CX: As a stock issues judge, I expect the affirmative team’s plan to retain all stock issues and should label them clearly during the debate. The negative needs to prove that the affirmative fails to meet at least one issue in order to win. I require both sides to provide offense. Sufficient evidence is needed for any claim made during the entire debate. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to hear all of their points and must watch rate of delivery. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. I do not intervene, so the debaters must tell me what is important, how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and why I should vote for them. I do not form part of an email chain since I don't want to read speeches. I want to hear them. If it's important, make sure to express it clearly.

LD: I am a traditional LD judge. This means the debate should be a value debate. Framework of the debate is of the utmost importance because it will force me to evaluate your impacts before the other team’s impacts and nullifies most, if not all, of the other team’s offense. The contentions should be used to demonstrate a real-world example of the framework in action. For any claim made during the entire debate (constructive and rebuttal speeches), you should have evidential support. PLEASE weigh your arguments, make it clear how I should flow and evaluate what is said, and show me what really matters in the round. Explain clearly why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. There is no need for spreading. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. I do not form part of the email chain. If it's important, make sure to explain it clearly during your speeches.

IEs: I've judged all IEs for over 30 years for different circuits and at different levels (including state and nationals). On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure to speak clearly avoiding excessive word crutches and cite your sources. Follow the standard speech outline for each event and approach topic creatively. Make sure to actually answer the question (topic chosen) clearly and that the points discussed in the body of the speech support the answer. Use time wisely/effectively to fully develop the speech. If you are using props (for speech events), make sure they go with the topic and are easily handled. They don't need to be complicated. The simpler the better. On INTERP, I look at who transported me into the story and kept me there. Make sure all movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose and should not distract from the selection being presented. Characterization is also very important to keep me in the story. Use the whole "stage" for your presentation if the event allows it. It's your performance. Entertain me! POI: You can incorporate the binder as a prop if you want making sure it isn't so distracting that it takes away from your program.

PF: Pro should advocate for the resolution’s worthiness while the Con should show the disadvantages of the resolution and why it should not be adopted. In the 1st speech, both teams should have an introduction to frame the team’s case. The summary needs to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the differences exist and are clear and the issues need to be prioritized. Final focus needs to be a big picture concept. I will evaluate your evidence and expect you to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. I can't vote on what I don't hear or can't understand. So watch rate of delivery. PLEASE weigh your arguments and make it clear how I should evaluate this round and what really matters. Explain why those reasons are preferable to your opponent’s. I do not form part of the email chain.

Congress: When preparing a speech, make sure to follow standard speech outline and cite your sources. Approach legislation creatively. If you speak later in the session, do not rehash old arguments already brought up by previous representatives. Bring in new arguments to advance the debate. Also, you must clash with opponents. Don't just give your speech. It's a debate after all. Bring up points mentioned by opposing side, show your view point and not just say they are wrong or you don't agree. Give specific reasons why you don't agree and provide the evidence to prove your point. Have your speech so well prepared that you will be able to defend it during cross and not stumble during questioning. As Parliamentarian, I will make sure correct parliamentary procedure is followed.

WSD: Since arguments should be based in reality and each team is fighting on behalf of their respective worlds, the debate should show which world is more likely and/or better and how it will be actualized in the big picture rather than the individual arguments being made. Provide specific world (not just U.S.) examples to your claims. Burdens and mechanism/model should be clear. On the reply speeches, crystallize the round highlighting the main points of contention (2 or 3 key points) and tell me why your team won those points therefore winning the debate. Make sure there is clash on both sides and watch rate of delivery.

I am open to all arguments and will do my best to adapt to you. I am very focused on my flow so be mindful when moving from one card/argument to the next to leave a gap or say "and" to clearly indicate motion. Slow down on authors and dates please.

CX: I'm a policy maker but am always open to other arguments. My main concern is whether or not you've proven the resolution is true or false.
Topicality/theory: I default competing interp. If there aren't good extensions or if it's a wash I probably won't vote here.
K: If the lit is obscure you'll need to explain it to me a little more than popular Ks. Feel free to ask.
Case: I want the aff to extend in every speech. I will likely not vote exclusively on case defense, so negs please have another voter.

LD: I'm very line-by-line driven, and focus on the flow. Be very specific with voters.
Value/criterion: Not a must-have, and in many rounds I judge I find debaters will spend time on this without ever impacting it as a voter. If you go for this, that is totally fine, but give a clear reason why it matters in determining the resolution's truth.
Pre-standards/observations: Fine with these, but I feel the more outlandish ones need a little more work to actually matter. In any case, it is important that these are answered and not dropped.
Off-case: totally fine and love to see it, so long as whoever runs any off has an understanding of how to run that argument.
NC: I tend to be less persuaded by strats that try to spread the aff thin and just go for whatever they drop/undercover, and while I won't stop you from doing that, I begin to err heavily in the aff's favor when they have four minutes to answer 4 off, respond to your case, and defend their own. In my opinion, it's better for debate for you to demonstrate your skills by thoroughly arguing a really good voter rather than throwing half-hearted args at your opponent to see what sticks.
Aff: The most frustrating part of judging LD is watching 1ARs that try to do line-by-lines on everything and drop part of the flow. I want to see a 1AR identify the reason the 1AC theoretically wins, extend that and respond to attacks against that premise, identify why the neg would theoretically win, and respond to that. The aff does not have to win every single argument in round to prove the resolution true, so show your skill by covering what you absolutely must in this small period of time. Too often I see 2ARs make good arguments that are too little too late, so do whatever it takes to give a 1AR that doesn't drop anything important (only drops stuff that isn't important) be it taking extra prep, going with opposing framework, etc.

I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.

I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.

I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.

I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.

My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 10 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).

Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.

Tab judge. I have coached, or actively coach events, on local UIL, TFA and national circuit for over a decade. For Debate, please ask specific preference/style questions before round and in the presence of your opponent(s).

Interpretation: Very open to community standards and performer specific interpretations of literature. I try not to bring any preconceived understanding of literature into the round. I do prefer a teaser of some length before the introduction. Blocking and vocal characterization should be as distinct and clearly separate throughout performance.

INFO: I do prefer the use of a visual aid throughout the speech. Topics that are creative and challenging, or inspiring, are most intriguing and tend to separate themselves in a section. Sources are not as important in quantity, but the information should be presented in a fresh and relevant manner.

Extemporaneous: I prefer a balance of information and speech fluidity and personality. Clearly answer the question with a unified answer and give enough background/context in the introduction. Sources should be used significantly throughout the speech, but do not sacrifice a personable delivery simply to provide facts/analysis.

Harvard 2024:

Debate is a game, so I understand sass and pettiness, but straight-up rudeness, i.e., crossing the line, racism, ableism, or homophobic things, will not be tolerated. I will heavily dock your speaker points if I think these things happened and you’ll more than likely lose.

I tend to have a very serious RBF: it's not you; it's me. Just ignore it. I swear it's not you. It's me.

And there's a 95% chance I am late to the round, so be ready to go when I get there, please!

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it has real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debate, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on at the end of this debate and we are good -- also if you follow Liberty debate on Instagram and show me I'll bump your speaks

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good. -- For me big framing questions with no line by line is no good for me tbh

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense. In these debates the clearer the better.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they have some in roads to the conversations that they want to have.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Be respectful towards your opponents.

LD:

1. Speak at a normal rate of speed; no spreading/speed talking

2. Attack & rebuttal "down-the-line" - val, crit, conts, sub point tag lines

3. Be aggressive in CX, but not belligerent

4. rebutt. Specifically why your val Trump's your opp's val.

CX:

1. Speak at a NORMAL RATE OF SPEED. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for args, refs, or rebutt.

2. Keep the esoteric jargon/terms/abbreviations to a minimum. ("K's" "disads", etc)

2. Hit the H.I.T.S. (Harms, inherency, topicality, solvency, )

2. I'm looking for cogent, well-exposited arguments supported w/ pertinent/rez relevant documentation.

3. Don't spend too much time on topicality unless your opp's off-topic args are egregious.

4. Neg doesn't need a c/p unless it is vital

PFD

See above

i'm basically like a flay judge, tell me what to vote for and why.

Please treat me like a lay judge. Go slow and keep it simple. :)

Don't get super technical because i don't believe that's the way pf should have to be

3 min summaries mean please collapse and weigh

i dont like it when teams waste 20 extra mins in round not even looking at cards but pulling them up, so if u have to spend more than two mins trying to find called cards itll start eating into your prep - have your cards prepared

IN CONGRESS:
I expect to see plenty of clash. The event is called congressional DEBATE! Utilize questioning period effectively, and ask targeted questions. Analysis is the #1 priority

Typically I am an LD Tech judge, but I am comfortable judging a multitude of events and I'll list paradigms for each of them below. I have competed competitively in LD, CX, Extemp, and Congress, but I also judge PF.

LD- Speed is fine as long as you always share your docs with me and your opponent and slow town on the tags. I am fine with essentially any argument you want to run as long as they aren't offensive to your opponent or any group of people. I also don't like tricks debate and am very unlikely to vote on it. I am cool with flex prep as long as your opponent is as well. As for speaks, I find them to be archaic and a poor way to break ties when breaking, especially when compared to opponent win loss record. I'll typically just give 29s to everyone if I can, unless you are exceptionally well spoken or exceptionally poor, in which case you'll get a 30 or 28 respectively. I'll only give lower than a 28 if you are rude, degrading, or offensive.

K- I am well versed in almost all forms of debate, but I'm an a little less knowledgeable in areas of kritical debate that don't deal with well established philosophers (deleuze, baudrillard, foucault) or preexisting kritics in the debate space or topic lit (cap, fem, bio power, abelism, afro pec). If you choose to read a k that isn't super well known or more in depth, just make sure to really slow down on the tags and give a clear underview at the end, emphasizing the link and alt.

Theory/T- I vote on any shell as long as the warrants make sense and the arguments are laid out clearly, but I would much rather vote on substance instead so I slightly lean against it. I won't ever vote on friv theory that is useless and wastes my and your opponents time. I think the aff always carries the burden of topicality and I'm more comfortable voting on T that theory. I typically like counter interps and reasonability best when arguing against theory, and I will vote off of RVIs as long as there is more of a justification than just "I have to spend time on the shell".

CP- CPs are fine as long as they are well researched and explained. Picps are fine as well, though I think they run the risk of engaging in a Picps bad debate which I am comfortable voting off on if the win the shell.

Framing- I typically don't care if you read a FW or not, but I do like creative and unique framing metrics that shape the round in an interesting way.

I am most likely to vote for the person that best compares and contrasts their argument with the opponent using reasonable metrics of comparison, like probability, magnitude, timeframe, etc. Please please weigh your arguments, so I don't end up debating the round in my head for you guys.

CX- I am open to pretty much any argument you want to read, just like in LD. Most of my paradigms stack up the same way here, but I'll go more in depth on each here. Please do not read new arguments in the second half of the neg block, I will not flow any of them. Additionally, I don't love hearing completely new, complex arguments in the 2AC (i.e. a performance k in the 2AC) and won't flow them. If you're reading an extension of an argument in the 1AC or a more basic disad, case turn(s), or theory shell I will flow them.

K- Same goes as above. I am more likely to vote off of a performance k in CX than Ld since there is a lot more time for either the off or neg to flesh out the k.

Theory/T- Same as in LD, though I can guarantee I will never vote off of substantial T unless it goes 100% conceded. It is a lazy argument that almost never wins rounds. I am far less likely to vote off of RVIs in CX since there is so much time that can be dedicated to the theory debate. Unfortunately, all that time also means I usually end up evaluating theory as a wash unless there is a clear winner, which there usually isn't.

CP- Same as above

Stock Issues- While I am a progressive, modern CX judge, if both teams want to debate stock issues I am comfortable evaluating that as well. I usually end up voting on inherency or topicality out of the bunch.

PF- I am a firmly traditional PF judge. I never debated PF competitively but I am familiar with the event and can judge it aptly. I think if you want to read progressive arguments in a 45 minute debate, do LD. If you want to read progressive arguments with a partner, do CX. I do not like spreading, Ks, or theory in PF. CPs and T are fine as long as they are well constructed and thought out. I typically will vote on impact debate and weighing the most, which I find extremely important in a more traditional debate setting. Speaks are the same as in LD.

Congress- While congress was not my main event I did fairly well on the state and local circuit, but I'll typically evaluate the event like any other judge. That being said, I don't like a heavy emphasis on LARPing and I prefer more of a conversational style and deep analysis. However, I will rank someone with more charisma and presence over someone with deep analysis. I don't enjoy vocal cadences and they bother me when they get too repetitive. I also dislike planned out rhetoric or AGDs that get recycled throughout rounds. Besides that, I will rank people with 2 good speeches above those with 3 poor ones, but 3 mediocre speeches will outrank someone with 2 good speeches. 2 amazing speeches will trump pretty much anything else in my book, though. I rank normal POs 4th, and for each mistake the get knocked down a spot. If they do something amazing, they will advance a rank.

Extemp- Speaking quality is the same as congress, I prefer those with more charisma and presence over those with in depth analysis. I really enjoy a conversational style and good jokes, especially meta ones about the round or extemp. Just be natural, stay conversational, and speak at least 6:30 and you'll get a good rank from me.

Congress-I used to be a Congress debater, so I am very focused on both the way you communicate your arguments as well as the arguments themself. If you are a good speaker with no clash and non-unique arguments, you will not be ranked over others who have more wholesome arguments. Additionally, I do focus on Parliamentary Procedure, and this can make or break a round. Bad control of the room is reflected on my ballots. Finally, quality is always better than quantity. Just remember, if I don’t notice you in the room, it will be difficult for me to compare you to other debaters.

Debates-I enjoy a good flow of debate, and I must be able to recognize what is being argued. A lack of clear articulation of case arguments will hurt your debate as a whole. Additionally, I am open anything during the round, but be clear when you intend on introducing an obscure aspect to your roadmap. Signposting is not necessary if I am sent your case.

Speaking-I will focus on clarity and articulation of arguments in your speech, as well as your arguments themself. All arguments should work with each other to express one clear idea, and a failure to connect each argument to the topic of your speech will yield to a lower overall ranking.

In High School I competed on the National, State, and Local levels . Though my main events in High School were congress, extemp, and oratory, I've competed in every event and competed on the state level a few times in the "real debates".

BE YOURSELF, I don't like Bill Clintons, Richard Nixons, or Wolf Blitzers so talk like a normal human being. I don't trust robots.

Cite sources and give YOUR analysis of the information, don't regurgitate statistics, if I wanted to know what NPR had to say about the topic on January 15th of this year, I would have looked up the article myself.

CONGRESS -

Pretend I'm a little old lady that doesn't speak English. In High School I was known for my delivery largely because I view congress as a public forum/ town hall style debate where your job is to win my vote and be easily understood by 80% of people.

I value quality over quantity GENUINELY. I almost never take into account quantity unless you obviously passed up an opportunity to speak. As long as you speak as often as precedence allows, you're in the running. I appreciate Sponsors/ Authors but don't be the person who gives 3 sponsors and an author unless absolutely necessary.

That being said, my 1 will go to whoever has strong analysis, clash, and delivery on top of simple common sense explanations. Don't be a robot, have fun, and do your thing.

POs: I loved POing in High School and I view it as an art form. I have very high standards for POs so excel and I'll give you a 1 or 2, but anything less than above average will probably get you dropped.

EXTEMP/OO/INF -

As long as your speech has structure do whatever you want. I love a good performance, charisma, and unique speech structures so have fun.

IE -

you do you boo

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

DON'T make me do work for you. I will drop you before doing your job. I'm fine with whatever just give me proper framing and a ROB and you're golden.

Speaks: winner gets 30 loser gets 29 unless you made the round unenjoyable to judge.

POLICY -

I've debated traditional stock issue rounds and fast progressive rounds with Ks and 8 off cases, so tell me how I should evaluate the round and I'm good.

Speed: I don't care either way, just slow down on tags and add me to the email chain.

Critical Arguments: They're fine, but if your not running a common K like Cap, Afro Pec, Bio Power, etc don't expect me to know what your talking about, walk me through it because if you can't get me to understand it, your gonna get dropped.

Also, don't give me a half baked K you really don't understand because If I have to piece together what you're trying to say, I'm doing your job.

LD -

Same as Policy but use Ks at your own risk. I have nothing against Ks in LD but you don't have the same time as a Policy debater so don't think you can read half a sentence and "cut the card there" through your entire K and get it on my flow.

PF -

NOT the same as Policy and LD. I truly believe PF is a PUBLIC FORUM as in the general public should understand you. I'm not gonna evaluate any Ks or odd off cases unless your opponent engages with them, in which case I'm just not going to enjoy the round.

Pronouns: She/her

Questions/comments/concerns: kgolson@luc.edu

Conflicted with James Bowie Highschool

Hi, I'm Katie, I competed for Bowie highschool in PF, World schools, and exempt at the local, state, and national levels. I also competed at the silver TOC my senior year in PF. That being said I have tried almost every debate event once and have a basic understanding of how they work.

If you create an email chain I want to be on it my email is kgolson@luc.edu . This is for flowing purposes my main judging philosophy is to intervene as little as possible. Any speed is completely fine as long as you're clear and I have a word doc. "Progressive" arguments are fine in any event it's your round just tell me why you won it. Warranting is very important in all aspects of speech and debate and your argument means nothing to me without it.

I am open to being questioned about my decision and the way I vote in rounds in a respectful manner.

Specifics:

SPEECH- Most speech events I am familiar with however I have never done them myself so my judging will be at the best of my ability.

Pf: This was my main event so I have a better understanding of it and thus a higher threshold. Summary and final focus both must weigh and summarize the argument (line by line or big picture up to you). I don't want to hear your rebuttal again so, please don't repeat it. Nothing is sticky you need to extend everything you want me to vote for in every speech. Run whatever. (Get 30 speaks by being respectful, having a good debate,

TRIGGER WARNINGS- This is one of the things I am a stickler for I will drop you if you read something harmful without one.

I do not tolerate racism, sexism, or any kind of discrimination or bullying. I will stop the round and drop you with L- 0 speaks. That being said please do not read arguments/theories about disenfranchised groups you are not a part of (white people reading afro-pessimism). Finally, dont read anything that makes your opponents uncomfortable or that they can't understand.

I was a long-time high school coach of CX, LD, PF and Congress and was a college policy debater MANY years ago.

Debate Judging Paradigm

1. Speed (Spread):

• I prefer a moderate pace. Excessive speed detracts from the clarity and depth of the arguments, making it difficult to capture the nuances. If you choose to go fast, ensure your arguments are still clear and easy to follow.

2. Critical Arguments:

• I value critical arguments, but they need to be explained thoroughly. I am less persuaded by dense jargon without clear explanations. Focus on the depth and clarity of your analysis.

3. Topicality:

• Topicality is a prima facie issue for me only if there is demonstrated in-round abuse. Merely claiming non-topicality is insufficient; you must show how the case is unfair or disruptive to the round.

4. Argument Strategy:

• Avoid making time-suck arguments that you plan to drop later. This wastes time and detracts from the quality of the debate. If you bring up an argument, be prepared to defend it.

5. Organization:

• I pay close attention to my flow. Please clearly signpost your arguments and keep your refutation organized. This helps me track the debate and evaluate your arguments effectively.

6. LD Debate Specifics (Value and Criterion):

• In Lincoln-Douglas debate, emphasize your value and criterion. These are central to your case, and I expect you to tie your arguments back to them consistently. Make it clear how your arguments uphold your value and criterion better than your opponent’s.

7. Congressional Debate:

• Speeches in Congressional debate should be extemporaneous in nature, showing clear evidence of preparation while allowing flexibility and responsiveness to the debate as it unfolds.
• Make sure to include clash; engage directly with the arguments made by other speakers.
• Strong research is essential, but avoid excessive rehash of points that have already been made. Originality and depth of analysis are key to standing out.

In all types of debate, don’t be rude to your opponent. Respect the activity with professional demeanor.

I judge Congress often and am always looking for excellent delivery, effective eye contact, and original thinking/clash that will set the speaker apart from the pack. I really search for the speakers who really make me want to listen to them. Speakers need to ask relevant questions, answer questions quickly and completely, and be respectful of the rest of the room. I expect the PO to run a tight ship and keep tabs on speaker order and frivolous questions. POs can be ranked first in the room, depending on the quality of speakers and PO. Evidence is crucial, but a clear speaking voice with passion, wit, and grace goes just as far.

The only things you really need to know:
1. If you berate, threaten, verbally or physically attack your opponents, I will end the debate and you'll receive a loss along with the lowest points Tabroom will allow me to assign.
2. Don't endorse self-harm.
3. Arguments admissible for adjudication include everything said from when the 1AC timer starts until the 2AR timer ends. Anything else is irrelevant.

4. I'm unlikely to vote for hidden dropped one line theory arguments. Hidden ASPEC, new affs bad, severance in a voting issue, X random CP type is bad etc. I accept that my commitment to the idea judges should assess debates as technically as possible and this notion might seem contradictory but debates coming down to these types of arguments winning makes the activity worse and detract from hard work.

Other than that, do what you do best. Technical debating is more likely to result in you winning than anything else.

I am a coach at The Harker School. Other conflicts: Texas, Emory, Liberal Arts and Science Academy, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School.

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

Ultimately, do what you do best. Giving speeches you're comfortable with is almost certainly a better path to victory than attempting to adapt to any of this stuff below. Debate is extremely hard and requires immense amounts of works. I will try to give you the same level of effort that I know you've put in.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand your argument because what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Framework- Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. Go for T/answer T the way that makes most sense to you, I'll do my best to evaluate the debate technically.

Counter-plans-

-spamming permutations, particular ones that are intrinsic, without a text and with no explanation isn't a complete argument. [insert perm text fine, insert counter plan text is not fine].

-pretty neg on "if it competes, its legitimate." Aff can win these debates by explaining why theory and competition should be separated and then going for just one in the 2ar. the more muddled you make this, the better it usually is for the neg.

-non-resolutional theory is rarely if ever a reason to reject the team. Generally don't think its a reason to reject the argument either.

-I'm becoming increasingly poor for conditionality bad as a reason to reject the team. This doesn't mean you shouldn't say in the 2ac why its bad but I've yet to see a speech where the 2AR convinced me the debate has been made irredeemably unfair or un-educational due to the status of counter plans. I think its possible I'd be more convinced by the argument that winning condo is bad means that the neg is stuck with all their counter plans and therefore responsible for answering any aff offense to those positions. This can be difficult to execute/annoying to do, but do with that what you will.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

-these are almost always just framework debates these days but debaters often forget to explain the implications winning their interpretation has on the scope of competition. framework is an attempt to assign roles for proof/rejoinder and while many of you implicitly make arguments about this, the more clear you can be about those roles, the better.

-i'm less likely to think "extinction outweighs, 1% risk" is as good as you think it is, most of the time the team reading the K gives up on this because they for some reason think this argument is unbeatable, so it ends up mattering in more rfds than it should

LD -

I have been judging LD for a year now. The policy section all applies here.

Tech over truth but, there's a limit - likely quite bad for tricks - arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete. Dropped arguments are important if you explain how they implicate my decision. Dropped arguments are much less important when you fail to explain the impact/relevance of said argument.

RVIs - no, never, literally don't. 27 ceiling. Scenario: 1ar is 4 minutes of an RVI, nr drops the rvi, I will vote negative within seconds of the timer ending.

Policy/K - both great - see above for details.

Phil - haven't judged much of this yet, this seems interesting and fine, but again, arguments need a claim, warrant and impact to be complete arguments.

Arguments communicated and understood by the judge per minute>>>>words mumbled nearly incomprehensibly per minute.

Unlikely you'll convince me the aff doesn't get to read a plan for topicality reasons. K framework is a separate from this and open to debate, see policy section for details.

PF -

If you read cards they must be sent out via email chain with me attached or through file share prior to the speech. If you reference a piece of evidence that you haven't sent out prior to your speech, fine, but I won't count it as being evidence. You should never take time outside of your prep time to exchange evidence - it should already have been done.

"Paraphrasing" as a substitute for quotation or reading evidence is a bad norm. I won't vote on it as an ethics violation, but I will cap your speaker points at a 27.5.

I realize some of you have started going fast now, if everyone is doing that, fine. However, adapting to the norms of your opponents circuit - i.e. if they're debating slowly and traditionally and you do so as well, will be rewarded with much higher points then if you spread somebody out of the room, which will be awarded with very low points even if you win.

Hello all,

I am a parent judge. I have been judging the student congress debate for the last three years.

For the contents of your speech, I would like to hear the debate about the harm and benefit analysis of the bill based on the flow of the chamber arguments and your data. I also look at the type of speeches you present during the round. A well-addressed bill agenda in the first speech is a critical start, and I value good first speeches on both sides if they address the core part of debating points. I expect an argumentative speech if you speak later. If you bring an applicable real-life impact to your speech, that also counts for a good ranking. For the delivery, it matters to me if a student speaks with a clear sound, a persuasive tone, and a natural talking style. I value students who participate actively in the debate with critical questions to weigh the side of the bill. I rank PO well if the PO runs the chamber efficiently. Good luck, and have fun!

I am a stickler for good presentation and civil debate. Respect and clear argumentation are important for me in all events. I will be very focused on the flow of argumentation and will judge off of what was presented and how.

Congress: Good use of sources, creative speech writing, persuasive delivery, clash, and adherence to Parliamentary procedure are essential. It is also important that the chamber act respectfully and cooperatively, where civil debate occurs and the conversation is not dominated by any individual or group of competitors.

CX: Affirmative teams will need to address stock issues convincingly. Clash and Extension in later rounds are more important than new arguments. Avoid Kritiks and spreading.

LD: I prefer traditional LD; No spreading, civil clash, and a strong emphasis on philosophy over policy. I will tolerate progressive debate/Kritiks and policy, however, be careful and make sure your case is well crafted with this.

IEs: Do not overcomplicate your performance. I am looking for effective delivery!

PF: I prefer to hear good arguments and sources. Spreading is not encouraged. Good summaries and crystallization are key.

WSD: Clash is key. Crystallize the differences and present mechanisms effectively. Spreading is not encouraged.

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

--

she/her

i coach policy debate at damien-st. lucy's

--

Recently rewritten paradigm, probably best to give it a quick skim!

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am good for policy teams that do topic research and aim to not go for process cp backfiles every 2nr. I am also good for k teams that do topic research and answer the aff and go for 2nr arguments that are substantive (not "role of the ballot"). I am bad for ld teams that go for ld-specific things ("tricks"), but am good for ld teams that are well-researched and read policy or k arguments.

More LD-specific notes/thoughts at bottom of paradigm.

--

Topic Knowledge:

I don't teach at a policy camp in the summer. I am involved in the Damien-St. Lucy's team research, and have vaguely kept up with the camp evidence updates. I generally know what's going on with the topic, but extra handholding when breaking new prep is likely to be beneficial.

--

email chains:

ld email chains: nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

please include an adult (your coach, chaperone, or even parent) on the email chain if you are emailing me directly -- just a good safety norm to not have direct communications between minors & adults that don't know them!

--

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow:)

--

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am aggressively pro-disclosure. Disclosure is one of the elements of debate that is most important for small-school and novice accessibility. If you do not disclose, I will assume that you prefer the exclusionary system where only big schools have access, and I will punish your speaker points accordingly. I am so aggressive about enforcing disclosure with all teams (big and small school) because I believe in the mission of the open evidence project and other similar open source disclosure practices. tldr disclose or lose!

--

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

--

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

--

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the impact is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

--

Planless affs:

I tend to believe that affirmatives need to defend the topic. I think most planless affs can/should be reconfigured as soft left affs. I have voted for affs that don't defend the topic, but it requires superior technical debating from the aff team.

You need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

--

T/framework vs planless affs:

In a 100% evenly debated round, I am likely better for the neg than the aff. However, most of these debates are not evenly debated. Either team/side can win my ballot by doing the better technical debating. This past season, I often voted for a K team that I thought was smart and technical. Specific thoughts on framework below:

The best way for aff teams to win my ballot is to be more technical than the neg team. Seems obvious, but what I'm trying to convey here is that I'm less persuaded by personal/emotional pleas for the ballot and more persuaded by a rigorous and technical defense of why your model of debate is good in this instance or in general. I have historically voted against aff teams that made arguments along the lines of "vote for me or I'll quit debate."

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

--

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

--

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

--

Kritiks (neg):

I am absolutely terrible for K teams that don't debate the case. If your idea of a winning strategy is to read a bunch of links that aren't to the consequences of the plan and then also not answer the affirmative at all, I am best at the middle/bottom of your pref sheet. I'm good for K teams that read links to the consequences of the plan, answer the case, and do line-by-line (if the neg block is 13 min of prewritten block soup, that's not line-by-line!)

I vote for K teams often when they are technical and make smart big-picture arguments and demonstrate topic knowledge. I vote against K teams when they do ... not that!

--

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

--

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about theory other than that some amount of condo is probably good. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

No judge kick. Make a choice!

--

LD-specific section:

-you might think of cx judges in ld as people who despise judging ld and despise you for doing ld. i try to not let this be true about me. all of my issues with ld can be grouped into two general categories: 1) speech times/structure (not your fault, won't penalize you for it), and 2) the tendency to read unwarranted nonsense, such as "tricks," shoes theory, etc (you can avoid reading these args very easily and make me very happy)

-i am a horrid judge for tricks and frivolous theory. please just go for another argument!

-i am okay for phil. i don't have any personal opposition to philosophy-based arguments, i just don't coach/judge these arguments often, so i will need more explanation/hand-holding. many phil debates recently have involved tricks, which has soured me on this argumentative style, but i would be happy to judge a straight-up phil debate:)

-you don't get 1ar add-ons -- there is no 2ac in ld

-i teach at ld camp every summer, so assume i have some idea of community norms, but don't assume i am following trends super closely

--

Arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

-a team should get the ballot simply for proving that they are not unfair or uneducational

-the ballot should be a referendum on a debater's character, personal life, pref sheet, etc

-the affirmative's theory argument comes before the negative's topicality argument

-some random piece of offense becomes an "independent voter" simply because it is labeled as such

-debates would be better if they were unfair, uneducational, lacked a stasis point, lacked clash, etc

-a debater's moral character is determined by whether they read policy or k arguments

-evidence ethics should be a case neg, as opposed to an opportunity for reasonable preround discussion and an opportunity to correct mistakes [note: i will not vote on ev ethics if you do not have proof you contacted the team beforehand]

-"tricks"

-teams should not be required to disclose on opencaselist

-the debate should be evaluated after any speech that is not the 2ar

-the "role of the ballot" means topicality doesn't matter

--

Arguments that I am personally skeptical of, but will try to evaluate fairly:

-it would be better for debate if affirmatives did not have a meaningful relationship to the topic

-debate would be better if the negative team was not allowed to read any conditional advocacies

-reading topicality causes violence or discrimination within debate

-"role of the ballot"

-the outcome of a particular debate will change someone's mind or will change the state of debate

-the 5-second aspec argument that was hidden in the 1nc can become a winning 2nr

-the affirmative may not read a plan because of "bare plurals"

--

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

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!

email: vandanpatel202@gmail.com

tldr: I will evaluate every argument and attempt to be as impartial as possible. I am fine with speed, theory, Kritiks(although I haven't read much lit other than antiblackness/afropess), and virtually any other argument. I am a firm believer that debate is a game so if an argument brought by your opponent is morally repugnant you will have to prove why this is the case as I will not intervene.

T: I love good T debates, don't go for blip T args please. If your gonna read T explain why the definitions are important to the context of the round and give me reasons to prefer. I also evaluate T before K but can change if you tell me why.

Util: read a lot of this in high school. am cool with util and LARP args, will default to extinction outweighs unless told otherwise.

Theory: went for this a lot in high school. I will vote on pretty much any theory arg as long as it is well warranted. I am a firm believer in disclosure, but will vote against disclosure theory if provided with reason to do so.

RVIs - default to RVIs

Default to CIs, can do reasonability if convinced otherwise.

Ks - am fine with them, although the only Ks I'm really familiar with are cap and antiblackness/afropess. Please explain what the alt means and how it solves the aff if it does, often times debaters through buzzwords and hope that I know what the alt means. I am fine with alts that require a rejection of the aff as long as there is a pedagogical reason to do so.

Congress:

Speakers:

Overall, I really appreciate charisma and creativity. I like when people fully get into the politician act! Feel free to take creative liberties with AGDS as long as they make some sense. I'd rather you lack a bit in substance and structure but really get into the round than to read straight off the page even with technically perfect content and organization. The roleplay aspect of Congress is what differentiates it from other debate events so it's really fun to see people play with it!!!

I like grounded, people focused impacts. If you can tie back to how individual people will be help/hurt by a bill and why, I'll probably rank you high. Also, use whatever structure you want. I usually like when it's easier to follow, but I'm fine with anything and won't drop you for being creative.

Authors:

I value fluency and delivery the most in authors and sponsors. Also, make sure to contextualize the legislation.

Sponsors:

If you genuinely try to help the round progress by writing a sponsor in round, I'll definitely keep that in mind and be more forgiving of any fluency breaks (but I can probably tell when you already have a speech written and pretend like you don't).

Constructives:

If you're speaking after the author/sponsor, I'd like to see some clash with other speakers/questioners. If it's impact related, that's definitely a bonus. Try not to just name drop every other representative in the chamber and focus on 2-3 specific speeches (or maybe 1 if you're going earlier).

Try not to rehash other people's arguments. If yours get taken, you can try to change the impact, find a new point, or switch your speech to a half-ref/crystal. I usually drop for rehash but I understand that sometimes you end up in a tough spot with bad precedence and no points, so I'll take that into consideration.

Half-refs:

Try to avoid rehashing previous points and make sure to have a pretty unique argument for your constructive point. I don't care if you have your ref point at the beginning or end of your speech, if it's there, you're good. I'd prefer for these to be pretty late in the round, at least the 4th cycle, maybe 3rd in a smaller room.

Crystals:

I like seeing people learning how to crystal through trial and error so especially at locals, I'll give you some credit for trying because learning is good. Try to weigh the impacts of both sides to show who wins, avoid rehash, and have some evidence. These should be the last 2 speeches in the round.

POs:

I consider POs for all ranks including first! I'll let you run the chamber, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask me and we can work things out! I won't drop you if you make some small mistakes then correct yourself! It happens! I don't have a preference for any type of time signals as long as they're consistent and work for the chamber! I'd also appreciate if you could state the name/topic of each piece of legislation before we debate it, not just the number.

I appreciate POs who listen to the chamber and go out of their ways to create a "fast, fair, and efficient chamber" like they promise to in the speeches. I'll give points to POs who try to connect with the chamber!

General Things:

Please be supportive and polite to each other in the chamber!!! I won't drop you for being passive aggressive or intense in speeches or questions (unless you go way overboard), but I'll have a problem if you act that way outside of your time on the floor. Also, I'll probably drop you for steamrolling novices.

I rank based on quality of speeches rather than quantity, but appreciate active participation in round and friendliness/willingness to help others also plays into my rankings.

I usually tend to favor passion and enthusiasm!

I'm totally fine if you turn your cameras off when you're not speaking or questioning so zoom doesn't lag if the tournament is fine with it!

I'm pretty chill and up for whatever so if you want to experiment and try something new, go for it!

Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me!

I am a coach and teach my kids the traditional formats of speech and debate for all events.

Congress: I am looking for an AGD and proper sign posting in the introduction. I want to see evidence for each point and clash unless you are the first speaker. I don't want to see you bring up a laptop. You should use a paper tablet. Make sure you leave time for a short conclusion. Make sure your pacing and verbiage are in a conversational manner. Answering questions are just as important, make sure you know the topic thoroughly. Activity in the chamber is also important, especially when I'm trying to break ties in my mind. Make sure your questions are well thought out before asking.

Lincoln-Douglas: As stated above, I teach the traditional format for LD Debate. I expect value, value criterion, contentions, warrants, and impacts. If you were taught policy jargon, make sure and convert it to LD Debate format. I do not want spreading. Make good sound arguments. The person who upholds their framework will win the round.

Speaking Events: I am much better at judging Extemp, Original Oratory, and Informative speaking events over the interp events. However, I have judged all interp events at local, state, and national levels.

- For Extemp:

1. Make to sure to include a humorous or captivating AGD in the intro.

2. Please, provide a blanket statement corresponding with your answer to the question. Ex. "Yes, because of...."

3. 3 points of elaboration to the answer are a must.

4. I provide 3-down time signals.

5. I have extensive background in DX and FX. Additionally, I am currently a public affairs graduate student. Inaccurate statements or misrepresented statistics will be reflected in your rank.

For Debate events:

1. Don't spread. Speak clearly. Spreading will ensure that at most, you'll receive 28.5 speaker points.

2. I judge based on the flow. With that being said, I evaluate impacts above all else. If you extend and cogently argue your biggest impacts, you'll likely win.

Quality over quantity. This not only applies to the number of speeches you give but also the amount of evidence you have and refutations you give. I would prefer deeply thought out refutation and clash rather than naming everyone who spoke before you. In so far as presentation I do not care about how you look or how your voice sounds, I care about mindful pacing and thoughtful presentation.

I am sometimes asked prior to the beginning of a round if I might offer any additional insight into my paradigm or I might be asked a question pertaining to what I might identify as key voting issues. I do hope all of you take the time to read through all of the paradigms posted as they are for your benefit. I might argue that if you do that in advance it should help you determine what each of us is looking for. For the record, I do have an extensive background in the forensic world of debate at both the high school and college level. I debated for Bellaire High School from 1973 to 1976 where I learned to win quite often and for four plus years on a full debate scholarship at Houston Baptist University. I competed in high school and in college in policy debate (CX) and competed at a national level during my college years. Although it's been awhile since those days filled with stress and with competition, I have been judging off and on the past 12 years and I certainly have a few opinions to share with you perhaps best referred to as some friendly advice.

Like any good judge ought to insist upon during any round, my decision is based upon what the contestants themselves argue during the round, based upon extensions advanced to the flow and of course based upon what does persuade me or does appear most compelling at the end of the round. I do actively take down cites on most evidence read during a round and respectfully, I will not need a road map from you. That's probably helpful though for you guys to share between you. By now surely we all know that there should be no new arguments presented during rebuttals. I would also hope that debaters at all levels understand and fully embrace the notion that competition during a debate as a battle of wits ought to come down to winning arguments that can be proven and are linked quite reasonably. In my own mind, it ought to be fairly clear for me to see by the end of a round what the important voting issues are and why. I suggest trying to limit repeating what you have already said and instead focus upon extending your own case and or arguments as your key arguments. Any success during the round should be sought through purposeful and thoughtful clash with your opponents on the flow. I tend to look for and typically best follow teams that extend effectively in ways in which I can still flow where it belongs. I tend to defer to the team who best persuasively convinces me that their intended plan of action is much better than the other based upon evidence, reasoning and logic.

I am also asked if I can handle a fast speed or for that matter, the flow. I try never to be rude when I might retort in response that there is simply no way they or anyone else could ever be any faster than he and I were while debating the likes of Harvard, Georgetown etc. in that college setting I mentioned. Nevertheless, speed can still kill a good argument due to a lack of application, lack of explanation or simply because it was unintelligibly spit out. At high speed your killer evidence may indeed just become lost upon the deaf ears of a lay judge or even upon the perky ears of seemingly competent judges doing their very best to follow you. Your successes will be most often determined by you, your style and by your unique ability to fully connect the dots on the flow for all to see. You must be prepared to make your evidence and arguments count with great force in such a way that it sticks with your judge. I do accept most reasonable arguments as presented during a round especially those that are well defended with evidence, with logic and sound reasoning. I believe strongly in a professional courteous exchange at all times during a round, especially during crossfire. Cross fire is certainly not the time to keep on arguing with your opponent thinking they will agree that you are going to win. We all accept that you will probably never agree with the other side on this day of battle (until you must debate the opposite side of the flip), but use your CX time not to help set the record straight for everyone but instead to win. Utilize this precious time to seek out and gain needed clarification providing clarity for your own purposes. Responses given during cross fire are binding unless dropped or explained in context. If properly employed crossfire time can certainly make a difference in the result of the round.

Let me state it more clearly, if you are rude, obnoxious or loud during crossfire exchanges you do rub most judges the wrong way. Lastly, you might be surprised how many debaters do not do a very good job telling me as a judge why I should vote for them. Typically they insist that I must vote their way. Tell me why and keep telling me why. It begins with those first two constructive speeches in which clash is fully expected and undertaken. For the record, I do not give decisions or feedback at the end of a preliminary round, but of course I do during elimination rounds as allowed. My ballot will generally always make it crystal clear to both parties why I voted the way I did, agree or disagree. Debate is and always has been intended to be a fun, exciting activity and of course, highly competitive. Highly competitive though is not defined by talking over someone during cross fire or by being rude to another or by speaking much faster and much louder than others. I view forensic activities as a whole to be in large part preparation for your future endeavors in life with the potential to help one distinguish between what is true in theory and what might actually happen in the real world.

In terms of student Congress and Senate competition, I have judged those events often over the past 12 years and I do enjoy it immensely. It is still all about the numbers if you desire to win at a high level so naturally it does matter how many bills you are prepared to address with substance and it matters what you have to say about the subject. Your ability to effectively and respectfully question your peers effectively when called upon is critical to help garner a judges attention. It might help if you try and visualize Congress being in session and accept that you are literally debating a bill on the floor. Respect for each other, your demeanor and your own ability to participate is vital to making a great impression on your judge. Embrace that role and allow your efforts from the minute you walk into the room be dedicated to collaborating with others alongside representatives you hope might be persuaded to vote for the bill you choose to defend. If you go into a student congress event be prepared to participate, that is why you are in the session itself.

Individual events tend to be speeches or performances where you are on your own for the most part. It's important if you do want to place and compete that you make every effort to most effectively utilize the time you have been given to speak. A short speech is just that, it's short and often way too short. Proper use of mannerisms, natural body movements and practicing a deliberate and confident style used to deliver your piece is critical to success. Judges do tend to remember a genuine smile, a look or feel feel of sincerity and almost always naturally connect to the dynamic use of voice, dialog and diction patterns. It does not matter where you are in the speaking rotation. I can assure you, judges are waiting in earnest looking for you to stand right up their and knock their socks off so just do it.

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!