Key Takeaways

Signposting and organization is critical. Be polite to each other. Extend your arguments, and delve deeper into the analysis by explaining the interactions between arguments.

CX

Theory and Topicality

I default to reasonability on topicality, and while I enjoy a good theory debate, you must clearly explain the harms done and significance of your opponent's argument.

Kritiks

I'm open to any kritik, but don't assume that I'll understand every argument out there. Clearly explain the philosophy backing your kritik, and create a compelling story about how the aff links to it. Also, if you run a kritik, make sure your alternative is clear and actionable outside of the debate round. While in-round education is important, I prefer to see alternatives that can be creatively scaled up.

Counterplans and Disadvantages

Love these! I especially enjoy counterplans paired with a disadvantage that believably acts as a net benefit.

Side note

Don't use theory or kritiks for the express purpose of confusing your opponent. I have much more respect for debaters who clearly explain obscure terms to make sure that all in the round have a full understanding, compared to those who attempt to make the debate inaccessible.

LD

I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. If you are going to read a passage explaining your value/value criterion, make sure it contributes to your argument meaningfully and you actually have an understanding of what you are saying.

If you and your opponent have the same value and value criterion, you should dedicate a portion of your speech to expressly explaining why your contentions allow you to better achieve that value criterion and value compared to your opponents.

Speed

All speeds are fine. If you're spreading, just slow down on the taglines and any particularly important points within the card.

Speaker Points

25 - terrible round with massive flaws in speech.

26 - bad round. Glaring clarity, time management, or fluency issues.

27 - average. No large mistakes but persistent errors nonetheless.

28 - above average. Few mistakes. The quality of speech made the argument more compelling.

29 - well above average.

30 - fantastic.

Cross Examination

All arguments brought up during CX must be extended and developed in actual speech time.

Pronouns: She/her & they/them

email chain pls: carrjazz@isu.edu

tabs judge. Please do the work for me because I won’t accept just name dropping impacts, you need to do the weighing analysis! I will be able to keep up with flowing no matter the speed, just stay coherent and we’ll be cool. Also just don’t be rude to each other. That makes debate a very toxic place. I don’t mind a little sass and clash. That’s just entertaining tbh.

Background:

I went to a really policy oriented school. I did nothing really but, policy. I don’t count that one time in pf... However, just because I was in a more traditional circuit does not mean I’m a only traditional debater. I did go to some national circuit tournaments and had to adapt. I went to pretty progressive debate camps for three years. I coach policy for local high schools now and I judge while I’m a full time student.

Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:

congress: I’ve done Congress a couple times and did fairly well. I know how procedures function. Please don’t repeat speeches and say you have a new point when you really don’t. It’ll make me happy. (:

Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I do help some teams currently. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. (:

LD: I know a lot about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged it soooo many times and I know how to keep up.

Parli: I have never competed in parli but, I have seen it and my judging methods below still apply :)

Voting methods:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression...

F/W: I love f/w but, if it’s done well. In public forum if you give me a cost ben, then i don’t really care for it tbh. But, in policy and LD I love a good F/W debate.

Theory: I ran theory quite a bit in high school and I will vote on it if it is structured, warranted, and ran properly.

K’s : fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I also love a good K debate. Link of omissions are not something I’ll Vote on. Do the actual link work for me!

CP: i ran lots of CP’s, I also will follow a CP round. However please make your CPs mutually exclusive!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t.

Speed: I’m cool w/ it just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also make sure to sign post !!

Background:

-2 years in Public Forum Debate in Ohio

-Qualified for State Tournament both times

-Email: ellen.cheng@emory.edu

Judging Preferences:

-I judge off the flow

-I can handle fast speeds of talking, but please enunciate and speak clearly

-I value respect in the round. Don't be condescending, rude, or interruptive

-I do not flow CX. If you need to, include your CX point in your speech

-Off-time road maps are appreciated. Please signpost as well.

-I will only disclose when it's allowed

-Please keep track of time by yourselves.

-You may only run theory if the other opponent understands/runs theory as well

How I Make My Decision:

-I will vote for the team that weighs the best and also explains their weighing

-Please make sure your arguments interact with your opponent's arguments. If arguments do not interact, I will consider that contention a wash

-If you don't flow your argument through summary to final focus, then I will not use your argument in my final deliberation

-No theory. I don't understand it

Notes:

-I usually don't call for evidence, will only do it if necessary

Former political candidate. Campaign worker, director of outreach. Advocate. Leader. Reporter. Former debate student.

I place a high priority on speech delivery - eye contact, poise, etc.

Stock issues matter.

Evidence is the key.

Make me believe what your facts are.

PF:

1. Speak clearly and do not spread. While I will not automatically cast a ballot against you for spreading, I will lower your speaker points if I cannot understand you.

2. If you're using statistics to defend your point, give a clear interpretation for them. I cannot trust stats that you don't put in context for me.

3. Do not interrupt your opponent during crossfire. Discourtesy will result in a loss of speaker points.

4. PF should be accessible-- limit your use of jargon and make your arguments clear. No one benefits from intentional confusion.

im a lay judge lmao

nah but fr

Debate is a communication activity. At the end of the day, if you can't communicate your arguments articulately and explain to me why you won, you didn't win. You can be as tech as you want but if you can't communicate, you won't win.

Consider me PF flow.

Specifics:

No progressive arguments. Treat these online tourneys like real tournaments. If I think your progressive argument isn't related to substance or isn't calling out abuse, I'll stop flowing.

Tech vs Truth, but like obviously don't run fake args, cuz then its easier for them to respond. If a response is dropped its true tho even if I don't believe it as long as there is a warrant.

Comparative Analysis Weighing(pre-reqs, link ins, short circuits) > traditional weighing. This is because comparative analysis gives me actual reasons to vote for you over them.

Warrants are the most important thing in an argument, if it's not there I wont flow it.

Frontline in second rebuttal or the response is conceded. I've read full contentions in first summary but don't read DAs past first rebuttal.

Speed is chill, dont spread, send docs if u wanna go hella fast

Speaks are based on skill of debater and strategy and less on actual speaking ability. I always get bad speaks thats why.

Hey there!

My name is Shantanu (he/him/his), feel free to call me by my whitewashed name - Shaun. I judge: LD/PARLI/POFO/I.E./POLICY

A little context about me:

I am a sophomore at USC studying a bunch of interdisciplinary studies. I am a veteran debater, recently just moved to college. I debated for about 8 years in Los Angeles, with experience with lay debate and with circuit debate. Our team was small and underfunded, so I got to see all types of things in the debate community. My experience in debate started with speech. I continued speech throughout my debate career but then meshed PoFo to start an actual debate. I did POFO for 2 years but didn't enjoy the partner structure of debate - my partner was highkey an idiot - so I then moved to Lincoln Douglas and continued that through middle/HS for 5 years. My team was almost completely PARLI and POFO, so I had a lot of experience coaching and judging that as well. I am currently in the debate community as a judge for hire, as well as a drop in coach. I competed a little bit in college but didn't enjoy my time in British PARLI or Policy as much as I did in HS. Regardless, I am here to listen to you and hope to learn from you as well as contribute to your debate careers.

My Paradigms:

Spreading/Speeding: Im completely fine with it, no matter what the speed is; however, I will say that if you are not clear. and articulate, you will lose speaks. If you decide to spread, please make sure to have a case drop accessible for me to follow along and flow.

THEORY/K/OFF-CASE: I love creative argumentation, so I am totally game for this. make sure you explain your arguments well, but don't spend too much time on off-case. Get the argument in and move on, I do not need to know EVERY impact and little, however, I do need you to drive it home well. I expect you to be able to run your T/K/CP/whatever, but still argue the resolution and way above your opponent

IMPACTS MATTER: this is obv. however, don't spend too much time on the BS impacts that are extrapolations in a world that doesn't exist. If you are weighing your impacts as terminal impacts that really don't EXIST in this world, I have little care for them. Ask me to explain this more in the round if you would like.

VOTERS: Coming from an LD background, I like it when debaters bring their argument back to a weighing mech (i.e. Value/VC, a voter, a weigh, an observation, etc). I WON'T FLOW THINGS OR CONNECT THINGS I DO NOT HEAR YOU MENTION; however, I do not believe in abusive flowing. If you have a subpoint that is so small but your opponent doesn't say anything against it, I will not be giving you the points for that entire contention. I respect meaningful clash, and meaningful argumentation, so I won't let you get so nitty-gritty with your flow. At the same time though, I do value silence as a concession in the debate, so if you do not argue against an observation/contention/theory/weighing mech, I will probably continue to flow it.

JOKES: I love it when debaters through jokes / puns into the debate. I will def raise your speaks if you can do this effectively. Can't say I will max you out, but it will help

DONT BE AN A$$: Debate is about learning. I am totally for you being aggressive during XC and during POs, but as soon as something disrespectful/accusatory is said, I will def be taking it up with TAB. Respect your opponents, their pronouns, and their time.

LANGUAGE: If your cards site language other than English, it is fine as long as the majority of your impact and evidence can be translated for the judge and your opponent in English. Im all for bringing cultural context into the debate, however, don't be disrespectful.

I prefer a resolution of debate issues in the round and speaking skills when I judge debate. Be organized. Use structure and roadmaps. Be clear when you speak -- enunciate.

In CX I fall under policy or stock issues when I am making decisions. At the end of the round when I sign my ballot, your plan is in action. That means that aff must have a developed plan in the round. Don't just read evidence in a round. Explain your arguments.

In LD, I am a traditional judge. You must have a value and criterion. You need a philosophy and philosopher in the round. Weigh the round in your speeches.

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

I. Background:

I have extensive college debate experience. I competed during my undergraduate years for California State University of Long Beach and Pepperdine University. My experience includes both team and Lincoln-Douglas formats. The Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was the primary format.

While competing in college, I often judged middle and high school speech and debate tournaments. My experience includes both value and policy formats. Upon graduation, I occasionally judged college tournaments over the years as a hired judge. The past 12-months, I have judged multiple tournaments hosted on virtual platforms. The formats include: PF, LD, CX, Parli, and Congress. I also competed in and have judged I.E.'s.

II. Overview:

The following applies to all formats:

1. Speak clearly. I do not like excessive speed, but I can tolerate a moderately fast pace. Please bear in mind that excessive speed often can be muddled due to tech issues and connection speeds in virtual formats.

2. I like empirical evidence. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument. Quality and well-sourced evidence often impact my decision.

3. I like a well thought out case that makes sense logically. I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I prefer quality over quantity.

5. Clarify the key issues in rebuttal and explain why your side prevails.

6. I flow. However, if you wish to add me to the evidence chain my email is liebzeit.larry@gmail.com

7. Do not be rude. It is acceptable to be assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but rudeness will be reflected in speaker points.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

No spreading please. Tabula rasa within reason - I'll hear any argument and will vote on how convincing that argument is. Be polite and follow the rules but gamesmanship is certainly allowed. I will vote solely on the quality of arguments, not the quantity - no sandbagging. Speaking points matter - persuasiveness greatly comes into consideration when I weigh arguments, meaning spreading will hurt you and good speaking that is easy to follow will gain you an advantage in the round. You can talk fast! But don't try to make more arguments than your opponenet can respond to. Be a good sport, and remember, we're all here to learn something!

Pronouns: he/him

General Debate Paradigm

Speed: I can handle speed, but I don't like spreading. Spreading hinders communication, imo, and while I can understand it, if you're introducing me to something that I'm not familiar with, it's likely that you're not leaving me enough time to really consider it, and you're probably not taking the time to explain it particularly well.

Kritiks: I am least experienced with Kritiks so run these at your own risk and explain the kritik as well as possible.

Theory: I rarely judge on theory unless there are specific and significant abuses. I will vote you down if you run disclosure theory.

Truth over Tech, and Depth over Breadth: I will vote up one true/viable argument over 5 drops of lazy/lame/bizarre arguments.

I would prefer for debaters to engage in research and would rather have an in-depth debate over a single main issue than 20 that are superficial.

Speaker Points: I use speaks to reward good public speaking, not strategic choices.

I have no preferences other than the following: be respectful of your peers and speak clearly.

idk. i used to say things like "i default to being a policy maker" but that is no longer true--it is true that i have a predilection for policy debate and given no framework by either team, i am likely to return to old habits, but it is true that i am critical friendly and if either team are to make a stab at that, and have some real understanding of it, i am likely to like it :-)

beyond that, i would describe myself, these days, as an old school "games player"-- iow, i will vote for the team that does the better job debating. particularly in a round where there are multiple technical flaws i can understand how that may appear to be a haphazard and subjective process, but i will do the best i can to evaluate the round fairly.

your number one responsibility as a debater is to tell me how to judge the round-- tell me what is the reason you win the round . . . .

debate is a comparison (at heart) -- so the better debaters are the ones who can make the best comparisons.

more than anything else, above all other considerations:

BE NICE.

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

Hi! My name's Krishna Tewari, I debated in LD for 3 years at Palatine High School and was a NSDA national qualifier and a state quarterfinalist. I debated traditionally and never went to the NatCircuit. Though, by Illinois standards, I was a bit progressive in that I valued cards and was a bit faster as a debater.

Framework

The round's yours and I want to analyze it through the weighing mechanisms you provide for me. With that said, be sure to clearly articulate what you want me to analyze so I can do it. If you don't give me a weighing mechanism, then I may have to draw the connections myself, and that might not be to your advantage. If you have the same or even a similar value to your opponent, do not spend too much time clashing at the value level if there's nothing to clash about. If your values are different and you think it's important to distinguish this difference, then, by all means, spend time on the value debate. The value criterion debate is the most important part of LD debate as it dictates through what lens I will be weighing impacts from the contention level in the round. On the contention level debate, make sure you're explaining clearly why your impacts outweigh your opponent's, and also make sure to link them back to the value criterion debate. Framework justifications are key to having a warranted and cohesive framework. I prefer to defer to value criterions such as mitigating structural oppression and maximizing society welfare as I have found that they are usually the best justified but I am more than willing to view the round through another value criterion as long as it is well justified.

Speed

Speed is fine and you can go as fast as you like. If you are going to be speaking at a faster speed than traditional LD standards, be sure to enunciate and be clear. I'm fine with flowing if you chose to spread but I will not will be thrilled if you spread and you will definitely not get 30 speaks. Always be sure to be clear and signpost effectively so that I know where you are on the flow.

Flow

I analyze the flow holistically, meaning you should establish a clear framework and then link back your contentions and impacts through that framework. I'm fine with Ks, DAs, Advantages, Plans, CPs, PICs, Theory, Tricks, etc. If an argument is dropped be sure to call it out in your next speech. Be sure to extend your cards as that is your source of offense in debate and as I judge I vote for you based on your offense. When you are extending an argument make sure to flesh out the warrant and impact of the card you are extending and do some weighting regarding why your extension is significant in the context of the debate. I love clash and debate on the warrants and contention levels. Numerous responses, weighing, turns, non-uniqueness, internal link arguments, solvency arguments, risk of offense, impact calculus, comparative analyses, observations, perms etc are all great and I will be happy to see these arguments. I value technical arguments greater than true arguments as long you argue your stance better than your opponent. However, I will not vote off racist or offensive arguments and I will drop your speaks if you run such arguments.

Be respectful, professional, and confident. I'm pretty outgoing so never hesitate to ask me questions or reach out to me at a tournament. If something here hasn't been addressed, then feel free to ask me prior to the round. I'm always open to furthering discussing the round after the round is over so please don't hesitate to talk to me after the round for more feedback. Last but not least, have fun and use every debate round as a growth experience regardless of the outcome of the round. By treating every round as a unique learning experience you will become exponentially better at debate and reach the level you to aspire to be.

Clash on the value/value criterion level- I'm a simple person- do the weighing for me, explicitly tell me why your "world" is empirically better than your opponents and why ultimately that should win you the round.

I'll pretty much buy anything as long as it's 1) not offensive (extremely low tolerance for that) and/or 2) well-supported/explained.

Have Fun!

she/her

-high speaks if you aren’t racist or rude

-I flow

-experience in pf, parli, and ld

Updated for NSDA Nationals 2024:

My name is Teja Vepa, please feel free to add me to the chain - Tejavepa {at} g mail

Current / Prior Roles and Affiliations:

Director of Speech and Debate - Collegiate School, NY (2022 to present)

Program Manager - Debate - Success Academy Charter Schools, NY (2019-2022)

Associate Director - Policy Debate - Polytechnic School, CA (2013-2019)

Debate Coach - Claremont HS, CA (2009-2013)

2023-24 Topic Specific:

I have not judged many rounds on this particular topic. I may need some common acronyms specified. If you make it clear early, that would be helpful.

Paradigm for NSDA:

As of this year, I have approximately 20 years of experience with policy debate. I think Nationals is a unique tournament and debaters are tasked with adapting to a varied audience. You do not have to debate specifically for me. I am capable of and enjoy evaluating rounds that range from stock issues, policymaking, plan v K, K v K, and K v Framework.

I will vote for planless affs. I have coached at programs that are significantly more K friendly (Polytechnic) and at programs that typically prefer Plan debates (Claremont). I think both of these models have value.

Specific Argument Types:

DA: The more specific, the better. I tend to disprefer generic DAs unless the link is highly specific. I tend to beleive that the uniqueness controls the direction of the offense.

CP: I do like counterplans and these are some of my favorite debates. Ideally your CP has an internal net benefit. Process counterplans are fine. Conditionality is probably good.

K: Go ahead, I am familiar with a series of K literature bases, and specifically more familiar/well-read with these literature bases: Cap/Neoliberalism, Settler-Colonialism, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Foucault/Biopower, Threat Construction/ Heg, Agamben/Biopolitics, Zizek. Though I am less well-read on identity arguments than postmodern high theory Ks, I do have experience with the sections of the literature base that are used in policy debate.

K Aff: I think these are legitimate. Please have a stable advocacy and be sure to win your aff if you are using it to outwiegh T/Framework.

T: I am willing to vote on it--T is about technical execution. I tend to prefer limits over other standards, so please explain your impacts if they are based in ground etc.

Framework: I tend to value education over procedural fairness.

Questions:

Happy to answer them before the round, or feel free to email me.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja