Tabroom.com

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2018 — Tempe, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Bhaskar Aavula Amador Valley High School 4 rounds None

Cory Ackerman Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Raghav Agrawal BASIS Scottsdale 4 rounds None

Akhil Aji Leland High School 6 rounds

Pratyush Ambadi Mesquite HS 6 rounds None

Jaya Atluri The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Sritej Attaluri Hire 6 rounds

Lauren Barney Hire

Nitisha Baronia Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Jordy Barry Green Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:13 AM PDT

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Diana Bates-Marks Red Mountain High School None

Diana Bates-Marks Red Mountain High School 2 rounds None

Brian Borders Leland High School 6 rounds

Heidi Burt BASIS Scottsdale 4 rounds

Sim Butler The Altamont School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2018 at 10:56 AM CDT

Coaching Experience

University of Alabama: Graduate Assistant (Individual Events) 2003

The Altamont School: Director of Forensics 2004-2008

Colorado College: Director of Forensics 2008-2011

University of Alabama: Alabama Debate Society Director 2016-present

Background

I competed as an individual events student in high school and college. As a professor of argumentation and rhetoric, I believe that individual events help students master delivery skills and debate helps students master argumentation and analytical advocacy. Thus, delivery skills will not factor into my decision. Even speaker points will be awarded based on clarity of argumentation, strategic decision making within the round, and the ability to contextualize evidence within the framework of the debate. I've been coaching debate for about 15 years on both the college and high school circuits. The best debate for me is heavy on the analysis. I want to hear how evidence interacts with the arguments you are making, and how it fits contextually. I can flow quickly, and will interject (once) with "clear" if I can't understand you. Even though I flow it, I am much more apt to decide on arguments that are explained to me, so don't fly through the analysis in an attempt to cover as much as possible.

Preferences

1. Evidence: Evidence must be accessible without delay during and after the round. If I call for evidence, I expect you to show me what you showed your opponents in round, with the card in context and the original source available. I will intervene if I determine the evidence is miscut, misreferenced, or misleading in the context of the round. This intervention typically means I disregard the evidence in my decision-making. It can have an effect on speaker points as well.

2. Overviews: There is a growing trend in Public Forum to run terminal defense and overarching turns as overviews in rebuttals. In most cases, this seems like lazy debating to me. I would much rather you put this on the flow where you want it to be, in response to your opponents specifics arguments. For me, this represents a depth of analysis that comes from listening to your opponent and making good strategic decisions as opposed to hoping their arguments fit your favorite blocks. It would be unwise to leverage these "mini-contentions" or large offensive overviews, particularly in second rebuttal, as voting issues in front of me. On the flip side, I will happily vote on well positioned turns that specifically address arguments on case.

3. Consistency: The summary and final focus are what makes Public Forum a uniquely educational debate form. Having to pick the most important arguments and address them in two minutes means highlighting the critical thinking necessary in advanced argumentation. Thus, I appreciate consistency in strategy from summary to final focus. Doing less extension and more weighing in final focus is always okay, but I do not want to vote on things in final focus that were not in summary.

4. Crossfire: I love to see debaters use crossfire strategically. No one wins debates in cross, and the best thing you can do is try to understand where your opponents are weak and strong. Being smart and civil will help your speaks.

5. Voting: In terms of defense, I'm sympathetic to the first speaking team, particularly if no indication is given in the second rebuttal as to what the second speaking team is going for in summary. Don't extend through ink, and don't extend cards if your opponents "drop" it but still answer the argument your are using it to make. In my favorite debates, teams weigh well and tell me how to evaluate offense and terminal defense in the context of the round. If I am left without this analysis, I will vote on the most offense within a net benefits paradigm. I enjoy impact analysis that evaluates magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Of these, probability is the most important. If left to my own devices, I will vote to save 20 people for sure over 20 million from an improbable (ie. with lots of defense) nuclear scenario.

6. Alternative Advocacies: Kritiks are valuable additions to debate education. If you want to run a K in PF, I am happy to listen to and evaluate it, but you must have strong links to the resolution, the activity, or your opponents' actions. While I will vote on a priori theory, I prefer you engage your opponents case within their framework if you wish them to engage in yours. In my experience, judges (myself included) tend to intervene for the sake of fairness in framework debates. But for me, unexpected argumentation is not unfair or abusive. It makes debate a worthwhile educational tool.

*I'm always happy to talk over my flow and RFD with debaters after I've turned in my ballot.*

Jessica Carter Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 1, 2021 at 12:55 PM MST

I competed in LD throughout High School and I am currently doing Policy in college.

I will be more familiar with an LD topic than any other form of debate so if I am judging you in PF or CX so if you have very technical things in the topic you will need to explain those more in your case.

Clash is my favorite thing in a round - Don't be two ships passing in the night say something and do a debate. That being said don't just say things to say things an incoherent argument is worse than no argument at all. Evaluate what your opponent is saying and respond to it in a way that makes sense. Respect your opponent and their arguments.

I will drop you without a second thought if you run a joke argument. During a college debate round I watched someone ran a coloring performance if you run anything like this getting me to vote for you will be very difficult. I love flair, critical, and performative arguments but it needs to be based in either theory or I need a reason why what your saying matters. I try to limit my intervention as a judge so don't expect me to do any work for you.

LD is a theory and morality-based debate so I expect a focus on the morality of affirming or negating the resolution. The debtors need to tell me why I should care about their V-C and why their V-C is better than their opponents and should be preferred for the round. I will not do any work for any side you have the responsibility of stating the impacts of your arguments and why these impacts are better than your opponents. You also have to extend your own arguments throughout the debate for them to matter. I'm fine with CP's, Theory, and K's you just need to explain it well and make sure the impacts and analysis are clear.

I will say I think traditional LD tends to be more successful than critical forms of debate just because of the time constraints. If you're confident that you can get out what you need to with the time you're given then go for it. But the 4 and 3-minute aff speeches do make it difficult to get out what you need to.

I have zero patience for being rude to your opponent. Especially if your opponent is not as versed in critical arguments as you are. This is an educational activity, not an opportunity for you to pretend to be cooler than you are.

I'm fine with any type of argument as long as it makes sense and you explicitly state the impacts.

Topicality

You need to be explicit about what the violation that the other team has committed is. I tend not to care about fairness as an impact especially when you just make this claim in a vacuum. However, if you can tie it to a structural claim I'll be more likely to buy the argument. Make sure you're extending this throughout the entire round. I also need to know what ground you've lost as a result of the Aff being non-topical. Don't run topicality in front of me if the violation is small it will not be hard for the other team to convince me that they are topical.

I like K's I think critical arguments are important to increasing education in debate and I think that they bring a type of education that doesn't typically exist in the debate space. That being said do not run a K if the only link you have is a link of omission. Language is super important for K's so make sure you're being explicit with what you're saying. I think K's certainly can win against topical cases you just have to show why the impacts on par with nuclear extinction. I tend to find structure claims to be the most persuasive.

Performative Things

I think performances can be good but you need to have a way that your opponent can actually engage with your argument. I don't particular enjoy it when performance teams get overly angry or hostile to try to prevent their opponents from arguing.

Framework

My hot takes here are basically the same as topicality. I do think the framework is generally more true than topicality.

My paradigm is generally the same for CX as it is for LD you need to extend your stuff and make the impacts clear.

Listening is not an impact.

PF

I did PF I think twice? My same general rules for other debates apply - don't spread your event is not made for it and I'm more inclined to believe that it's unfair for your opponent. I will call cards so they better say what you tell me that you say. Also generally don't take racism and blow it into some insane impact because you want to win an argument. Impacts and links should make sense.

General

I'm fine with speed just let me know at the beginning of the round if you're going to be spreading.

Flashing/Email Chains should not take forever if it becomes excessive I will make you use Prep.

I'm fine with flex prep

Read analytics slower if you want me to flow them

Keep in mind this is digital for the time being I expect you to understand your own technological constraints and adjust accordingly especially in regard to speed.

If you need to use a graphic description of SA to win you don't deserve to win.

Shannon Chamberlain Northridge High School 6 rounds

Aamirah Chisti BASIS Chandler HS 6 rounds None

Kyle Chong The Nueva School 3 rounds

Tanzil Chowdhury Hire

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:34 PM MST

I'm Tanzil -- debated policy at Chandler High School and Arizona State University for a total of eight years, coached policy debate at Hamilton High School for four years. Currently a graduate student at Cal and help out here and there with ASU and HHS's debate teams. Policy paradigm follows from here, paradigm for other forms of debate continues below, follow the bolded headers.

2022 Update:

I have not judged debate at all this year and have basically no familiarity with the topic. If there are buzzwords or acronyms specific to this year's topic, please use the explain and/or use the full phrase at least once before reverting to the buzzword/acronym.

Quick Coronavirus/Virtual Update:

Main thing is that y'all should slow down in virtual debates -- speak at, say, 60-70% of your in-person speed. Obviously this is dependent on internet connection and all so this won't hurt your speaks or anything unless I call repeatedly for you to slow down (which I'll do verbally with a "CLEAR" or "SPEED"). Obviously virtual debating is still newfangled so let's all be patient with each other as we figure it out. Much love.

Send speech docs and questions to tanzil.chowdhury98@gmail.com -- please include me on the email chain.

Functional Tidbits: Prep time ends when the email is sent out or the flash drive leaves the computer, unless you are a novice, in which case please just do your best to be speedy with your technology. I will not disclose until your wiki is updated. My speaker point baseline is 28.7, which means that if you are somewhere between 3-3 and 4-2 and sounding pretty alright that's the sort of score you'll get. I won't look at your speech doc/cards during your speech, and will not look at them at all unless i am a) explicitly asked to and/or b) feel as though I cannot make my decision without looking at them because some unresolved question about the evidence remains at the end of the debate. I generally flow straight down an excel sheet on my computer and do the work of lining things up as I make the decision, unless something is very clearly flagged (which I do appreciate). I make decisions quite quickly in many situations, though this usually is not a signal that the debate was not close -- it's more that I am constantly evaluating the quality of arguments at every point in the debate, and usually things clear up re; argument quality well before the 2NR/2AR. Please do take notes as I give my RFD, there's not really a point in my spending time to explain my decision and give feedback if you won't write it down. I love to hear questions from the debaters afterwards.

Actual Paradigm: I don't think that I believe anything that is radically different from any other competent policy debate judge out there, so for the most part I'm good for you on most any strategy or style of argumentation -- everything except that which is outright offensive is equally valid in a vacuum. There are a few specific places where my opinion may differ from others, so I'll try to outline those for you below.

a) I have a very hard time voting for fairness as an intrinsic impact on Framework. Winning that debate is a game does not automatically make you win that fairness is an intrinsic good; "debate is a game" is a descriptive claim that very well may be true, but framework is a debate about competing models, meaning that the prescriptive claim "debate ought not be a game" will almost always beat that. Given that every (competent) 2AC to framework will say that, you're better off just defending why your model of debate is a good thing if you're the negative, usually meaning that it is a more educational model.

b) The thing I appreciate most during the rounds I judge is the ability for teams to make clear decisions and then communicate those decisions to me. It shows me that you have the ability to understand the debate as more than just a series of disconnected arguments and that you have considered the strategy of what you are saying before you say it. As such, I am very much against the concept of the judge-kick. This is usually a big problem during Kritik debates; I will never kick the alt "for you", and in a situation where the alternative is not explicitly kicked, I will evaluate the debate as Aff v. Alt. This means that even if you win a significant risk of a link and impact, I will still likely vote for the affirmative in the absence of an alternative which can resolve that link. The reasoning behind this is debate 101: the alternative exists to provide uniqueness for the link, and I cannot vote for a non-unique DA. To be clear, I'm totally for you kicking the alt and establishing the uniqueness in some other way, if you think that is the best strategic move.

c) For K debaters, being "wrong about the theory" is offense, assuming there's at least a bit of impact work done on the consequence of being wrong about the theory. What this means is that in debates where there is a high-level theoretical basis for your opponent's arguments (i.e. for certain flavors of afropessimism, "anti-blackness is ontological"), you ought draw clear lines of comparison between your theoretical disagreement with that claim (i.e., your analysis of anti-blackness concludes that it is not-ontological and is instead [insert position here]).

d) Ethos and Pathos matter in my decisionmaking, the former generally moreso than the latter, though not by much. I'm a big believer in the idea that the way you choose and execute your arguments at every point in the debate is constitutive of your "ethos" as debaters. To be clear, I don't mean this in the sense of a personal judgment of the debaters, but rather in the sense that your ethos and ethic(s) are inherently intertwined. It shouldn't be a controversial statement that judging is done based on the way the debaters formulate ethics, so obviously one's ethos must then also play a role in the decision.

For the other debates:

LD:
Having had to coach one lad in LD for the past year, I've developed some thoughts on the activity that may be relevant to you, if for some reason you have to deal with the perils of having me as a judge. For what it's worth, if both of the debaters have agreed to run the round as the mutated, gross, slug-like abomination you all refer to as "progressive" (it really means anything but! words mean things!) debate, then effectively everything in the above section applies to you. Everything in the "Other" section likely applies to your regardless of how you debate. If not, the following is what you should keep in mind: LD's value lies precisely in its form, and while that form may shift (I certainly am not some sort of reactionary that believes you ought to lose if you don't tell me your Value, your Value Criterion, and remember to say "Thus I affirm/negate" at the end of your speeches), we ought to understand why that form existed in the first place, and how such forms color the way we debate things. What this means for you LDers is that you should not shy away from the central question of your event: ethics. It is upon the question of ethics LD (and all debate, really) lies, and to act as if you don't have an ethic (you most certainly do), or to obscure your ethic (which you all seem to have a great penchant for doing), is to shy away from any of the value of this activity. And this is precisely why the form of LD has existed as such (it's my view that what we call "the K", or at least its central questions, has existed in LD since LD's inception), with defenses of the whole resolution, with the Values and Value Criterions, with every case beginning with a Framework etc. I know you may feel that it is strategic to treat this as a one-person policy debate, and it very well may be in many cases, but that is just because you decided to make the switch before truly getting a grasp on why the activity has been as it is for so long. Tell me, what is the value of reading the K as an "off-case" position when the traditional case-structure already has the in-built mechanisms for making the criticisms you want to make? Of course this is rhetorical, and the answer I believe to be true is that it is cowardice. Stop being cowards. Take a stand upon your ethics (even if they are the conventionally boring ethics of our Kants and our Humes and our Benthams, that purely English phenomenon himself [speaker point bonus if you know who called Bentham a purely english phenomenon]) and tell me why I as a judge should stand upon the same grounds you have chosen to stand on. And I bet (after a year of teching unsuspecting folks down on this very question when they did not expect it) that you will find competitive success in doing so.

PF:
I really don't understand this activity. I don't think it's possible for me to have any sort of stable, objective, or predictable method of judging PF because I'm not really sure if PF debate exists (I suppose I'll decide to explain what I mean by this as I'm writing the rest of this section, or maybe it will just become evident, though it likely does not mean what you think it means). To be fair, I don't think I have that for any form of debate really, but it's especially erratic when dealing with your lot. I suppose you should just do what you do, but I really have a low, low, LOW tolerance for inane stupidity, which is what I've had to deal with in the PF rounds I have had the displeasure of judging thus far (except one, which was surprisingly very good for a novice debate). If Policy and LD suffer from an over-reliance on the logical appeal, PF has the opposite problem where the logical appeal is so rarely used (and I know you all believe yourselves to be making such appeals, you just aren't actually doing so) that the debate is just nothing-speak for whatever ridiculously short amount of time (the only redeemable aspect of this activity) you all are allotted to torture me with. So, all I ask is that you speak of something, and when you speak of something, you are referring to something that is not totally positioned in a fantasy dreamt up in the empty space of your brain in that moment. As such, do not say things like: "Islamic Terrorism kills millions of people every day", or "THAT IS YOUR BURDEN TO ANSWER" when it is clearly not, or [insert overtly racist comment about Black people here that you, for some reason or another, do not believe to be racist]. Instead, make significant reference to the authors that supposedly (I write supposedly because more often than not, there is absolutely no care for evidence in this activity) provide the warrants and data for your arguments, and by reference I mean that in the direct, verbatim sense, because in all likelihood they know far more than you do about whatever it is you're talking about this month, and they can say it in a much better way than you can. There is a reason the other forms of debate are so reliant on the "card" (pieces of evidence cut as needed), and it is because they realized a long, long time ago that having vague name-drops and out-of-context quotes plopped into a poorly-written 10th grade English paper does not a good debate make. All forms of communication require a mutual intelligibility, some level of stable ground upon which those doing the communicating can stand upon and hurl their signs, and hopefully that which those signs signify, at one another in the hope of arriving at some new sign, which hopefully also signifies something that was previously not signified. And this is why I believe PF does not exist as the other debate forms do: I do not believe you all have such a ground. You all speak but the words are not meant to transcend themselves, they are words for the sake of words, and in this sense maybe it is best to call PF a form of collaborative literature rather than debate. Anyways, this is not a problem that cannot be fixed, and really the fix is quite easy: develop a common point to stand on (reference to evidence), and then draw out the consequences of such references. If you treat your "debates" like this, you stand the chance of having actual debates (and the chance to win my ballot, which is likely what you care about the most as you finish reading this unnecessarily long section about an activity I will probably a judge a total of 2 more times in the rest of my life, and I don't really blame you for wanting the ballot).

Congress: In the words of Rolling Stone's Greil Marcus, reviewing Bob Dylan's 1969 album Self-Portrait, "what is this s**t?"

Chance Christian Palo Verde HS 6 rounds None

Spencer Coben Brophy College Prep

Chris Conrad The Nueva School 3 rounds

Johanna Crowl Desert Vista HS 4 rounds

Alexander Daniel Hawken 6 rounds

Bob Dolan Lake Mary Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 15, 2023 at 8:26 AM EDT

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

Caitlin Fagan Northwest Career And Technical Academy

Ryan Ferdowsian Hire

Last changed on Sat January 25, 2020 at 3:01 PM MST

Conflicts: Desert Vista, Chandler Prep

Yes email chain: rsferdowsian@gmail.com

I debated at Chandler Prep for 3 years and currently debate for ASU

LD-specific section at the bottom

General:

- I don't care what types of arguments you read, as long as they're (a) well-explained and warranted and (b) well-impacted out (by which I broadly mean implication-work as to why winning your args wins you my ballot, not just straight impact-calc)

- Framing is key, especially in the last 2 rebuttals - you're not going to win everything, so tell me what's most important for my decision and deal with what the other team is saying is most important

- I default to an offense-defense paradigm unless told otherwise

- I won't judge kick unless 2nr says so. For both sides: don't let the 'judge kick good/bad' debate start in the 2nr/2ar, esp. if the status of the CP is clarified earlier. The neg should say 'status quo is always a logical option' or even something more explicit in the 2nc for 'judge kick good' not to be new in the 2nr; similarly, aff should say judge kick bad before the 2ar, even when not extending condo bad as such in the 1ar. If the first times I hear the words judge kick are in last two rebuttals, I'll be forced to actually evaluate all the new 2ar args, so don't let that happen neg

- I might not know as much as you about the intricate, technical aspects of the topic, so be clear and slow on topic-specific phrases/acronyms, especially with T

Case:

- 2acs are generally terrible on case, the block should point this out, exploit it, and protect itself from new 1ar stuff

- Good case debating by the neg (and aff) = good speaks

Topicality v policy affs:

- I default competing interps. I've personally never understood intuitively or theoretically how one would decide whether an aff is "reasonably" T or not, so if you're going for reasonability on the aff, make sure you are very clear on what that means/how judges would determine reasonability under that frame or I'll be persuaded by the neg saying reasonability is arbitrary

- I usually view the relative interpretations as 'advocacies' the provide uniqueness for/solve each side's offense and the standards on both sides as net benefits/advantages to that standard/disads to the other, like a CP+DA debate. (If you don't want me to view it that way you should tell me). This means that impact calc is super important, eg "aff ground outweighs limits", "precision outweighs", etc.

Theory:

- I'd love to hear a super in-depth "condo bad" debate, if the aff goes for this and does it well I'll probably give pretty good speaks

(Personal opinion: condo is good; being neg is hard; but I can be easily persuaded otherwise.)

- Everything else: I default to rejecting the argument, not the team; if you want me to reject the team, explain why it's justified/what the (preferably in-round, not just potential) abuse is

- The CP+DA thing from the Topicality section above applies here too, which means interpretations matter a lot (a good example of this is that the aff going for "states CPs with uniformity are not allowed, non-uniform states CPs are allowed" would solve a lot of neg offense while also allowing you to go for unique offense to uniformity being uneducational, cheating, etc.)

Disads:

- "DA turns case" is important and should be answered in the 1ar

- "DA solves case" is underutilized

-*Impact calc* - not just magnitude/probability/TF but also filtering arguments (e.g. 'heg solves everything'), filters for evidence-quality ('prefer our empirics over speculation'), etc.

- Again, I default offense-defense but I am ok with concluding that there is 0% risk of a DA. It's really important for the aff to be explicit when doing this (e.g. say something like "offense defense is bad for policymaking and decision-making")

Counterplans:

- I'm probably much more open to theoretically cheating CPs than most judges, just win the theory debate (for this, confer above on Topicality).

- Really techy CPs should be explained in the 2nc/1nr to a certain dumbed-down level

Ks v Policy Affs:

- FW matters a lot; the negative needs to set up a framing for the debate that shifts the question the ballot is answering away from whether the plan is better than the status quo/some competitive option, or at least provides a very specific set of criteria about how that question should be answered (e.g. ontological come first, reps first, etc.). Make sure to be clear about *what winning framework means for how I write my ballot*; i.e. does it mean I refuse to evaluate the consequences of the plan altogether? or just that the way in which I evaluate it changes? or something else?

- If you don't make FW args in the 2nc (at least implicitly), 2ac args like "Perm: double bind", "alt fails/is utopian", "state inevitable", or "extinction outweighs" become serious threats if extended well by the aff.

- The 2nc/2nr should explain your theory of how the world works and explain why I should think it's true relative to their policymaking stuff - isolating a specific section of the flow where you explain your theory (especially with high-theory kritiks), or just weaving it into the Line by Line, can go a long way

- Examples are always good for K debate, in all its different components

- Aff args I find true/persuasive: extinction outweighs, institutions matter, debate is a game, perm (if alt is explained as a CP instead of as a framework argument).

- I honestly don't care if you're going to read a long 2nc overview, but please be honest about it before the speech so I can get a new sheet of paper (I'll probably flow on paper, not laptop); I try hard to maintain the Line by line would prefer you just be up-front about it.

FW versus K affs:

- I have read K affs against FW, but I have also read FW against K affs, so I'd like to think I'm not too ideological when it comes to these debates. My voting record in these debates is probably ~60/40 in favor of the neg on FW, usually due to a lack of well-warranted arguments as to why the neg's model is bad (instead of buzzwords) as well as a lack of answer to significant defensive claims like TVA/SSD.

- Impact framing is paramount in these debates: the impacts the two teams are going for are often radically different -- e.g., how should I weigh a slight risk of unfairness against a risk of the neg's model of debate being a bit neoliberal/racist/X-ist? I'll probably end up voting for whoever does a better job answering these types of questions

- For the neg: TVA is important but Switch side is really underutilized as a defensive argument imo.

- Fairness can be an impact in and of itself if you explain why, although, all else being even, it's probably not the best 2nr impact in front of me since it begs the question of the value of the game it supports.

- Better neg impacts to FW for me: clash, dogmatism, truth-testing, even institutions good offense

- Limits and ground are (probably) just internal links, not impacts

- For the aff: *explain a clear vision of what your model of debate looks like under your interp*.

- I'm down for the extremist K strats that just impact turn every standard the neg goes for, but I'm also down for running more to the middle and explaining why your model is still topical/debatable 'enough' but with some significant net benefits over theirs. If you're doing the latter, your interp should be super well-explained in the context of their limits/predictability offense

K v K:

- These can be some of the best or some of the worst debates - worst when neither side gets beyond tagline extensions, best when each side speaks as if they were an actual scholar in whatever field they're deploying, doing comparative analysis of the other team's theories in relation to their own

- Impact calc and framing is crucial, esp. in rounds where both sides are discussing some identity-related oppression impacts. This doesn't mean saying certain lives or groups matter more than others, it's precisely to avoid that: you all should discuss your theories of the world in ways that don't put me in the position of having to 'pit' certain lives against one another, otherwise I'll have a rough time and so will you

- I'm down for not giving the aff a perm in these debates, BUT it's got to be explained much further than "no perms in a methods debate" - that's not a warranted argument. To win this, the neg should explain why perms in debates where no one advocates gov. action are uneducational, unfair, incoherent, bad for radical pedagogy, etc. and, ideally, also provide an alternate model for what the burden of rejoinder looks like if the neg doesn't have to win that the K is an opportunity cost to the aff.

- Cf. "K v Policy Aff" section above on long 2nc Overviews

***LD-Specific***

1. Fair warning: I tend to vote neg... a lot, seemingly too much, usually on technical concessions in the 2ar (damn speech structures).

To deal with this if you're aff:

- make sure you win your case - I've noticed I have a tendency to vote neg on presumption when the NR makes some circumvention args that the 2AR just straight-up drops in the last speech.

- also, make sure you frame the debate for me such that, even if there are some tech-y drops, I'm more likely to vote for you

2. Full disclosure: I don't get LD theory, like, at all. I don't really get RVI's, I don't know how they function, and I'm convinced most LD'ers don't either, so generally, if theory is your thing, just be very clear on these three components of theory debates: (a) interps, (b) violations, and (c) standards. As long as that basic template is there in some form, I can do my best.

Random things:

- I probably won't read that many cards unless it's brought up in the debate or I'm stealing your cites

- Flashing isn't prep but be quick

- Clipping means you lose and will get bad speaks; I'll try to follow whatever the tournament procedure is for this

- Extra speaks to anyone who brings me some flavored iced coffee beverage/bothered to read this far down.

Good luck!

Nicole Figueroa Hire

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2018 at 8:49 AM MST

pls just gimme paper and pen. I'm gonna ask.

Judging experience:

- I competed in PF for 4 years in Las Vegas (yay, Golden Desert)

- Currently debating (policy) at ASU (woohoo, Arizona State University)

Important stuff

- if u think that a college policy debater has a high speed threshold... u right. speed threshold is high

- I don't flow cross

Extra stuff

How to win my ballot... a guide:

1. Tell me how you want me to judge the round

2. Articulate how you win by [however reason you judged that round] and why your opponent doesn't (you can even tell me why your opponent's way of me judging the round is a nono!!)

.... because I'll vote for anything as long as it's clear lol, I'm not picky. Ks, theory, CP... blah blah blah. Just tell me what you're going for.

- It's 2018, so we're treating people in the debate community with RESPECT! I don't care if I can see the fiery hatred for whoever you're debating against in your eyes but that better not come through your words or your actions. I used to be like "hoho I'm a cool judge and sass can sometimes be funny" (which is tru, I'll let you decide what part)... but to others sass and killing their view that debate can be a welcoming space so tread lightly and just remember that words do matter. I know that y'all know this because you're participating... in speech.. and debate.

- I'm good with speed. But if you can't spread, that's okay with me. Don't do anything you're not comfortable with and debate the way you want to

- I like signposting. I always flow, so it just makes me feel secure in knowing, "oh yes, they ARE talking about X, I didn't miss something and they DO want me to evaluate that stuff they're saying to this argument!" If you don't do it, I hope your speech is well structured because I'm gonna be like "oh hahaha great round" on the outside but "why did u make me do so much work for u flipping between papers" on the inside.

- Why I don't flow cross-ex: If you want me to care about an argument, say it during your speech because that's what the speech is for. Like cross-ex is the only time you have to have an instantaneous response from your opponent so it makes no sense to me why you'd waste it on repeating what you said. Like.. ask questions to make your NEW speech

- On 1/5/2018 I realised my deep disdain for people being like "hohoho u weren't listening to me do u want me to just say my WHOLE case over again?" - like... no. Obviously not. Your opponent does not want to hear the words that already confused them repeated back to them and neither do I. This is the quickest way to getting 20 speaker points in front of me because it's unproductive and unnecessarily rude.

- My email is nofiguer@asu.edu if you have questions

IF Y'ALL DON'T PUT THE ROOM BACK TOGETHER WHEN YOU'RE DONE, I'M NOT DISCLOSING AND I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE PEN THAT I WILL INEVITABLY ASK FOR BACK.

Koji Flynn-Do The Harker School 3 rounds

Ruth Foust Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds None

Scott Franz Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Lansing Freeman La Cueva HS 4 rounds

Leann Galoustian Riverside STEM Academy 2 rounds

Peter Gao Hamilton High School 6 rounds None

Ankur Garg Hamilton High School 6 rounds None

Gwyndolynn Gentry Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Anthony Gerrettie Salpointe Catholic HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 8:03 AM MST

Anthony Gerrettie
Northern Arizona University, '05 B.S. in Public Relations and Speech Communication
University of Arizona, '08 Post Bacc in Secondary Education, English

Former Head Coach, Salpointe Speech and Debate (2009 - 2018)

Policy Debate Judging Philosophy
I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Prep time has been a disaster in paperless policy. Flash evidence efficiently or if it gets abusive or if your partner is prepping while you're flashing, I'm running the clock.

While I used to judge policy exclusively, I've only judged policy when needed for the past three years. I'VE SEEN A TOTAL OF 6 POLICY ROUNDS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

Speed: I've judged policy on and off for nine years so I'm decent with speed. I'll let you know if you need to slow it down, but if you're not clear, I'm not going to get it. If I can't hear it because you do not articulate, it didn't happen. Part of being a debater and winning is communication. GIVE ME THE TAG LINE SLOWLY AND THEN RAMP BACK UP.

Topicality: Very rarely do I vote that a plan is untopical. When I do, it's only because an alternative definition for something was provided and proved to be more effective that was not clashed by the affirmative and it was extended by the negative team calling the plan untopical. I SEE TOPICALITY AS A TIME SKEW THAT THE NEG WILL KICK OUT OF IN A LATER SPEECH. GO FOR T IF THEY DROP IT AND THEN MAKE IT YOUR MAIN VOTER ISSUE.

K: Kritik's are good but only with proper analysis. Here's where you need to use your voice, speed and volume to annunciate what in the K card makes that K good. I'll need more than a tag line if it's going to be evaluated seriously. You can't make critical claims without analyzing and I need to hear that analysis, but when you use K's, you really put yourself more in the hands of a judge than simply winning on other arguments would. They will have to philosophically side with your K.

CP's: I see CP's as a strong argument. Telling me you can do their plan better is a great way to win a debate. That being said, your counterplan needs to address all aspects of the preious plan. It's not a true counter plan unless it covers everything. Counter the counter plan by addressing all arguments, or perm it. A line by line argument on the flow will help with this.

DA's : Important for debate and clash. The best debates have clash and every debater has a ton of DA's, be sure you pull out the right ones.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

L/D Judging Philosophy

I'm doing my best to run a blank slate, but you need to know that I am an English Teacher (that means I love analysis), I'm a former High School Debate Coach (I'm familiar with the literature), and I keep up with what's going on in the world.

I will however leave as much of that as I can at the door and I'll listen to your arguments.

General Info for both sides.
What gets down on my flow is tag lines and author names. I'll listen to the actual article but tag lines is what I believe is important. If I need to evaluate it, I'll ask for it.

Value/Criterion Debate
One of the best ways to win my ballot, especially on the criterion. Explain to me why your criterion outweighs if you have a different one than your opponent. If you have the same criterion then explain to me why your contentions will do that better than your opponent. With the evolution of L/D debate, the framework is becoming less of an important argument. If you go traditional, win ont he framework, if you go progressive, you can win on an Off Care argument or turns of your opponents case.

Contentions
I'll listen to anything. If it's outrageous, then I expect your opponent to call you on it, and then I'll side with who makes the clearer and most logical argument.

Rebuttals
Address every argument your opponent makes. Obviously this can be difficult because you are low on time. If you don't address it, and they extend it, they win that argument. If you don't address it and they don't extrend it, I'll think and decide if I buy it. Essentially, the rebuttals are your chance to tell me how to think about something. When you don't I start thinking. We may not agree but if you don't tell me how to think then what else can I do.

Voting Issues
Summariing the round before your time is up on your last speech is excellent. Why should i vote for you? What impacts do you have? What will happen if I vote for your opponent? These are all valuable questions to help win my ballot.

Progressive LD Debate

LD is becoming more and more like policy. I enjoy progressive debate but only if you are aware of the literature. Too many students are running progressive arguments and don't understand them. If you're going to be progressive understand the literature and spend a minute or two in your final speech explaining why you were progressive and why you've won. Overexplain.

My Ballot
My vote comes from the flow. It's which arguments were won by the affirmative team against which arguments were won by the negative team, and the impacts that come with them. Impacts always outweigh. If the affirmative team wins 4 arguments and the impact is the economy, and the negative team wins 1 argument and solves for extinction, the negative wins. It's about impacts with me, and logical impacts. Please understand that no matter what, one side will be very happy with me and one side will be very upset with me. That's the nature of this sport/activity. My decision will be made and it will be explained, but it will not be questioned any way other than for clarity.

Any questions?
Tony.Gerrettie@gmail.com

Public Forum Judging Philosophy

I've spent the majority of recent rounds judging L/D and PF.

Contention Level

-The first speech should build your case. Observations and Framework should come first.

Rebuttal

-Rebut down the flow. Attack everything in order as it's given.

Summary

-Figure out where you're ahead and make that your speech. The summary should contain voter issues

Final Focus

-Tell me why you've won this ballot. You can only have access to arguments that the summary beings up. If the summary didn't mention it, you can't bring it back up.

Prep Time

-If you call for a card that's fine and great. Once you get that card in your possession, prep time starts. Your prep time will be used to read the card.

LJ Gomez Hire None

Sathvik Gowda Leland High School 6 rounds

Laurel Goycoolea Saint Francis HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 15, 2019 at 7:45 PM PDT

My background: I debated public forum in Colorado from 2005-2009 (also competed in DX). I'm now a PF coach at St Francis HS in CA.

Public Forum
I would consider myself a pretty old-school public forum debater which means I am looking for "the people's debate" not policy. I want to see solid argumentation and rhetoric. If you want to get meta, do policy or LD.

Do not spread if you don't want me to lose half of your arguments. I can follow normal human speech at a higher speed than regular conversation, but again, no spreading.

Be organized and know your own cards. I have little patience for debaters who can't easily find their own cards or don't know which of their cards go with their own contentions. Give correct citations: author last name and year at minimum!

Be civil. I am a big fan of stoic confidence, and I hate aggressive, steamrolling "confidence"/cockiness.

Be honest with your prep time, but don't be a hawk of your opponent. I don't want to see arguing over 2 seconds.

Earn your speaks. 27 is average/passable to me. Non-verbals matter - eye contact, shifting feet/balance, hand movements/toying with objects, etc.

Feel free to ask me questions!

Lincoln-Douglas
I am very new to LD judging and have only judged a handful of local, slower LD rounds.

I want to see good, solid argumentation: strong rhetorical skills, good persuasion. I will likely have a hard time following intricate theory or policy strategies. I'm a PF debater, I can't follow K's very well. 'Nuff said. I am frequently telling my PF debaters to use less debate jargon, so take that as you will for LD. In other words, I do not like unwarranted jargon and will ignore it.

I like to see a defined value and value-criterion and encourage creativity (util is fine, but is often run very cursorily/boringly). I am not great at quickly evaluating dense FW, so If you choose to read a dense FW, give me a decent overview of how offense operates under it; i.e. what do I evaluate, how it affirms or negates, how/if it precludes your opponent's argument and offense.

Do not spread if you don't want me to lose half of your arguments. I can follow normal human speech at a higher speed than regular conversation, but again, no spreading.

Be organized and know your own cards. I have little patience for debaters who can't easily find their own cards or don't know which of their cards go with their own contentions.

Be honest with your prep time, but don't be a hawk of your opponent. I don't want to see arguing over 2 seconds.

Earn your speaks. 27 is average/passable to me. Non-verbals matter - eye contact, shifting feet/balance, hand movements/toying with objects, etc.

Feel free to ask me questions!

Erin Granillo-Walker Hire

Kayla Green Hire

Last changed on Tue October 23, 2018 at 2:52 PM MST

A little bit about me, I debated two years of LD at Arbor View High School in Las Vegas, and this is currently my third year debating Policy at Arizona State University. I am a junior majoring in Political Science and double minoring in Philosophy and African and African American studies. Fill free to introduce yourselves before round, too! :)

When judging, I want you to tell me what to vote for. I want you to tell me what I should value most in round and why. Establish the voter issues in round and tell me what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

I am okay with spreading, but I will not vote on an argument that you do not articulate well enough to me, or that I simply cannot understand. If it's important, it is your job to make sure that I understand that. Why is everything that you are saying important? Why does what you have to say matter? Why are you right?

As far as policy and/or K debates, you run whatever you want to run; I will vote on anything. Debate shouldn’t be about debaters making the space better, it should be about debaters using the space to better themselves and others. You do you boo! I am not a fan of framework. Run at your own risk... I am fair though. I believe debaters should be able to talk about epistemology first and foremost if they want to, and I believe that you should be able to talk about things that you really care about, within reason. This is why I think framework is lame. Framework makes for boring debates in my opinion. There are no rules, only norms! Engage in the arguments being made! But with this being said, that doesn’t mean that you will absolutely not lose to it on the AFF if you don’t answer it well enough.

NEG, you need to prove to me why the AFF is a bad idea. Or else, I’m going to vote an affirmative ballot. AFF, you need to prove to me why you are a good idea. Or else, I will vote a negative ballot. Give me clash!

Flow and organization is important to me. I like to know where I am throughout the debate. I will not vote on arguments you drop in round. I am also not fond of new 2ARs and 2NRs. I will not vote on arguments that come this late in the debate. Your strongest arguments are most likely the ones articulated throughout the entire debate anyways.

I like to consider myself a smart gal, but it is likely that you know more about the topic and what you like to run more than I do. I am still learning too! Make sure you explain to me well enough what your position actually is in round. My face is pretty easy to read, so if I look confused its probably because I am. Don’t leave me lost at the end of the debate.

As for speaker points, be clear, be cordial, don’t be offensive, and have good articulations in round. Bonus points if you make me laugh.

Other than that, be nice and have fun!

Chris Greenleaf Catalina Foothills 6 rounds None

Khamani Griffin Flintridge Preparatory 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:03 PM PDT

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com ,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

content — good presentation of information, structure,
strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

RVIs on T,
friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

Jenifer Groman Paradise Valley HS

Erin Guiney Hire

Anil Gupta Mission San Jose HS 4 rounds None

Logan Guthrie Hire

Last changed on Sat November 12, 2022 at 6:47 AM PDT

Logan Guthrie

Coach at Mountain View High School, debated policy for Arizona State

lmguthrie0624@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am a tabula rasa judge that tries to minimize intervention as much as possible. This means that I value thorough extensions and arguments that arrive at a terminal impact. Unless otherwise argued, my default role as the judge is to compare competing worlds within an offense/defense paradigm. I am comfortable with speed and any literature base. Below are some thoughts on specific match-ups:

Plan vs. Counterplan

- I really appreciate numbered net-benefits when the debate gets muddled. Highlight the few stand-out impacts and then give judge instruction on how my decision should come together

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Be sure to explain why ontology or epistemology comes before policy-making

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just prove why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. Fw

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a risk of unfairness against the risk of framework reproducing fascism? The debater that answers that question best is probably going to win

- Defense counter-interpretations are more persuasive with a clear model of debate under the k

- Topical Versions of the AFF (TVAs) with an explicit plan text are more persuasive than general assertions that the AFF could have been topical

K vs. K

- Comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the K -- Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact

- The perm is probably important. I appreciate multiple, diverse arguments to prove or disprove competition (DAs, Solvency Deficits, etc.)

Theory

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so weighing between standards or voters is key. I much prefer quality over quantity; collapse to a few standards or a single voter and sit on it

Random

- Please do your best to have the speech doc flashed when prep stops

- I usually only read cards after the round if they are flagged

- Clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot!

Kusum Haranath Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds None

Nathan Harness Hire

Alexander Haw Hire None

Vi Ho Hamilton High School 1 rounds None

Raymond Hon Hire 6 rounds

Jake Hovis Valor Christian High School 6 rounds

Benjamin Hughes Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 1:59 AM PDT

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

Andrew Hull Salt Lake City West HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2018 at 8:18 AM MDT

Email for questions: andrewhull09@gmail.com

If you want to see the cool Star Wars Intro version of my paradigm, let me know and I'll send it to you via email. Otherwise, here's my boring normal version of my paradigm:

I debated PF for 3 years. I've judged a quite a few tournaments. I was closer to the progressive (to the extent that PF can be progressive) side of the spectrum when I debated, but am receptive to both traditional and progressive debate styles. That being said, my threshold for speed is fairly high, so long as you're being relatively clear. You'll probably be able to tell if I'm not understanding.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that grand cross-fire is the most useless 3 minutes in all of debate. Probably the most useless 3 minutes of anything. Ever. If both teams agree to skip it, I'm more than down.

How to win my ballot:

A) Win the flow. My strategy, when judge adaptation wasn't necessarily an issue, was to dominate the flow as best I could, and that translates to how I vote. You can do this in a variety of ways: outweighing on impacts (GIVE ME A WEIGHING MECHANISM i.e. PREFER THIS TYPE OF IMPACT OVER ANOTHER BECAUSE _______), clean extensions, delinking arguments, etc. My vote will almost certainly be based upon who won the flow, so work hard to win it. I am super receptive to even risky strategies, and may give you better speaker points for utilizing one. FYI, it is okay, and sometimes vital to drop arguments that you aren't winning. Go for arguments that you feel like you're stronger on. Tell me what you're winning, and why you're winning it.

B) Not being a jerk. A ballot isn't worth making a fool out of yourself.

Specifics:

Narrow down the debate at the end. View the round like a funnel. The content of summary and final focus should not be the entire flow, but exactly what arguments you're winning, why you're winning them, and why that wins you the ballot.

I don't care whether or not you stand for cross, do what makes you comfortable.

I may or may not call for evidence after the round if it becomes an issue or the debate is close. Quality of evidence is important, and may help you win the round.

I usually am pretty lenient on speaks, but a 30 is sacred. If you want it, you gotta be pretty much perfect. To get close to it, use speeches effectively and strategically, use evidence efficiently, and Batman or Pokemon references (only if they're good).

If you use a cost-benefit analysis, provide a weighing mechanism if possible. If you're going to use a framework, use it to give you a strategic edge.

Nadia Jafar Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Natalie Johnson Lone Peak HS 6 rounds

Jennifer Jung-Kim North Hollywood High School 2 rounds

Mani Kandan Hire 6 rounds

Kajol Kapadia Hire

Gia Karpouzis Flintridge Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2019 at 5:25 AM PDT

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

Elyse Kats Hire

Last changed on Sat December 3, 2016 at 9:32 AM MST

Blue Valley High School 2016- 4 years of policy, LD, and congress
Arizona State University 2020- Current policy debater

Please ask me any questions about this to clear anything up. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have after the round.

In general-
1) I prefer fast, clear, and technical debates; if you drop an arg it flows the other way. But please, do not try to go faster than you are able to. You need to do more than shadow extend cards.
2) Clarity is more important than speed. I'll say clear once or twice if I can't hear every word you're saying, but after that you'll just lose speaks if it's not clear.

Policy argument types:

Kritiks—I am not particularly well read in terms of literature, but I am more than willing to consider whatever you read. I have experience only in college with the K, so just make sure you're explaining everything well and I will be willing to vote on it.

Counterplans—Explain the solvency advocate and I'll consider any type.

Disads—I value impact calc heavily so make sure you're doing the proper analysis there, comparison is key. In terms of generic DA's I have a pretty high threshold for the link, so make sure you prove it.

Theory—I will vote on thoery in certain cases; however, I am more willing to reject the argument instead of the team. I usually think condo is good, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In terms of other theoretical arguments I don't have an inherent bias either way. You should always disclose, and I will vote on disclosure theory (if you prove the impact).

Topicality—I will definitely vote on T. However, if you explain why you're reasonably topical well I will default to reasonability. I view T like other arguments, if there's no link (violation) or impact (voters) then I won't vote on it.

Framework- I used to be a very policy-based debater, but I am definitely willing to consider alternative frameworks now. In general, just make sure your explain framework well and I will consider any type. On the aff I don't think you need a plan text/ state action, but the neg can convince me otherwise.

LD:

- I consider the value/ criterion debate first, make sure you do enough analysis here and challenge it first. If that debate becomes a wash I will default to the solvency/ impacts on the contentions.

- I'm willing to consider critical positions/ cases

- Look to my policy paradigm for further elaboration

ekats18@yahoo.com

Talla Khelghati Presentation HS 4 rounds

Keshav Kundassery Capitol Debate 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 12, 2022 at 5:50 AM PDT

Public Forum (See below for LD Specifics)

I debated for Mission San Jose High School from 2013-2017 and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your evidence.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and Kritiks, as long as they are well warranted.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, sexual assault, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

P.S. It's true, I stole this from Max (my better half)

LD Stuff:

- I have not watched circuit LD in years, so please don't go faster than ~225 wpm while speaking extemporaneously. If you are reading off of a speech doc, I really don't care.

- I love a good K debate, but many K debates tend to not be good ones. If you cannot conversationally explain your K to someone you know outside of debate, then you probably don't understand it and aren't using it in a compelling way in the round.

- That being said, I am still a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. Don't shy away from running anything in front of me, but if you go for it, it must be clearly explained and implicated in your last rebuttal.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at keshavkundassery99@gmail.com

Mary Anne Landefeld Skyridge HS 4 rounds None

Nick Leonardi BASIS Peoria HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 28, 2024 at 12:03 AM MST

Please do not spread.

If I feel like you are talking too fast, I will ask you to be clear twice. After that, if I can't understand you I will simply put down my pen. I believe that spreading is poison to the debate community. I do not want to be added to your email chain, as I should not have to read your case in order to understand it. If there is an evidence dispute or I feel like there is any other reason I need to see a card, I will ask. I find off-time roadmaps to be a waste of time, and while you are speaking I will always keep time and immediately drop my pen once your time is up.

I value topicality above all else. Debate should be an educational experience focused on the resolution. Regarding Ks, your arguments should not simply be ones that you could repeat ad-nauseam for any topic and a lot of Ks don't pass that test. In fairness, a Neg K can be topical and I will evaluate it accordingly if so. However, K Affs by their very nature generally do not meet the burden of defending the resolution and are there is a high probability of me just dropping you if you run one. Regarding Theory, be very careful. I recognize there are things that either side can do which are abusive or frivolous even if the base argument is topical. If you can thread that particular needle when responding, more power to you.

For weighing, I prefer probability over other mechanisms and I am receptive to timeframe as well. I'm fine with reasonable magnitude weighing too. However, we live in a reality in which extinction has not yet occurred despite the countless number of dire warnings given by debaters over the years. I feel like debaters are intelligent enough to understand the distinction of something that could arguably be true vs. an impact that is just included in your case as a magnitude bomb.

Finally, tech is of course important in any debate round, but I also recognize that there are also some things that are objectively true. If you have a card telling me the sky is green, that does not mean I have to accept it as the truth, even if your opponent does not have a specific card refuting that (because why would they?). However, for any reasonable argument that isn't straight-up factually incorrect and flows through, I will absolutely find them credible regardless of any previous opinions I have on a given topic.

The bottom line is that if you're being intellectually honest and recognize that a debate round exists within the confines the real world, that will maximize your chances of picking up my ballot.

Carl Liaupsin Catalina Foothills 6 rounds None

Thomas Littler BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Jasmine Liu Mission San Jose HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2018 at 1:49 PM EDT

I competed in PF for four years at Harker and am now a sophomore at Stanford. I'll flow all speeches in the round.

I evaluate framework and overviews first. I like it when debaters tell me what types of impacts are most important and how I should evaluate impacts. It helps you organize and helps me better understand where you’re going. It also improves your narrative.

I’ll only vote on voters and issues that are in the final focus. Don’t extend through ink (and if your opponents do that, please extend defense). I don't need the first summary to extend defense if it is not covered by the second rebuttal. Ideally, every voter at the end of the round should be packaged with three things: frontlines, extension of impacts, and weighing of those impacts. Please extend warrants where they are logically required for the impacts you are going for. Be strategic and don't go for everything.

I award speaker points based on how you speak in speeches and how you conduct crossfire, but content trumps style (rigorous argumentation beats pretty speaking). Speed is maybe ok if you’re clear and look out for non-verbal cues. Only do speed if you can manage to avoid sacrificing clarity and quality of argumentation. I also like getting an off-time road map (think about including things like where I should flow overview arguments, which contentions you might frontline in second rebuttal, or breaking down how you’ll attack a one-contention case).

Here are some situations in which I'll intervene:

1. I'll call for evidence if it is disputed in-round, or if there are 2 clashing pieces of evidence that are both extended and not weighed. Don't misrepresent evidence; I may drop the debater if I think the offense is grave.

2. If you don't weigh your impacts against your opponents', then I'm free to make my own conclusions about which ones matter more.

3. If you are blatantly offensive, I'll drop your speaker points and may drop you.

4. Theory is ok to check egregious abuse, though I've noticed that I usually have to do a decent amount of work to vote on it.

5. I'm never entirely sure what to do when critically important internal contradictions arise... so just avoid it

As a side note, regardless of the tournament rules, I will be a bit annoyed if you insist on no spectators in the room (or take any other action that shamelessly puts competition and education at odds). The educational value of watching others debate is immense. We come to exchange ideas, not to withhold them, and this is the part of the activity I have always loved.

Finally, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. If you're confused about my RFD after the round, I would rather you discuss it with me than to leave feeling dissatisfied; I always grew the most as a debater when I lost rounds.

Good luck!

Mark Mabie BASIS Independent Silicon Valley 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 11:28 AM PDT

TLDR; I debated parli in high school for 3 years and have been coaching PF, LD, and Parli for the last 9 years since then with state and national champions. I try do be as tabula rasa as possible. Refer to specifics below

Follow the NSDA debate rules for properly formatting your evidence for PF and LD.

If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read for the purpose of distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round

IMPORTANT REMINDER FOR PF: Burden of proof is on the side which proposes a change. I presume the side of the status quo. The minimum threshold needed for me to evaluate an argument is

1) A terminalized and quantifiable impact
2) A measurable or direct cause and effect from the internal link
3) A topical external link
4) Uniqueness

If you do not have all of these things, you have an incomplete and unproven argument. Voting on incomplete or unproven arguments demands judge intervention. If you don't know what these things mean ask.

Philosophy of Debate:

Debate is an activity to show off the intelligence, hard work, and creativity of students with the ultimate goal of promoting education, sportsmanship, and personal advocacy. Each side in the round must demonstrate why they are the better debater, and thus, why they should receive my vote. This entails all aspects of debate including speaking ability, case rhetoric, in-and-out-of round decorum, and most importantly the overall argumentation of each speaker. Also, remember to have fun too.

I am practically a Tabula Rasa judge. “Tab” judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. "Tab" judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. Although I will default all theory to upholding education unless otherwise told

Judge preferences: When reading a constructive case or rebutting on the flow, debaters should signpost every argument and every response. You should have voter issues in your last speech. Make my job as a judge easier by telling me verbatim, why I should vote for you.

Depending on the burdens implied within the resolution, I will default neg if I have nothing to vote on. (presumption)

Kritiks. I believe a “K” is an important tool that debater’s should have within their power to use when it is deemed necessary. That being said, I would strongly suggest that you not throw a “K” in a round simply because you think it’s the best way to win the round. It should be used with meaning and genuinity to fight actually oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, and explicitly exploitative arguments made by your opponents. When reading a "K" it will be more beneficial for you to slow down and explain its content rather than read faster to get more lines off. It's pretty crucial that I actually understand what I'm voting on if It's something you're telling me "I'm morally obligated to do." I am open to hearing K's but it has been a year since I judged one so I would be a little rusty.

Most Ks I vote on do a really good job of explaining how their solvency actually changes things outside of the debate space. At the point where you can’t or don't explain how voting on the K makes a tangible difference in the world, there really isn't a difference between pre and post fiat impacts. I implore you to take note of this when running or defending against a K.

Theory is fine. It should have a proper shell and is read intelligibly. Even if no shell is present I may still vote on it.

Speed is generally fine. I am not great with spreading though. If your opponents say “slow down” you probably should. If I can’t understand you I will raise my hands and not attempt to flow.

I will only agree to 30 speaker point theory if it’s warranted with a reason for norms of abuse that is applicable to the debaters in the round. I will not extend it automatically to everyone just because you all agree to it.

Parli specifics:

I give almost no credence on whether or not your warrants or arguments are backed by “cited” evidence. Since this is parliamentary debate, I will most certainly will not be fact-checking in or after round. Do not argue that your opponents do not have evidence, or any argument in this nature because it would be impossible for them to prove anything in this debate.

Due to the nature of parli, to me the judge has an implicit role in the engagement of truth testing in the debate round. Because each side’s warrants are not backed by a hard cited piece of evidence, the realism or actual truth in those arguments must be not only weighed and investigated by the debaters but also the judge. The goal, however, is to reduce the amount of truth testing the judge must do on each side's arguments. The more terminalization, explanation, and warranting each side does, the less intervention the judge might need to do. For example if the negative says our argument is true because the moon is made of cheese and the affirmative says no it's made of space dust and it makes our argument right. I obviously will truth test this argument and not accept the warrant that the moon is made of cheese.

Tag teaming is ok but the person speaking must say the words themself if I am going to flow it. It also hurts speaker points.

Public Forum specifics:

I have no requirement for a 2-2 split. Take whatever rebuttal strategy you think will maximize your chance of winning. However note that offense generated from contentions in your case must be extended in second rebuttal or they are considered dropped. Same goes for first summary.

I will not accept any K in Public Forum. Theory may still be run. Critical impacts and meta weighing is fine. No pre-fiat impacts.

Your offense must be extended through each speech in the debate round for me to vote on it in your final focus. If you forget to extend offense in second rebuttal or in summary, then I will also not allow it in final focus. This means you must ALWAYS extend your own impact cards in second rebuttal and first summary if you want to go for them.

Having voter issues in final focus is one of the easiest ways you can win the round. Tell me verbatim why winning the arguments on the flow means you win the round. Relate it back to the standard.

Lincoln Douglass and Policy:

I am an experienced circuit parliamentary debate coach and am very tabula rasa so basically almost any argument you want to go for is fine. Please note the rest of my paradigm for specifics. If you are going to spread you must flash me everything going to be read.

Email is Markmabie20@gmail.com

Kate McGarey-Vasey Salpointe Catholic HS 6 rounds None

Elizabeth Meerson La Salle HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 13, 2020 at 11:28 PM PDT

Debate doesn’t matter. Human rights atrocities happen no matter how I vote. We can only change what happens in a round, not in US foreign/domestic policy.

Coach for La Salle Pasadena. Coaching for 6 years @ local, circuit, TOC/NSDA Nats level.

Speed is fine (because debate doesn’t matter), but if it's not great, I'll let you know and say 'clear'. Don't spread--it's not a way to pick up my ballot (again, debate doesn’t matter). Threshold: 270 words, give or take.

New Summary/Prep rules: Spend 2 minutes on summary, then that third minute on weighing. Final focus--start with that weighing that your 1st speaker ended on, then do the extensions. Summary=collapse. Spend that newly acquired 3d minute of summary providing a comparative impact calc or link weighing or whatever, but explaining how you outweigh. Don't use summary as a 2nd/additional rebuttal, if you can help it. If you want me to consider your arguments in Final Focus, I need to have heard them extended through the Summary. Final focus should be mostly comparative weighing. I will vote for the team that recognizes their own arg in its relevance to their opponents'.

I have a soft spot for Kritiks (because debate is problematic), so you can try it out, but if your Kritik ends up doing more harm than good (taking advantage of a Kritik to pick up a ballot without truly interacting with the literature of the Kritik or understanding each party's participation in oppressive systems, etc. will annoy me), I'll not consider it and possibly intervene against you.

If I don't get something on the flow, it's because you didn't emphasize it enough. I'll weigh what's on my flow, and that's the best I can do.

Re: postrounding--I don't find it educational. In fact, as a woman in debate who has her decisions and presence questioned at nearly every intersection in this activity, I find that getting postrounded by debaters just makes the space hostile and exhausting. So if you find yourself disguising your anger at losing the round as "just asking questions about the flow/round to get better," or worse, trying to embarrass and discredit your judge or your opponents, I'll tank your speaks after the round is over. If you have questions (rather than a desire to regain some power that you lost in dropping the round), come see me outside the round and we can talk.

When in doubt, ask. Or strike me. Either works.

Nupur Mehrotra Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

David Mendoza Riverside STEM Academy 4 rounds None

Sherry Meng Corona Del Sol HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM MST

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Jacob Mitchell Horizon HS 4 rounds

Manush Mobarhan Presentation HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2018 at 6:34 AM PDT

I did Public Forum for four years at Presentation High School, and I'm a first year student at the George Washington University studying International Affairs and Economics.

Speed

I'm a firm believer that what sets Public Forum apart from other debate events that it really is for the public. As such, you should be clear and understandable to anyone who would watch. I will unwillingly keep up with speed; however your speaker points will suffer.

Arguments

I'm open to any and all types of arguments. In fact, I'm a big fan of nuanced or quirky arguments or interpretations of the topic as long as they are backed up with solid evidence. Framework can be useful but is not necessary. Do respond to your opponents' framework or else I will default to it.

Speeches

Second rebuttal does not have to defend their case in addition to the opponents. Summary and final focus are for telling me what's the most important and collapsing onto it. At the end of the day, collapsing on the right arguments is what sets apart good debaters and excellent ones. Final focus should be consistent with summary, and I won't weigh arguments that are in one but not the other. Lastly, weighing: you aren't going to be able to win every single argument. You might think you are, but you're not. So tell me which arguments are the most important and why.

Evidence

There is nothing I hate more than debaters who are shady with evidence. Misconstruing evidence ruins the purpose of having intellectual debate, and I will be very unwilling to vote for any team that does this. If your opponents are misconstruing evidence, ask me to call for the card at the end of the round. Furthermore, a personal pet peeve is teams that are stringy with their evidence. When opponents call for a card, give it to them promptly and allow them to read it as long as they need.

Other Points

-Crossfire was always my favorite part of debating, and I will highly rank debaters who can be both respectful and incisive during cross. That being said, I won't flow cross. If you are aggressive or rude to your opponent, I will drop your speaker points.

-I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

-I will really, really try my hardest to be tabula rasa. So if you tell me the sky is green, I will accept it until told otherwise.

Kam Moler The Nueva School 3 rounds

Omar Moore Capitol Debate 3 rounds

Austin Morgan The Nueva School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 2, 2023 at 7:27 AM MDT

For Zoom Debates: I may leave my camera on, but if it's off, don't worry; I'm still listening.

-I'm fine with speed.

-I love K debates, but have no objections to good "traditional" debates.

-I'm always ready, your partner is always ready, and the audience is always ready. Do not ask everyone this; it wastes time and it's saccharine and cutesy.

-I default to net benefits/CBA/util absent a framework provided by the debaters.

-I will vote on theory, and think it's likely that theory is an a priori issue. However, I'm open to arguments as to why theory isn't a priori.

-I will be familiar with the given topic literature. Moreover, I am highly familiar with K literature (basically every K).

-Don't talk over each other in cross-examination. Share cx time equally.

-I will vote you down if you're overtly discriminatory (ex. racist) in your arguments or your behavior in the round. In these instances, malicious intent is usually required, but not always.

-I'm fine with non-topical affirmatives and non-topical negatives.

-I'm fine with narratives, performances, etc.

-I will vote down arguments that are obviously morally problematic (genocide good, etc.).

-I'm open to arguments critiquing debate itself.

-I have a serious distaste for debaters who embrace this fashionable "bro-ey" style of delivery. This includes gratuitous use of the word "like" and the phrase "probably bad." Another example would be "yeah, so you affirm because of, like, Lacan." I think such behavior is more a sign of one's cultural capital in debate rather than a demonstration of effective argumentation.

-You need to give me the author, date, and related information *before* you read the evidence.

-I do not attach much weight to arguments making empirical claims in the absence of empirical evidence. In particular, I do not buy historical analyses that are not accompanied by evidence. You enter a debate round and then suddenly everyone's an expert.

-Peer-reviewed literature outweighs evidence from non-peer-reviewed sources absent a compelling reason why this shouldn't be the case (for example, arguments like "peer-reviewed articles are inaccessible to smaller debate programs" or "the knowledge production of the academy is ivory tower," etc.).

-I'm fine with cards that are about debate itself, unless they're written by your coach (have to punish bad debate practices).

-If you are incredibly clever in your approach to cross-examination, I'll reward you with high speaker points. My criteria for "clever" is anything that makes it tremendously obvious that your opponent does not know what they're talking about.

-I am entertained by references to Twin Peaks, "The Big Lebowski," as well as good imitations of Zizek. Such references won't give you any special benefits, but will entertain me.

Jake Morris Hire

Karthik Nambiar Paradise Valley HS

Kendrick Nguyen Chaparral 2 rounds None

Scott Nielson Horizon HS 6 rounds None

Jeffrey Niemiec La Salle HS

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 9:13 PM EDT

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

A fan of clean, structured, easy to follow debates. I'm big on pre-speech road maps and internal signposting. Staying on track and explaining to me where you're going indicates to me that you are in control of the round and your performance within it. Debates that get muddled aren't fun for anyone, so keep it clear where you are cross applying and clashing.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Also fine with jargon. Competed in policy so speed shouldn't be an issue. I prefer it to be a little slower as this is PF, but if I can't understand you it's almost certainly an issue with articulation, not speed.

Impact weighing should be a primary part of your final focus. If I don't know what you impact out to then what are we even doing here and why does it matter? I do my best to leave my biases at the door, but that also means I will not intervene for you. Don't sprinkle a trail of bread crumbs and lead me down a path without actually ending up somewhere. Don't imply impacts or warrants, state them directly. You shouldn't make me work to follow you, it should be easy.

Speaker points for me are a function of your ability to logically break down and explain your points in a clear and concise manner. In my opinion it's not about how pretty you speak, that's what IE's are for (a stumble here or there means nothing to me in debate). Be clear, articulate, logical, and explain where you are going and you'll get high speaks from me. Be warned though: in 12 years of judging debate I have given out less than 10 perfect 30's. To me, 30 means perfection, as in you could not have done anything better whatsoever.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Jeffrey Niemiec La Salle HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 9:13 PM EDT

Former college policy debater and speech competitor. Been coaching speech and debate for the last 12 years.

I won't time anything in round. Keep tabs on each other.

I do prefer you extend thru summary if you have time so I know what you're going for.

Definitions only help us stay on the same page so when they are helpful, they are appreciated. Totally down with an overview.

Framework is cool with me. Makes it easier to weigh the round.

Truth over tech.

Any other questions feel free to ask me before the round starts.

Penny O'Brien Park City High School Debate 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 12:50 AM MDT

Conflicts: Park City

PF Debate

I vote off the flow 10/10 times

Good evidence is awesome

Be bold and take risks

Defense is overvalued

Weighing and offense are undervalued

Things that make me happy:

- Great signposting

- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

- Lots of evidence

- Using Cross well - make it constructive. Be sassy. Being funny never hurts, either.

- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

- Jokes

- Off-time roadmaps 100% of the time.

Things that make me sad:

- Improperly citing evidence

- Miscutting/manipulating evidence

- Drawn-out discussions in Cross that go nowhere.

What I vote on - IMPACTS 1st!! If you don't provide impact calculations then I will base it off of what I think is most important. Framework (this means Value and Criterion) just because it's second doesn't mean I don't care about it. If you drop framework, I will drop you.

Extending Args - If you extend an arg, you have a very good possibility of winning the round, that said if you extend an arg and don't give me impact based on that idea, or a card, it's meaningless to me. When people say he/she didn't attack my card, it's not impactful and you don't win based on that.

CPs/’Advocacies’?

Big Fan - If you have a CP make sure you explain it correctly and always give impacts and solvency for your CP. If your CP doesn't have solvency I won't vote on it. Advocacies are a necessity in LD. If you don't advocate for anything then I think you are only trying to get out of the negative impacts of the case.

Observations/ Burdens - If the AFF or NEG uses an observation or burden, you must answer it or you will fall under that. This means if your case doesn't follow the observation I will vote you down. You must answer them, or risk losing the round.

The K?

I have never had a good reason to learn about Kritical debate, so I have no understanding of how quality K’s should function and work, or how to judge a K. That said, I’m not going to specifically penalize you for running a K, I just probably won’t know what’s going on.

Speed?

Okay - I like to speed up to 300 wpm-ish. If you go really, really slowly I will get bored and may miss an argument. Second, if I can't understand you then I will set my pen down. If you don't see the pen down I will say clear. After the second time, and if nothing changes, I will stop flowing completely.

Slow down on tags and authors if you’re a speed demon.

Other technical things:

- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both in 1AR and 2AR. Same for the NEG 1NR and 2NR

- If you bring up a new attack in the 2AR or 2NR, you may still win but your speaker points will make you sad

- I’m chill with any new evidence/args in the first summary, but no new evidence in the second summary please

- I don’t flow cross-ex (this is my me-time during the round)

Speaker Points:

Short version - good at debate = high speaks

- pretty speaker = entirely meaningless

Long version - I give speaks based on the competitiveness of a tournament:

30 – you should go to finals

29.5 – you’re probably in mid-to-late breaks

29 - you should clear

28 – you might clear

27.5 - average. 3-3, probably.

26 - below average

25 and below - means that you were abusive and mean to your opponent

Valielza O'Keefe Northwest Career And Technical Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2018 at 2:10 AM PDT

My number one rule: if you're a douche, you lose.

If the round devolves into a yelling match or teams bullying each other, I will not be happy. You start mansplaining, using ad hominem, any of that, I don't care what your arguments are, because you don't deserve to break. Please be respectful and cordial to your opponents, regardless of the circumstances.

Now that the serious stuff is out of the way: I am a founding member of my team, NWCTA from Las Vegas, was PF captain for two years, and I qualified to Nationals (2017), ended with a ballot of 7-5 and competed in IntPF, Tournament of Champions (2017) Silver, and broke at ASU (2017).

Technical preferences:

1.) You won't lose me on the flow, but don't spread or I will like you less. This is PF, not policy.

2.) Make eye contact with me, not your opponents. This goes for giving speeches and cross-examination periods.

3.) Things said, whether they be additional cards or responses, during cross-examination do not affect the round. If you would like them to, reference them in one of your speeches. Cross-ex does not factor into my judging of the round, but I do use it to award speaker points. I will not flow cross-ex, but I will be listening.

4.) Because my political opinions are so strong, I judge tabula rasa (blank slate) to keep it as fair as possible. If you tell me something, I will take it as true unless it's blatantly false, racist/bigoted, etc. However, I will be well-read on the topic, and I will call out disputed cards or anything I find fishy after the round is over.

5.) If you speak well, I will award speaker points appropriately, but don't assume your speaking ability will carry the round. I will give the round to the quiet team with well-developed arguments over the loud, obnoxious team that insists on addressing me and insisting "Judge, sign your ballot right now because..." No. (Do not address me directly, that is one of my biggest pet peeves.)

6.) Summaries need to be used exclusively for weighing and impact calculus. Tell me how to weigh. If you leave the weighing up to me, you will not like the results.

7.) All points made in summary need to be extended into final focus. Whatever is not extended will be dropped.

8.) Roadmaps are great. Attempt to number your responses and move down the flow. Be concise with your words. I'll be listening; if you say something once, unless you're extending the point, you do not need to repeat yourself.

9.) Do not go over time for summaries and final focuses. 10 seconds is permissible for constructives and rebuttals.

Aha, I didn't intend for this to be so serious - but I hope this conveys that I will be judging your round with a lot of active engagement and consideration. Looking forward to seeing you in-round!

(If you can make a joke about anime that is relevant to your case, I will bump you up to 30 speaker points.)

Patricia Ong Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Jennifer Partridge BASIS Scottsdale 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 2, 2019 at 6:31 AM MST

I have been judging speech events since September of 2017. I have judged almost every event, and am fairly familiar with the rules.

I would like the name of your piece beforehand, especially for impromptu and extemp. Note, this does not mean the prompt, but the actual name you give your speech. Puns are preferred, though not necessary (if you want to lose). If you are doing oratory, be sure that your piece does not contain too many quotes. I count every single word that comes out of your mouth, and I will know if you go over the 10% maximum. If you are doing interp, I hope that you have the source material with you, as this is a requirement according to the NSDA rules. I like to read along in order to ensure adherence to the source material. This goes double for duo. In informative, you will be marked down for every fact or statistic you say that I already know: you can't call it informative if you're not teaching me new things. Additionally, bonus points will be awarded if you use a chair as a "visual aid" because standing is difficult with the amount of sleep deprivation you undoubtedly have. In all events that I judge, an extra speaker point is awarded if someone shouts, "World star!" after a joke that I find funny, both to the shouter and the joke teller. Rapping automatically ensures 50 speaks, unless your flow is whack, dawg. That is not dank nor is it on fleek.

Speech is supposed to be a fun event. Make me laugh or make me feel something emotionally. Hopefully you can tell that I have a sense of humor. It goes without saying that the middle paragraph should be completely disregarded. Paradigms are mostly a debate thing, but high school students do tend to be paranoid. Anyway, that's my 20 cents. If you didn't understand that pun, you lose ten speaker points. I can always tell based on the look in your eyes ;)

P.S. It has come to my attention after I submitted this that I will be judging debate as well. Bring your own coins. I am broke. I expect that you will all be timing yourselves, though I do keep time as well (even if it is by counting out loud the entire time in the event that my phone dies). I pay attention to crossfire. My son has informed me that I do not flow formally, though I do take extensive notes of the arguments made throughout the round when I'm not doodling. I am aware that final focus is only permitted to extend things that were stated in summary. I'm not familiar with kritiques or theory shells, but go ahead and try them, especially if they mention Kanye West. I am more lay than tech, but less lay than most. If you find an excuse to engage in a rap battle to determine the victor of the round, you are not the first one I've seen (I wasn't the judge for that round, but I have heard the GLORIOUS stories). This remains to be my 20 cents, and even though debate is often less humorous, I expect the same understanding of my puns.

Erik Perez Juan Diego Catholic High School 2 rounds

Nicholas Petsas Brophy College Prep 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:25 AM MST

Background:

State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

What I expect/prefer:

In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

Stephen Pettit Northwood Independent 6 rounds None

Les Phillips The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 3:38 AM PDT

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Anna Potrafke BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

jackie prokopeas The Harker School 3 rounds

Nathan Quarton George Washington CO 2 rounds

Emaad Raghib The Harker School 4 rounds

Anand Rajavelu Mira Loma Matadors 2 rounds

Brenna Ram Hire

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2018 at 12:56 AM MST

4 years of policy debate at St. Francis HS, fourth year policy debater at ASU. I coach for DV. I do not flow straight down. I will probably vote on your dirty tech tricks if you win that I should vote on them.

If someone wins that I should be a policymaker or look at offense/defense I'll evaluate the debate accordingly. I CAN be persuaded that there is zero risk of something. I'll vote for anything if you win that's what I should vote on.

I STRONGLY hold the line on new 1ar/2nr/2ar arguments; I will confidently default to not evaluating a new rebuttal argument.

Historical analysis and demonstrably deep/nuanced knowledge of your argument is very, very persuasive for me.

I'm much better for straight-up policy debates than you think I am.

k stuff I'm particularly familiar with: triple o, foucault, queer theory, postcoloniality & decoloniality, hillman, berlant, Nietzsche, lacan, fanon

I will buy your internal link turns to framework if that's the best way your aff interacts with the topic - you don't HAVE to impact turn framework if you don't want to.

This is a thing now I guess: if a question is asked in cx but there’s not enough time to answer, you can ask the cx-ing team if they’d like to use their own prep time to answer it. Do it fast. Then that’s it. I have gotten bored and am not listening anymore. Example: the 1A shouldn’t continue cxing the 1N during the entire span of 2AC prep, but the 1N CAN say "would you like to use your prep for me to answer the question" if the question was asked before the timer went off.

Don't say things are postmodern when they're not postmodern. pet peeve. "Postmodern" does not mean "confusing."

Also I hate when people say stuff like "no perm bc it's a method debate" or "fiat solves the link" or "perm shields the link to midterms" with no explanation. That's not an argument. I'm not writing it down.

The perm doesn't need a net benefit to win the debate because it's a test of competition. It doesn't even need a card explaining why it's possible (although having one doesn't hurt).

You can get my vote on "neg gets one unconditional option."

I only say "clear" twice (per person).

Colin Redman Hire

Victor Rivas Umana Saratoga HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:35 AM PDT

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Andrew Roberts Starrs Mill High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2018 at 8:24 AM MST

I'm a new judge to official Debate, so a lot of my paradigm is based on that. I'm not new to judging arguments, however; you will be judged based on how well you support your argument and refute the opposing argument with evidence from strong, reliable sources.

Preferred Rate of Delivery:

I don't like spreading; if you're talking faster than I can understand, I can't/won't write down your argument. That being said, you don't need to be conversational, and speaking rather quickly is fine, just keep it reasonable.

How do you decide the winner of the round?

I choose the winner of the key arguments, emphasizing the use of analytical and empirical evidence and weighing the theoretical impacts based on said empirical evidence. You don't need a framework, but they help; if one team has a more convincing, empirically-based framework, they will likely be able to show greater impacts.

Other Notes:

It's important that you signpost your rebuttal -- indicate exactly what contention/sub-point you're referencing.

Always cite your sources, obviously.

Avoid excessive use of jargon: make sure it has a clear purpose, or you risk being misunderstood by me. (new judge)

General advice to competitors:

Explain to me why I should vote for you -- you must weigh/compare impacts, not just present your own. Give me clear, reasonable, key-voting issues in summary, and explain why you win those arguments. If you convince me of a way to decide who wins, you have much more control over how the outcome.

If your opponent says something important to your argument in cross, bring it up in a subsequent speech, since my notes will not be as detailed for cross.

Similarly, if you call for a card, mention it in a later speech.

Refute the opposing team's claims, you can't win an argument if you don't address the opposing side.

Make sure your cards are organized and easily accessible.

I can't stress enough that I must be able to understand your argument in order to judge it: do not spread, do not excessively use jargon I might not understand.

Brett Rydalch Grantsville HS 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 28, 2018 at 3:59 AM MDT

“This forum, like all public forums, is a waste of time”

- Ron Swanson (JK, I just love Ron.)

Public Forum:

TLDR;

- Read good evidence and make sure I can understand the card citation. Its not real if I can't hear where its from.

- Defense is overvalued

- Weighing, indights and offense are undervalued

Things I enjoy seeing in round:

- Signposting

- Turns > Link debates

- Empirics and quantifiable impacts.

- Lots of evidence

- Risky/Off-the-wall arguments… as long as they still make sense.

- Well-weighed arguments extended through the Final Focus, even if that means you’re kicking out of others. Write my ballot for me. Some of the best teams I’ve seen lose and/or drop every argument but one, and still win the round.

- Use Cross well. Make it constructive. Being funny and/or sassy never hurts, either.

- Flashing evidence or being able to hand over evidence speedily.

- Give me clear voters. Tell me why I should vote for you in your Summary/FF.

Things I DO NOT like:

- Improperly citing evidence.

- People that lie in the 2nd FF

- Off-time roadmaps. The only time to give one is if I need a new piece of flow-paper because you’re going off-case, or if you’re doing something otherwise out of the ordinary.

- Miscutting/manipulating evidence

- When you say an author and I can't understand. Don't be like..."Blah, 17 says..."

- Using rhetoric claims about discrimination and abuse or anything. Be careful about making blatant statements about these topics that could across as offensive.

- I pretty much hate framework. Most PF teams provide a framework and then really don't work within it or it becomes a framework debate. I DO NOT, REALLY DON'T, LIKE SERIOUSLY HATE a 45 min debate on framework and the case does not adhere to the framework you present. Yes...you all run C/B Analysis for 99% of everything and most of you don't understand anything about economics or actually present a valid C/B Analysis then just don't waste our time. Let's just agree that the flow is king and you need to prove stuff. Lets just agree there is one framework..Impact Calc...I will weigh who has the better impacts. Enough said.

Don’t do these things in front of me.

Speed: I like speed up to like 325 wpm. If you go really really slowly I might get bored and start drawing pictures of butterflies and flowers on my flow, so speed is prob in your best interest. Slow down on tags and authors if you’re really fast.

Other technical things:

- I’ll only evaluate things that are in both Summary and FF.

- I don’t flow crossex, but you should refer to things that happened in cross in your next speech. I don't care how you do it or even if you do it. Please don't try to be sneaky and assume you can stare at me during cross and think you can get another speech in. Naw, I'm good and don't care what you have to say. I will probably be on my phone, computer or watching Netflix or something.

Experience

I coach PF.

I life PF.

I work with NSDA in PF.

PF is good.

anjalee sadhwani Hire

Scott Schuerman Gilbert Classical Academy 2 rounds None

Aashney Shah Desert Vista HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2018 at 7:12 AM MST

I'm not really good at putting this into words so if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.

I competed in Public Forum nationally and locally (AZ) all four years of high school, and dabbled in Extemp and Congress.

Speeches: In rebuttal, it is really easy to try to talk fast and have 7-10 responses per argument, but most of the time that means that each response is barely covered and there is a high chance that one response has been reiterated a few times, just with different words/cards. Please don't do that, I would much prefer quality of your responses to quantity of your responses. I expect that you maintain consistency between summary and final focus. If they are not consistent I will not weigh something said in summary and not FF and vice versa. However, just telling me to 'flow through ____ card' is not sufficient, I must get the link chain, and explanation of why that card is important. Also, WEIGH, I am sure that if you don't, and I end up doing the work, neither of us will have a fun time with the decision. Make sure that you collapse in summary and final focus, this makes it easier to judge the round and it makes everything much clearer. Also, make sure that your narrative is strong. Remember, you should tell me a story, don't just read cards and expect me to understand your argument, make sure that I understand step by step why your argument functions and makes sense.

Evidence: If you read something in any speech, it should be readily available and so if the opposing team asks for it, I will give you 30 seconds to look for it before I start cutting into your prep time. Also, please abide by evidence rules. I will ask for evidence if hotly contested or if its validity is questioned.

How to win my ballot: Basically, do all the things you were taught to do: Link out and warrant each argument you are going for, make sure you have offense, and most importantly, tell me why you win and why I vote for you.

Notes:

- Please try to respond to every argument brought up in constructives, otherwise it allows for easy offense for your opponents.

- Don't flow through red ink, I will be flowing and I will know if the argument has been responded to.

- I won't listen to CX wholly, bring it up in a speech if its mentioned in CX

- Only use FW/Observations/Definitions if they really are beneficial to your case/the round. If it is just "cost-benefit analysis" or "Merriam-Webster defines ___" it just takes away from the substance of your case.

- Run whatever arguments you want but just make sure that the link chain is clear, and everything is properly warranted and linked.

- Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, etc. Just be a nice person, its easy.

- Signposting is nice, please do it.

I also have two huge pet peeves:

1) Please please please do NOT give me an off time roadmap if it is "down their case, then if time permits mine" or "the three voting issues". Only give me a roadmap if it is something completely out of the ordinary that I should know.

2) Do not count down the time to your speech "3, 2, starting... now". Just start talking, I trust you to take time for yourself.

I really am bad at saying what I look for in a round so if you have any specific questions don't hesitate to ask!

Roman Shemakov McClintock 4 rounds

Jing Shi Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds None

Kaylee Silber Hire

Amanda Sloan Coral Academy Of Science Las Vegas 6 rounds

Braxton Smith BASIS Ahwatukee 2 rounds

Raj Soni BASIS Scottsdale 2 rounds

James Stage American Heritage 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 4, 2023 at 5:09 AM EDT

THE OG PARADIGM

Former Competitor: 2008 - 2011

Coach - 2011 - 2019

Speed - Go for it, I am not the best with speed but if you go for it, it isn't going to lose you points. I won't say clear or give you any indication that I am missing things though so you are taking a slight risk.

Weighing - Do it. Seriously, If I am given any clear weighing analysis in the round I will go for it. My resume and background reads like a moderate Republican's fantasy. You probably don't want me making personal decisions about how I think we should craft policy or evaluate vague concepts.

Signposting - Clearly tell me where you are going in the round. If I get confused I get disinterested and if I get disinterested I get onto Netflix and watch West Wing with the subtitles on.

Off-time Roadmaps - Do them. If you say you are going to read an overview or a framework, tell me where to put it or I will put in in my computer's trash file and empty it after your speech.

Crossfire - I might look like I am not paying attention to your crossfires. That's because I am not. Thats for you to clarify the round and for me to add detailed comments to the ballot. If something interesting happens, let me know in a speech. If you are going to start hitting someone, let me know and I will get out a camera.

Extending Defense - Meh. You don't really have to do this in my opinion but obviously if your opponents go through ink you might want to remind me of that fact, especially if it is on something you really want me to care about.

Weighing Pt.2 - Please do this. I am begging you.

SPECIAL LD EDITION

If I had a PF team that had the capacity to come this wouldn't be necessary but, for now, here we are. Doomed to dance this dance until my obligation of a minimum of three ballots are up and I have left your hopes and dreams broken at my feet.

Let's start this off on the right note. I know enough about LD and all of its components to be dangerous. In clearer terms, when you tell me what you are going to try to do I will conceptually understand what you are going for but I will lack the experience or wherewithal to implement your vision on my flow. See? Dangerous.

Don't take this to mean I don't care about the event or that I don't look forward to these rounds. Do take it to mean that if you are planning on taking any risks or doing anything tricky, that your opponent stands to benefit from my ignorance as much as you.

Speed (Preface): Good luck. Seriously, good luck. Speed is an excellent tool to put more arguments out there on the flow but maybe we want to make sure I understand the basic ones you are dropping first? Just a suggestion. And no, I won't do that "Clear" business. Adapt or die. This is forensic darwinism.

Technical Debate: Solid meh. You can. I won't drop you for it and I get that the adaptations I am asking for will mean that you need to adjust in ways that will force you to use it.

Defaults: Let's return to that dangerous thing. I don't really have any default preferences that I have developed over my lackluster experience judging. You can read my paradigm below for PF to see if you glean any information from that but otherwise, I am tabula rasa to a fault and will stick to what I am given in the round despite any personal beliefs or pre-existing knowledge.

Disclosure: Unless you are disclosing who wins the round before I need to judge it, it's not something I really care about. I buy why disclosure is a good thing and I also get how it can be abused given enough resources. If it becomes an issue I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round and not the ones in my head.

I hope this helps although it undoubtedly will leave you in a state of fear akin to the people of Pompeii as the ash cloud descended on their once-idyllic town.

For email chains my email is jstagey@gmail.com.

Emily Su Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 8, 2020 at 12:46 PM MST

I did PF for 3 years, and dabbled briefly in Policy (it was rough lol). I graduated from ASU this past December with degrees in Economics and Justice Studies, and I'll be going to law school this fall.

I value evidence and warrants a LOT. I usually won't call for cards unless it was pretty heavily contested during the round, but pls don't use evidence that's sus-- if I notice that your card is clipped or contradicts your contentions, that'll still count against you. Pls download the entire card because it's important for context! That being said, what matters is not always the quantity of cards, but rather the quality and how you explain them and impact them out. Don't just tell me that x causes y-- tell me why there's a causal relationship. Warrants are how you show that you actually understand your argument. And even if an arg doesn't have a ton of evidence backing it up, you should still answer the logic of the contention. Also, I care a lot about impact calc; if you don't weigh things for me, I'll have to weigh them myself and that might not be in your favor. Tell me how to vote!

I care a lot about consistency, so if you wanna go for something in your FF, flow it through in your summary.

As for crossfire, I probably won't pay much attention... I don't flow cross, so reiterate any important points in later speeches. I don't really care whether y'all stand or sit, whichever's more comfortable for everyone!

Roadmaps are pretty useless for rebuttals unless you're doing something weird, like answering the third contention at the top of the flow. Signposting is really important in all your speeches, though, so I know where to place things on my flow. For summary and final focus, roadmaps can be helpful if you specify your key voters, or if you're gonna read an overview. But if you're just saying something like "I'm addressing my opponents' case, then extending my own," or "I'm gonna go through some key voters and why we won," it's fairly pointless.

Speed is fine, as long as you're clear and enunciate your tags and key pieces of evidence/impacts that you really want me to pay attention to. I'll let you know if you're going too fast, and pls don't spread! Also, pls keep your K's and high-level theory away from PF. I won't run prep while you're looking for evidence that your opponents wanna look at, but I'll start prep once you begin looking over that evidence.

If I hear an arg that's racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., I'll automatically drop that argument and tank your speaks. I'll do my best to judge tabula rasa, but I value truth over tech.

Bonus speaks if you say "crystallize," have funny tags, or make a pun during the round!

Fargo Tbakhi Hire None

Andrea Thompson Sky View 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:27 AM EDT

Email: andrea.thompson@ccsdut.org

I'm a fairly traditional former CX and PF debater and current debate coach. I do not mind some speed, but I would like if debaters at least slow down for taglines so we can all keep track of where the debate is taking place on the flow. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. I really enjoy stock issues debate/on case argumentation. DA's and CP's are alright, too -- just adequately connect them to the case at hand! Theory and Kritiks are okay as long as you can explain them clearly and convincingly, and you actually link them to the case. I have voted for NEG on T's before, but I'm rather skeptical about them as a whole -- if you legitimately think the AFF is kind of untopical, go for it, but T's shouldn't be used as a mere time-suck. Conditional NEG arguments are dicey to me. In the end, I always use my flow to determine who has won the round. I'm excited for some beautiful policy fun!!!

I'm a fairly traditional current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I love framework debates when debaters really weigh values and connect their contentions to their value and criterion. As a whole I'm not a huge fan of kritiks or counterplans in LD, but if you can explain it clearly and convincingly, you could definitely still win a round running such a case with me as judge. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. LD is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.

I'm a fairly traditional former PF debater and current debate coach. Although evidence is certainly important, I believe that it is the application of evidence and logic of an argument that really makes it compelling. I do not mind some speed, but I would rather debaters speak TO me rather than read/spread/spew AT me. I appreciate framework debates (whether practical or more LD in nature) and on case arguments, but I am not a fan of counterplans/topicalities/squirrely PF cases. I'd prefer if debaters debated about the topic rather than about the game of PF itself. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. PF is not CX, so a dropped argument is in and of itself not necessarily a reason to win or lose a round - it all depends on what argument is dropped, and what the response to the dropping of it is. In the last speech, I should be given voters - the reasons why you've already won the round. I always use my flow to determine who has won the round.

Abbey Toye Hire None

Michael Tristano Phoenix Country Day School 2 rounds None

Chetty Venkateswari Riverside STEM Academy 3 rounds None

Caleb Vinson Hire

Michael Wang Hamilton High School 6 rounds None

Zhengdong Wang Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Chase Williams Hawken 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:14 PM EDT

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Melisa Wilson Westridge School 6 rounds

Day Woodruff BASIS Chandler HS 2 rounds

Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:35 AM MST

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.

Michael Wornow College Prep 6 rounds

Jinnie Xie Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 6, 2020 at 3:32 AM MST

I am a Hamilton High School (AZ) and Emory University alum. I debated in public forum in high school in the local and national circuit.

TLDR: Speed is fine but be clear, Warrants and Impacts are important so please extend them, Know your evidence and have your full cards ready, Don't be rude.

*For the medicare for all topic* ---- I am currently pursing a career in medicine and also currently work with patients everyday. I would say I have a pretty good understanding of how health insurance coverage and lack there of directly impacts patients and medical practices. I do not judge tabula rasa. With that in mind, please do not argue or state something that blatantly goes against humanism or makes no sense in a clinical setting. Even though the topic is on a bill and can be political, remember that patients are human and doctors actually care, regardless of what some random person in your evidence states.

Speed

I’m fine with speed as long as you are clear and audible and enunciate. Please do not spread. If you do choose to speak quickly, please go down the flow line by line or signpost. Even if you give an overview, signpost. If you're going to read your case quickly, slow down or pause before and after giving me taglines.

Speeches

My decision is mostly based on what is said in the final focus. If you’re going for something in the final focus, you absolutely need to flow it through in your summary EXCEPT for defense from rebuttal. You should frontline if you have time.

When extending impacts/responses/cards, you need to extend at least one warrant with it or else it's not going on my flow. Do not extend through ink. Please weigh and tell me what I'm voting for.

I don't pay attention to crossfire. On the off chance that something important happens during cross, bring it up in later speeches for me to consider it.

I tend to focus a lot on evidence. If I end up calling for a card at the end of the round and I see that you've clipped it to help your side and your opponents didn't call you out on it, I'm still going to use the evidence against you. So, it's in your best interest to not to use sketchy cards; make sure you know what your evidence actually says. PLEASE DOWNLOAD FULL CARDS.

Some other things:

I am by no means really good at or extremely informed in the history, polisci, or economics department, and possibly current events. This means that any background information that I need to know in order to understand your arguments needs to be addressed either in your case or at some point in the first half of the round. This is something that I think debaters should do anyway, but I find that it is not the case for most. Feel free to ask me about my familiarity with the topic/subject before the round. You can also assume that I know more of the topic the later the round is in a tournament.
I do not judge tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean I will develop your arguments for you. If there is something very wrong/flawed about your argument, I probably won't give it to you even if the other team doesn't call you out on it.
I would probably describe myself as a 85% flow judge 15% lay judge. If the round is between 2 very strong teams (i.e. multiple bids) and/or it is a late outround at a national tournament, treat me like a 50% flow 50% lay judge in the 2nd half of the round because my RFD at that point will probably be "you were more convincing" or "your side makes more sense to me."
Please don't assume I know what your acronyms stand for because I probably don't.
Please keep things like counterplans and Ks away from PF. I will look at disads, tho I prefer more traditional arguments.
Most importantly, please be respectful; there is a fine line between being aggressive and being condescending/rude. Be aware of what you're saying and how you're saying it, and be aware of your actions regardless if you're speaking or not.

Bonus points if you incorporate puns, song lyrics, or the words “duty” and "lugubrious" in your speeches or get creative with fun/nontraditional taglines :)

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round!

George Yang BASIS Scottsdale 4 rounds None

Zia Yavari BASIS Scottsdale 2 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2018 — Tempe, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges