Hi guy's my Name is Javin. I am a college student at Sacramento city college herein Sacramento, I have family that lives in the bay area. I love the sport of debate wish I have taken it when I was in school, but I taken a different course. All in all I am a solid judge to get to know. Happy debating !! Also please slow down enough so I can follow along with the topics discussion.

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

Most of my background is in Policy debate (1984-2015). I started coaching PF in 2015ish.

I read a lot about the topics and I'm familiar with the arguments.

I think you should read direct quotes, minimize (at best) paraphrasing and not make up total lies and B.S.

My decision will come down to the arguments and whether or not voting for the Pro/the resolution is on-balance desirable.

I flow and if you notice I'm not flowing it's because you are repeating yourself.

- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.

- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.

- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.

- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.

- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.

- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.

- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.

- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.

Closing Thoughts:

"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.

Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."

Lay/parent judge

No jargon

No spreading

I'll flow

Value logical arguments supported by evidence

I graduated Georgetown's School of Foreign Service and graduated from Law School. I currently work for the government which I will not specify further.

This is my first time judging for NSDA. I am a lay judge.

You must talk slowly and clearly. DO NOT USE JARGON.

I like logical statements and hate illogical ones.

I do not like debaters who scream. You can be assertive without screaming.

There should not be a moment of silence while debating. I will take points off. I will take even more points off if you say nonsense.

I have very small eyes, so it may look like I'm sleeping. I ensure you that I am not.

Hello, hello, and greetings! I hope you're doing well.

As fellow speech and debate enthusiasts, we share a unique connection within a devoted community. I deeply respect the dedication, time, and personal sacrifices you commit to excel in debate. I hold both the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and I am a first time Diamond Award coach. My journey in Policy Debate started in middle school, and today, I coach various debate teams, including the debate squad, moot court team, mock trial teams, and shark tank teams. This commitment has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity. My background spans the financial world, law, and a strong passion for history. I have been actively involved in debate since 6th grade and coaching since 2012, maintaining my profound love for this distinctive pursuit. I've judge CX, PF, LD, BQ, Moot Court, Mock Trials, and High School Shark Tank Presentations. It's worth acknowledging that you've chosen to embrace a challenging endeavor that many may shy away from.

Nickname: My nickname is Judge Kinshasa, in a round, you can just call me "Judge".

Also, I am not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I have no problem giving feedback to ones coach, and my email is in the RFD for your coach to contact me for more information on my RFD. I'll use sharedocs on the NSDA platform so there's no need for any personal email to be exchanged among the rounds participants.

I don't disclose except in elimination rounds.

Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:

1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.

- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.

2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):

- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.

- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.

3. Plan (Affirmative):

- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.

- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.

4. Counterplan (Negative):

- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.

- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.

5. Topicality (Negative):

- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.

- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.

6. Disadvantage (Negative):

- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.

- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.

7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):

- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.

- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.

8. Cross-Examination (CX):

- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.

- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.

9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.

- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.

10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.

- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.

11. Flowing (Judge's Role):

- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.

- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.

12. Time Limits:

- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.

- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.

13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):

- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.

- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.

14. Permutation (Affirmative):

- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.

- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.

15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):

- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.

- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.

16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:

- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.

17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:

- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.

As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.

1. Communication Rule:

- Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round to maintain fairness and integrity.
- Consequences: Violating this rule results in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification.
- Purpose: Strict enforcement deters interference and ensures adherence to fair competition rules and guidelines.

2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain a laser focus during rounds. No social media or phone distractions for me – I'm all about the debate!

3. Debate Strategy: Also, please look at the judge, not at your opponent. I appreciate well-structured arguments and expect respectful conduct. I don't favor profanity, yelling, or ad hominem attacks. I’ll give one warning, and if the violation continues, I’ll end the round, and have no issue conversing with your coach about the matter. If your strategy relies on divisive or disrespectful arguments, I'm not the right judge for you.

4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan isn't the debater; you are. Address your opponents as "Neg" or "Aff" or “Opponent to maintain professionalism.

5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer Neg to run a Counterplan (CP) because attacking solvency without addressing the problem isn't convincing, and doesn’t make the CP a better option, and in essence the Neg says that their either isn’t a problem to solve, or the problem isn’t big enough to solve.

6. Flowing: I'm a meticulous judge who highly appreciates well-structured flow sheets as they enhance my ability to assess the round thoroughly. My preference is to manually record my notes on paper because typing on a laptop keyboard can be distracting for debaters. I actively encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets, not only to enhance their skills but also because I might refer to them to ensure no critical arguments are overlooked.

7. Engagement: Engage with me, the judge, as you present your arguments. Spreading is fine, though I prefer you do not, but clear and effective communication is key. If you’re spreading to get as many arguments as possible in to trick your opponent to drop arguments, you’re just reading, not making an argument in support of your position. I don’t vote based on dropped arguments.

8. Questions in Cross-X: Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.

9. Clash:

- Explanation: Clash is the central battleground in policy debate, where debaters engage in direct argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash demonstrates your team's skill in challenging your opponent arguments, influencing my decision beyond exploiting dropped points. Please don't debate based on winning by dropped arguments, win the debate utilizing clash.
- Strategy: Strategically use clash by presenting strong arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and highlighting weaknesses. It showcases argumentative prowess and critical thinking.
- Outcome: Clash quality significantly impacts my decision, making it a crucial skill for winning policy debates.

10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.

11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:

- Warning: Stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.

12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:

- To provide clarity, my primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan's capacity to effectively address the specific problem outlined in the resolution, rather than on the persuasive aspects of a speech. Therefore, arguments centered on topics such as "the blacks" "white supremacy," "whiteness", "anti-blackness," "anti-women," "anti-white," "anti-religion," "bias arguments," "oppressed communities," "marginalized communities," claims that "America is racist," or assertions that "everything is racist," including the use of racial slurs within a round, are not voting issues to me, essentially, they do not constitute decisive factors in my decision-making process. Racial slurs use din a round will result in a round being ended and a vote against the team that used it.

- For example, when examining the Fracking resolution for the 2022-2023 season, it was common, and understandable for debaters to discuss the impact of fracking on marginalized communities. While the affirmative plan may directly address the issue of fracking, it does not automatically prove how the plan will directly alleviate the marginalization of these communities. Essentially, fracking is banned, yet the marginalized community remained marginalized, and that is a great opportunity to show how the plan could improve the marginalized communities mentioned in the round. Otherwise, such arguments do not significantly influence my judgment in the debate.

It's essential to note that my perspective is not rooted in censorship yet know that what I listed are not voting issues. I vote on what's and desire to maintain relevance to the resolution's specific context. Behind the numbers are real people, treat them as such, not a prop used to win a round. If you require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I don't like theory arguments as it's a theory, not a fact, and facts are what I vote on, not theory.

Essentially, it comes down to which solves the problem that the resolution addresses; the Aff Plan or the Status Quo.

13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear, persuasive explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together effectively to solve the issue without conflicts. Mere mention of "Perm do both" without a well-reasoned narrative won't be enough. It should demonstrate how these actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best way to address the problem in the debate, presenting a compelling case for choosing both proposals over separate considerations.

14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author's credibility extends beyond qualifications. It's about ensuring their expertise aligns with the specific argument being made, as even experts can make unsupported claims. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and argument consistency to ensure evidence is credible and directly supports the warrant. Showing how the author supports your teams position increases your chances of winning a round.

15. Falsifying information: Request: Debaters should refrain from fabricating information during a round, particularly when it involves inventing financial figures, historical facts, law, or other details. I'll know it.

16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If an tournament has stated to judges that there is an allotment of time for tech issues, that will be kept to the second.

17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.

18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.

20. A Respectful Environment: I maintain a respectful environment and expect respect from all participants. No profanity, ad hominem attacks, or disrespect is tolerated. I'll give one warning, if it continues, it's an automatic disqualification, and I'll convey the reason in my RFD, and with the disqualified team's coach.

21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.

22. No Bias: I judge impartially.

23. Reason for Decision (RFD): I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve. I’ll share what debaters did well, and what each debater should work on to improve as debaters. I've seen instances where my feedback was applied in subsequent rounds. Remember, I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament, and it's a good idea to take notes during feedback sessions to make the most of them.

Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. I want to remind you that as debaters, you are an integral part of a truly exceptional and dedicated community. As we embark on this tournament together, let's keep in mind the essence of our shared purpose: to engage in meaningful and thought-provoking debates. So, let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved because, at the end of the day, we are here to debate and celebrate the art of discourse. And best of luck to you in the future on your journey in speech and debate.

Thank you very kindly,

Mr. Dibinga - Chota

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

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

Constructive: Send a speech doc before your speech. If you do not, I will downgrade your speaker points. If it is a close round, I will prefer the team that shared their speech doc.
No theory, k's, or spreading (frameworks are ok)

Rebuttal & Summary:

Any new cards which you say in rebuttal or summary must be sent.
No new responses in second summary or in final focus, it is on you to call out your opponents.

Defense isn't sticky.

Always keep in mind:
Talking during your opponent's speech will result in a loss of speaker points. Be respectful throughout the round.
Don't be the prep police or speech sheriffs. However, I will not be keeping track of time so you should. This is not an excuse to add new points after your time is up, just finish your current point. (I will not consider any new points.) If you are intentionally delaying the round or prep stealing, I will make note of that and it will be considered in my decision.

I am a new lay judge who has judged a few rounds in the past. I will take notes (not flowing) In a good debate I look for: Statistics, good analytics, and argument extensions. I also look for good arguments in rebuttal and clean frontlining.

On the scale of 1 to 10; 10 being super fast and 1 slow; Please try to go at 7 pace

For cards and links, please use chat directly

What I look for in the winning team:

Clear articulation of your case
Using data points to support your case to show the impact of magnitude
Using logic to elaborate your case and against your opponents
Going deeper into cards/links and expanding on your findings

Hello there. (Congrats if you get that reference)

Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: ej82669@gmail.com

I'm a freshman UIUC debater who debated PF in high school.

If you’re here for speech, jump all the way down to the bottom. I’m sorry :((

There's sections for debate, PF, LD, and speech.

DEBATE

As a judge, consider me tech over truth. However, I coach middle schoolers and believe that debate is an educational event. Good research is a big part of that, so I won’t buy problematic arguments that seem to have no basis or understanding of the current situation. (eg US should increase military intervention for orientalist reasons) Otherwise, clean voters and collapses will always win me over. If this doesn’t happen, I will pick apart the flow (against my will), and no one is ever happy when the judge is forced to intervene.

That being said, I am also a debater, so I’ll vote on dropped arguments, dropped weighing, dropped framing, dropped whatever. I’ve always been a second speaker and love listening to rebuttals dumping 7 warranted responses to every single contention (it would be hypocritical for me not to). If there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

Evidence: Know the NSDA and CHSSA rules on evidence.

NSDA Evidence Rules

CHSSA Debate Rules and Regulations

If the opponents call you out on a card you definitely cut 30 seconds ago, I will allow evidence challenges or for them to clown you in all the rest of the speeches for bad evidence. I consider preventing access to a requested card as nonexistent evidence and will absolutely rules in favor of an evidence challenge in that context. I have no tolerance for distortion of the card or dates. Regardless of a challenge, I will drop the card on my flow.

General Points (that I will potentially drop your speaks for):

- Time: Time yourself. If you make the mistake of using a timer and start talking over the ringing, I will drop your speaks, because not only do you know you are going over time, you are consciously choosing to ignore it. Otherwise, I will be running a stopwatch and will put up my phone when you are going over. I will allow you to finish your point, but will not flow any new points.

- Speed: I can handle and almost prefer moderate speed. I can handle spreading, but you must be CLEAR and ENUNCIATE. Otherwise, expect to send me and your opponents a speech doc. If I catch you manipulating it, I will drop your speaks faster than you call your opponents for dropped arguments you didn’t actually make.

- Organization: Off-time roadmaps are great, but if its “I will start on my opponent’s first contention on small businesses, extend the turn, refute their second contention on policing, address the framework…” then no, they aren’t great. Signposting is a MUST. If I lose you on the flow, then good luck extending arguments that I can’t find.

- Clash: If you don’t clash, don’t expect speaks. Debate is the speaking event where opponents actually interact with each other, so I would like to see interaction.

- Weigh: Weigh…please, especially if you have a framework. Saying timeframe, magnitude, and scope is not enough. You can just choose one, and explain why it matters + how it links in to your opponent’s impacts. (eg If mass extinction occurs, you can’t have an economy.)

- Crossfire/Cross-Examination: I don’t flow crossfire/cross-examination. If something important happens, bring it up in your speech. That being said, I don’t tolerate aggressively speaking over the person or using cross as speech time. Cross can get heated, but there’s a difference between yelling at the other person.

I get this is a lot, but the tl;dr is be respectful to your opponent and me. The common courtesies in debate are to make it fun for everyone. For those of you who like being mean >:(, I give out low-speak wins pretty frequently anyway.

Public Forum: (my favorite :D )

Chances are, I have thoroughly researched and debated the topic you are doing, so I will know if you don’t have links or are making things up. That being said, I have a lot higher tolerance for “analysis” or “general knowledge”. I apologize ahead of time if you get an entire paragraph of rfd. I’ve primarily competed in PF, so I will definitely have opinions.

Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, here are a few things I look for:

- Collapsing: While my fatal flaw is going for all of the 6 contentions on both sides of the flow, I’d rather you consolidate and do voters, especially in FF. Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches. I will silently cry if you go line-by-line in FF.

- Frontlining: I expected second rebuttal to frontline. I believe defense is sticky, but a brief extension of it every time is best.

- Weighing: Weighing slaps. Enough said.

- New Arguments/Responses: That’s a no-no in 2^nd summary and FF. I will not flow it.

- Progressive Arguments: I am a sucker for topical Ks. I believe Ts are to prevent abuse and improve the debate space, but will not vote on friv T. Because of this, if you run friv T to win a round in JV/novice on a new non-circuit debater, I am not voting for that.
(I love the Robert Chen K though)

- Plans: No…I will drop them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm only getting used to college LD, but I work with novice LDers so I will also know if your arguments are very strange, to a lesser degree. Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, I have stolen the following things from my coach’s paradigm (thanks schletz):

- New Arguments/Responses: No new arguments in 1NR and 2AR. I will not flow it. I'm fine with evidence though.

- Theory: Theory works, but I won’t vote on frivolous theory used to avoid responding to your opponent’s argument (especially not if you unabashedly break norms yourself). I view theory as a way of preventing abuse in the debate space and that it should only be used as such. I believe in RVIs so feel free to run them in response.

- Frameworks/VC: They slap. If you provide and defend one but don’t use it, I will evaluate it based on what vague instruction you’ve given me on how to evaluate using the framework…which probably won’t end well. I cannot emphasize enough: YOUR IMPACTS SHOULD ALIGN WITH YOUR FRAMEWORK.

- Kritiks + Phil:I love and appreciate them. Please slow down a bit if it’s super dense.

Speech

I love you guys…I promise. Most of my friends do speech.

A few warnings:

- Respectfulness: I don’t tolerate horsing around or loudly speaking during other competitors’ speeches. Whispering is okay, but do anything more disruptive and I will drop your speaks.

- Timing: Please time yourself. While I will be running a stopwatch, I am terrible at giving time signals. I will allow a stopwatch or someone else’s phone. Having a friend give time signals works too. Refer to tournament rules on grace periods.

- My instinct is to take notes while you’re speaking, so if I don’t look at you, I am so sorry. If I am judging you for IX or NX, your content will be scrutinized because I have a little too much background knowledge on politics.

If you’ve made it to the bottom, have fun and be a cool person. :)

Feel free to ask me questions. I like those.

I am a parent judge. I have been “coached” by some experts of the Ivy Team on the structure of the debate and main ideas of the topic. So, I am somewhat familiar with it.

I have a generalist approach towards judging the debate while keeping below mentioned points in mind:

Educational Goals: I seek to cultivate critical thinking, quick wit, effective persuasion, and adaptability in debaters.

Evaluation Criteria: I consider argument quality, strategic breadth, rhetorical effectiveness, and engagement with opposing arguments. I enjoy seeing creative and strategic argumentation within the constraints of the format.

Speed and Style: Comfortable with a moderate pace and expect debaters to prioritize clarity over speed however I understand & respect that everyone has their own style of speaking and conveying the message.

Role in the Round: I see myself as an impartial evaluator tasked with determining which team presents the most compelling arguments and effectively responds to their opponents.

Last but most importantly "Etiquette and Conduct": I expect debaters to demonstrate sportsmanship, respect for opponents' viewpoints, and adherence to the rules and etiquette.

I provide a brief RFD summarizing key points of the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Hello there

My name is Sofia, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, Big question and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

Hello, my name is Rajiv Kumar. I am a debater, public speaker and coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

Bold is important

Lay Flay judge

tech>truth

Tldr tabula rosa whatever

Judging is a boring job, do something fun either in speech or cross or I might actually fall asleep

send speech docs, non-negotiable, if you use technology for a speech, send the speech doc carded not sending speech docs may result in an automatic L, this includes rebuttal

arguments must be well warranted and don't use jargons specific to the topic, I won't know what they mean

Talk at a moderate speed, will not flow if you're spreading unclearly, spread at your own risk

Collapse is preferable

Will allow you to go a couple seconds over time but if you talk for more than 7 seconds or so you're getting speaks off.

Defense is not sticky you have to extend everything

if your frontline is not clear, I will not flow it

weighing has to be comparative

Run metaweighing so the ballot is easier.

frameworks are cool as long as u extend and warrant them.

Prog:

Please do not run any progressive arguments because I don't know how to evaluate them and I'll probably screw you, if you have to run something prog I'd prefer K's

don't be racist sexist or any type of -ist, will result in an automatic L

Feel free to ask any questions before or after round especially after RFD

I am a Lay parent judge. I will be judging for the first time.

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates:

-phil ac vs phil nc

-k aff vs non cap kritik

-phil ac vs kritik

non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified

convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i

i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well

better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness

i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated

Hey friends!
TLDR; 10+ years of experience coaching and competing in all formats of debate and all styles (traditional and progressive). I'm fairly open-minded to any argument that is well justified and I'm going to vote for the team that paints the best picture via their impact comparison. I want you to write my ballot for me in your closing arguments. Also please note I will not vote on any argument that isn't extended in your final speeches. If you want me to vote on something you need to extend it and tell me why I'm voting for it. Other than that, just have fun, debate is your space.

*Speaker points are arbitrary but here’s something that isn’t: If you give all of your speeches without reading cards, I’ll give you a 30 as a baseline (may still deduct a bit from this for certain things). Of course, please refer to cards and summarize your them in your own words. Evidence debate has led to people not listening to each other’s arguments and IMO it’s net worse for debate. Constant powertagging means paraphrasing theory is probably irrelevant (but I’m very open to criticisms that a team said that a card said something that it didn’t)

Here are just a few specifics about my philosophy, feel free to ask about more:

On Evidence:
I believe there is far too much emphasis on evidence in many rounds of LD and CX as of late. Cards are important for backing up a claim which specifically needs evidence (think statistics, quotes, etc). Some folks are quick to dismiss their opponent's arguments by saying "no evidence" without actually responding to the merit of the argument. Conversely, the overemphasis on evidence has made some students afraid to get up and make an argument simply because they don't have a card on it. Perhaps it is because of my background in NPDA, but I strongly believe that many claims can be made and warranted via analytics and in fact that these arguments are even preferable because they demand that debaters think on their feet and respond to the argument specifically instead of searching desperately for a card that may or may not actually verify the claim they want to make. An argument has 3 parts: Claim, Warrant, Impact. A card is one type of warrant but historical and or/material analysis is another which is just as valid and I encourage debaters to make whatever argument occurs to them so long as they can warrant said argument.

On Strategy:
In general, I don't care what you read. Debaters should make their own strategy and use whatever they think is competitive. That said, I am of the opinion that "6 off" strategies tend to be uncompetitive because no arguments are really developed and I will lean towards skepticism of neg blocks which develop a lot of new arguments because their initial constructives refused to engage the debate in depth. Quality tends to prevail strategically over quantity but I won't impose this belief onto you, if you think 6 off is more strategic, then prove it and I'll vote for it if you win. There is no K, CP, or theoretical argument I will reject outright on principle. Some arguments are likely more theoretically legitimate than others (An uncondo K is probably pretty alright and 8 condo delay CPs may not be) and some arguments are certainly more true than others but what I think is irrelevant in context of what is said in the round. Whatever it is you decide to go for, I do believe "collapsing" is good and makes debates simpler and also that arguments should be explained in context of one another. That's to say, how does "straight-up" make sense of the K, how does theory make sense (or not make sense) of the Aff, so on and so forth. Framework is the most important aspect of debate (followed by links). Tell me what my role as a judge is or the role of my ballot is and precisely how I ought to use it. I want to do as little as possible when writing my ballot and want as much of the argument as possible to be framed and explained for me. You should understand the difference between defense and offense and recognize that defense does not independently win rounds. Defense can empower offense but is not sufficient in and of itself to overcome any offense which improves upon the status quo.

*As an updated addendum to this, I would strongly prefer not to vote on violations that are alleged to occur outside of a debate round.
** A second addendum on theory - in light of some rounds that have occurred in early 2023, I'm realizing that in a debate that collapses to theory where theory truly feels like a wash, I think I'm preferring to flip to the team that didn't go for theory. This means you should use theory with me in instances that truly feel abusive. This is not to say that I won't vote on potential abuse, but it is to say you better win your shell convincingly if you intend to collapse on potential abuse

On Speed:

In general, I don't mind speed. I used to debate quite quickly, I listen to every podcast in the world on 2.0, and one of my previous partners was probably one of the fastest there ever was. That said I don't think speed should be a tool of exclusion and I do think there is a point at which speed is used (especially in evidence style debates) as a tool to lazily "warrant" an argument by reading cards that don't say what you say they say in the tagline and just hoping no one notices. Obviously, you should slow down to read taglines but even when you're "spewing" out the actual card, it should be comprehensible. This is especially true in a world of online debate which can become particularly hard to understand. I've watched some judges in a panel be too afraid to clear/slow when no one can understand a word someone is saying (especially in online debate). To be clear: I am not afraid to clear/slow you. Clear means speak more clearly, slow means I need you to slow down. I'm much more likely to say clear than I am slow as I want to hear the merits of your cards so if the card becomes an issue in a debate I can actually hear what you read. I don't mind going back to read a card that is contested but I also think that as soon as I start spending time outside the round reading, I'm now being asked to input my interpretation of what I read and apply it to what the debaters said. This quickly begins to violate the so-called "path of least resistance" that most judges are looking for. As such, my preference is to evaluate what I understood and hopefully not have to go back and read. It's the responsibility of debaters to make sure that what they're arguing is understood by the judges to the maximum extent possible. Spewing out a card at a speed you can't handle without slurring your words does not accomplish this goal. You'll get a lot further spending your time making coherent arguments everyone can understand than you will spitting nonsense to make fake claims.

*As an addendum to this, this issue has gotten a lot worse since I first wrote my paradigm. And frankly, at the highest levels (CEDA), we now see debate starting to slow back down. Honestly, I'm starting to feel like this is my preference. I'm not going to punish anyone for spreading, and I don't need you to speak your case at 2mph, "2.0 podcast" is a pretty good speed. My highest priority is understanding. Look, we are talking about some really in-the-weeds ideas in some of these debates. Debate will inevitably bastardize almost any philosophy, but I think you're going to do a lot more just interpretation of it when you slow down enough to actually explain your position and how you resolve the issues in and out of round.


If you ask me for prep, I'm just going to run your time, it's up to you to keep track of how much you're using. Flex prep is fine, but if you're going to do it, please ask your opponent and establish it at the beginning of the round. I've had some debaters ask me if flex is OK after their opponent already used some or all of their prep and this seems unfair to me. If you make an argument in CX, make sure you actually put it on the flow during your speech time.

PLEASE provide me a copy of all texts (Plans, counterplans, perms, alts, interpretations, etc)

Background

***Please add me to the email chain. My email is conradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not docs, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tab as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments so I've summarized some thoughts below.

DAs

- Fine with most DAs. If reading any politics DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic Link evidence.

K

- I’m fine with Kritikal affirmatives, however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer Affs that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise. I also am generally persuaded by the argument that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a methods debate, but am open to arguments otherwise.

CPs

- I’m fine with most counter plans although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

- I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

- I default to perms are test of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and default to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

- I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

- I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

PF

- I take a tabula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author last name and year in the back half of the ro und. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

- In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

- Please collapse

- Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

- Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clear if I can't flow what you are saying

- Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedurals

- I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

- I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

- I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note, I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hello,

I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.

I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.

I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.

I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. Any questions feel free too ask.

SPEECHES: Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

Hello,

my email is liamcryals@gmail.com

policy debater for 7 years so im fine with anything. I like Ks, antiblackness, and Orientalism. probably wont vote on fw or t

Dear Debaters,

As a parent lay judge, my focus is on the combination of content and delivery. I appreciate clear and logically structured arguments, delivered at an understandable pace, and supported by quality evidence. I expect you to maintain a respectful tone, engage with the audience, and manage their time effectively. Please articulate your points clearly and remember that I may not be familiar with complex debate terminology.

I am here to appreciate your efforts and evaluate your performance based on the strength of your content and the quality of your delivery.

Good luck!

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a sophomore in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF (mainly middle school and novice).

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

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Speed is fine but don't full on spread, especially if we are online.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Fix it, I'll be happy. Don't, well it will reflect in your speaks and possibly in my decision.

Time yourselves please I'm lazy. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to solely rely on me.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or the speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but online people are just starting to take prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

Weighing is cool, you should probably do it. I enjoy a good prereq, linking into your opponents' contentions is one of the best things you can do.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

• To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
• On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long it should take to exchange evidence, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
• If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
• To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

Frontlining is very important and should be done as soon as possible. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up and says that only frontlining in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

1. I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
2. I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant idealogical norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

I've been judging Debate since 2019. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

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

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

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

PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: cherellestevens86@gmail.com

My name is Cherelle and I am a paralegal, with 12 years of experience in my field- my practice areas being, personal injury, criminal law, tax law, wrongful death and slip and falls. I intend to go to law school next Fall.

I have competed in Speech for 4 years and Debate for 3 years during high school (2004-2008). I am also a national competitor, placing sixth in the nation, at Bradley University.

My judging experience includes Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Duo/Dramatic Interpretation, Oratory and Prose/Poetry.

I take a lot of notes during rounds. Don't worry, I can keep up.

Your arguments should be clear, convincing, and evidence based. I am not a fan of spreading.

Please maintain respect for everyone in the round. With that said, please note, I appreciate "spirited" debates. Convince your opponent and myself that you have WON, hands down!

I will be paying attention to the quality of the arguments and the competitor's ability to use their knowledge to think on their feet quickly, respond to the opposing side's points effectively, and use clear and convincing evidence to support their side.

Good luck! Let's debate!

Hi! My name is Ben, I debated for Half Hollow Hills for four years. I am an experienced judge and debater. Open to anything.

I possess over a year of experience as a judge in mainly PF debates but I also have experience with the BP style of debate as well. With that being said, I am more of a flay judge as well. My preference is to evaluate arguments based on their substance rather than style because the latter can be a disadvantage for ESL participants. Additionally, I prioritize convincing arguments over speed. (Please do your best not to spread, my old ears aren't as good as they used to be, and I might not be able to process your argument.)

During rebuttals, I urge the debaters to allow their opponents to respond to their questions. Furthermore, I strongly recommend that the debaters structure their arguments logically and succinctly. I am open to accepting cards and paraphrasing for evidence as long as the presented information is accurate and reliable! While I am not too nitpicky on evidence, I must emphasize that I will not tolerate deceitful claims such as lying that cows are pink or grass grows upside down.

Lastly, I wish all the participants the best of luck and encourage them to enjoy themselves!

I value clarity, logic, and evidence-based reasoning. Clear and cogent arguments backed up with facts and a keen focus on the key issues will greatly enhance your chances of winning my vote.

In the event that both sides present compelling cases and no arguments are refuted, I'll default to voting negative. However, I remain open-minded and ready to be persuaded by well-reasoned arguments and compelling evidence.

I submit to you that debate is not only about competition, but also about intellectual engagement and growth. Let's have fun, learn from each other, and appreciate the art of persuasion.

Best of luck to all of you!

Hi! I'm Yuling (she/her). I graduated from UCLA with an econ dgree, I have 10 years of PF debating/coaching experience.

wangyuling1999@gmail.com for email chain/questions before or after round.

On top of my paradigm: I'm judging in a different timezone i.e. if you are doing a US tournament that means I may be judging at 2/3 am; that means I probably won't be able to handle spreading that well.

Bottom Line: be nice/don't be discriminatory in round.

Preferences:

Narrative Debate shapes my view of debate. Give me a cohesive storyline on why your side's view on the topic is more correct/important really helps me a lot in the decision making process.

Weighing matters, need extension and comparisons in the second half of the round.

Arguments need to be responded in the next speech - i.e. frontline in the second rebuttal.

Speed:
I am able to handle first constructive here (actually a bit faster than this is fine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxiQYogqyIs&t=38s

but not really https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnDL_bIDEqg

Eventually I'll vote on a team that clearly tells me where should I vote on, how did you win there, and why should I vote there.

Theory/Ks: It's still new to me / the circuit I coach in. I'll try my best to flow and understand, and I also appreciate a chance to get educated on progressive debate, but the reminder is I'm probably not qualified enough to decide this type of round.

I was a CEDA debater for Kansas City Kansas Community College and K-State in the mid 2000’s. I support and encourage all styles of debate. I believe that debate needs to come down to three things – your analytical analysis, your engagement with the debate, and your ability to communicate your argumentation clearly. As for speed, I don’t mind if you speed while reading cards but when reading tags and authors, please be clear so I make sure that I get it on my flow. Also, I don’t like it when you are just screaming cards volume wise but I do like it when debaters emphasize certain points.

As far as argumentation goes, I try my very best to approach each debate with a “tabula rasa” mentality. Please make sure you have a roadmap before each speech for the sake of my organization. I also will not do the work on the flow for you. I will say if you are running kritiks and critical argumentation in general, please explain your arguments. If it is very complex (especially with language) explain it. I have a hard time judging arguments that I don’t understand. Also, I do believe that CX is binding.

Remember to have fun, be respectful, and remember that debate is about clash and engagement.

Good Luck to you all, Here are some points that matter to me :

I am a lay judge, so please be clear and talk slowly, If I cannot understand your point it cannot be considered in my judging. so please be clear.

Maintain your tempo at all times.

Make sure you note the time and talk accordingly.

add me to the email chain: ruyizhang07@gmail.com

PUBLIC FORUM:

Tech > truth. I only evaluate based on what's presented in the round. That means that everything has to be warranted, extended, and implicated if necessary. I WILL NOT DO THIS FOR YOU.

Please extend offense. That means in every speech explain to me what contention/argument you're winning on and why. That way, I clearly can see that's what you want me to vote on. It's okay to collapse near the end (drop an argument and only focus on one) to save time. I won't penalize you for that and I recommend it or else you don't cover time to cover the entire debate.

Defense is not sticky. Please interact with your opponent's responses. Don't just say "they don't have evidence", "no warrant", or repeat your argument again. If you don't respond I will assume it's true no matter how outrageous it is.

Speed is okay but send a speech doc.

Please time yourself and your opponents.

DO NOT RUN NEW ARGUMENTS IN SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS.

I won't flow cross but I'll listen. Don't do anything shady.

I only look at evidence if it's highly contested. Please follow proper evidence guidelines and ethics. I'm open to evidence challenges.

Please weigh and metaweigh.

1. Short Circuit > Prereq > Timeframe > Magnitude > Probability. If you don't metaweigh (tell me why I should prefer one type of weighing over another) these are my defaults.
2. I don't like probability weighing. If you win the links to your impact (prove why your impact will happen) you get 100% probability even if it's something like "aliens will take over Earth and cause extinction"

If no one weighs and/or no one wins case I'll presume neg.

Prog

1. Any theory is okay. I don't care if it's friv. For anything that's not disclosure speak slower because I may not be familiar with it. IVIs are okay but I prefer you read a shell.
2. I've never been in or judged a K debate before.
3. If you run a framework please meet your framework.

Speaks

Here are some things you can do to get a speaks bump:

1. Bring me food
2. Make a Minecraft analogy
3. Message my public forum partner and tell him I'm the better debater. It's on you guys to stalk him. He's probably competing at this tournament.
4. Make the round fun. Tell a joke or run an interesting argument