topic under discussion. I have a fair experience in judging debate rounds and am a parent judge as well.

Please, try to talk at a voice level respecting the audience and allotted time. Also, stay relaxed and calm which will help you be more productive in the rounds. I am confident you will do your best.

Good Luck,

Taruna

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 6th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast-paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college-educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

P.S. If you are someone who is thinking about going to law school after college, don't hesitate to ask for advice!! Always willing to chat about that, it really helped me when folks did that for me when I was in your shoes and I'd love to pay it forward.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Please add me to the email chain: mollyurfalian@gmail.com

Notre Dame '23 (2A/1N for 4 years)

UC Berkeley '27

You can just call me Molly

TL

• time your own speeches and prep
• stickler for ev quality
• judge instruction is super important to me, especially in rebuttals
• I was a 2A, however condo is probably good
• I love CP + DA debates and ptx holds a special place in my heart
• I am fairly expressive and do not hide displeasure or confusion well, so look at me
• tech > truth

Topicality

• case lists are the most effective way for me to compare visions of the topic
• competing interps > reasonability
• smaller topics are probably better for innovation

Disads

• Any debate with a disad I love to hear
• I love ptx disads but I also know a truly garbage one when I see it
• turns case and impact calc are your best friends and should start early (on both sides)

Counterplans

• Agent CPs are my favorite
• I am extremely neutral on process CPs, but not debated well I lean aff on most perms
• I dislike super contrived adv cps, but logical ones that exploit poor aff writing are amazing
• Do impact calc between the solvency deficit and disadvantage
• I default to judge kick

Kritiks

• If you go for Ks consistently, I am not the best judge for you. I don't dislike them, I simply never went for them so I will probably not default in your favor
• I prefer links to the plan, at least the topic. Does not have to be cards but lines should be taken from the 1AC
• Engaging with the aff and substantial case work gives me a much clearer path to vote neg
• Don't read a super long overview, it just sounds like words to me. Do the work on the line by line
• Alts should resolve the links and their subsequent impacts
• Floating PIKs are probably bad
• If its not cap, security, set col or fem ir, thats fine, just explain it.

K affs

• If you read a K aff, I am not the best judge for you, however, I am also not the worst. You will have to do more work explaining your disads to FW than you would in front of K judges because I don't have as much background knowledge, so what is intuitive/obvious to you might not be for me.
• Consistency of explanation of aff offense is SO helpful. Super shift K affs make me upset and more importantly, I am much less likely to grant you weight of 2AR offense if it was not rooted in an explanation started in the 1AR.
• If you read a high theory K aff I am less likely to vote for you compared to an indentity aff. I understand them less and have the honest pre-disposition of thinking your offense is kinda dumb
• I really need your aff to do something. If you do nothing or want me to endorse your method that doesn't do anything I will be unhappy. Just explain to me what you solve, if you don't solve anything this round will be hard for you

Neg v K affs

• Presumption is great. I find it challenging to 0 an aff on a sentence or 2 of a 2NR. You are much more likely to win a presumption debate in front of me if the 2NR takes the extra 15 seconds to actually engage with the 1AR answers.
• Fairness is an impact as long as you tell me it is.
• TVAs and SSD are great. I find that 2Ns expect me to fill in some of the reasons as to why these would solve the aff intuitively. I am unwilling to do this work for you please explain how they solve.
• I was a 1N and took the Cap K or Cap good in every 1NR I ever gave. If you feel inclined to put me in a K v K debate, I am the most familiar with this one. I think neg team's sitting on a usually poorly answered K affs don't get perms debate is a winning debate

Theory

• Condo is good until we hit 5-6 condo. At this point the strat skew offense that the aff will go for becomes more persuasive to me.
• Dispo probably does not solve anything other than research, if you want to change my mind then explain it
• International fiat and changing the whole world fiat is bad. This includes K alt stuff.
• Limited Intrinsicness good/bad are the theory debates I had the most and judge the most. I am very neutral on the question. I find often that neg teams win on a deficit to the intrinsic perm than the theory debate.

Speaks

• If you yell at someone I will literally do everything in my power to vote against you. You can be loud and be passionate, but not mean esp at another individual.
• On a happier note I like snarky remarks and sassy answers. Just be funny with it
• If the top of the final rebuttal is why I should vote for you and has judge instruction you're doing yourself a favor

Re-highlighting

• Have the theory debate over whether it can be inserted or not, I will evaluate the debate based on the outcome
• If you choose not to have the theory debate I will default to letting ev be re-inserted. I changed my position on this issue because I want more debaters to do it, and forcing teams to read re-highlights seems to discourage quality ev idicts
• However, I will not do the debating for you, if you insert re-highlighting without explaining or implicating it in the debate I will not do the work for you. So only insert the amount of evidence you can reasonably explain

I am a parent judge and a computer scientist without much experience in competitive debate, with such I am looking for concise, clear expression of logics and with actual evidences to backup arguments. I do not like spreading of any sort. If I cannot understand it, I won't vote for it. I'm ok with topicality as long as the argument is clear and not overly convoluted. Please stay with traditional arguments.

I am a parent judge, and I prefer traditional or lay cases as they're easier for me to understand and evaluate. Progressive arguments tend to be more difficult for me to follow, so I’d appreciate it if you avoid those. I'm okay with theory arguments, but please avoid Ks and dense philosophical frameworks. Also, I dislike spreading, so please keep your delivery clear and paced. Lastly, please send me your cases before your speeches. Thank you!

I will bring a commitment to impartiality, rigorous analysis, and clarity in my decision-making. My goal is to assess each argument based on its merit and relevance to the resolution, giving weight to the use of evidence and logical reasoning. I believe in providing equal opportunities for both sides to present their case, and I will strive to maintain a fair and impartial approach in all my evaluations. I prioritize the depth and quality of analysis over the quantity of arguments presented. I value well-developed arguments that demonstrate a thorough understanding of the topic, achieved without the reliance on speed reading techniques.

Hi debaters,

I started judging this year 2022. Speaking fast is ok, but please speak and explain clearly. Also please be respectful during the debate. 

I’m a new parent judge, first year, please be on normal conversational pace.

I will vote on clarity, logical arguments and understandable explaining.

Help my decision by emphasizing your key arguments and applying comparative weighting in your summary.

Enjoy debating!

Hello my name is Esther and I am parent judge. For this topic, please explain why your studies/examples are more representative than your opponents. Do not use debater terms I will not know what you mean by “turns” or “dropping”. Explain what you are doing instead. I am a pretty logical judge, but I struggle to keep up with debater terminology.

Please really crystallize the round for me. I flow but I want to know what arguments are important and the reason you are winning on them. I want clear framing in your last speeches and preempting if you are on neg.

I appreciate strong speaking skills. Personally, I like professional speaking, but I do not mind other styles. However I will struggle to understand arguments if you spread. Do not spread during rebuttals, I cannot flow effectively if you do.

Above all, give me clarity in arguments.

My email is:esthersyoo@gmail.com

Hi Debaters!

I am a new parent judge and please keep in mind the following:

1. Please do NOT rush through your evidence/argument.
2. Please explain your point/argument as if I had no topic knowledge so I can follow your logics and critical thinking.
3. I would take these into consideration when I am deciding the winners: 1) Do the debaters provide references to the information quoted/given; 2) Do the debaters have factual data to back up their claim; 3) Do the debater's cross examinations challenge the point of contentions, 4) Does the final speech capture the key points/rebuttals discussed and further strengthen your standings in the issue.

4. Strategic argumentation and time management are critical in LD debate.

5. Please be respectful to your opponent.

Please have fun and enjoy your debate. Keep up the good work regardless of the result. Good luck to all!