Tabroom.com

March Potomac Intramural

2022 — Online, MD/US

Public Forum Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nibhan Akbar Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 11:44 PM CDT

Elkins '20 | UT '24

Email: nibhanakbar@gmail.com

I did pf for 2 years

messenger is preferred

UPDATE:

For UT, please send all case docs to nibhanakbar@gmail.com, thanks

3 Ways to get the easiest 30, these speaker point bumps are going to be individual ie. first speaker does the james harden reference only he/she would get the 30 so you would have to each do a reference if you choose that route.

1. Any POSITIVE James Harden Reference

2. Skittles - either sour or normal

3. a coke - don't do this one anymore thanks I already have 3 of them thanks

Overall

straight up, I will NOT evaluate any form of progressive argumentation. I don't know how to evaluate it, and if you fail to meet this requirement, I simply won't flow. I'm open to any other substantive argument, but this is the one hard rule I have.

I like link debate it makes my job easy, and impacts don't matter unless both teams win their respective link thanks in advance

I flow on my laptop so I can handle top limits of pf speed, but if you double breathe or don't go faster properly, that's unfortunate. In all honesty if you keep it a medium leaning fast pf speed i would prefer that

If you run an offensive overview in second rebuttal it will make me really sad :(

I mess with paraphrasing

General

- I consider myself tech > truth I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best-weighed impact

- Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read

- a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

Rebuttal

- Any turns not frontlined in second rebuttal have a 100% probability

- If you are going for something in the latter half of the round, collapse in second rebuttal and frontline the entire thing

- Defense do be sticky till frontlined

- Don't extend in second rebuttal it makes zero sense

Summary Overall

- Extensions - Author and Warrant thanks

- You have to extend uniqueness - link - impact for me to vote on something

- For turns - if you want to collapse on a turn in FF the extension has to have the argument/impact that you are turning in the first place

First summary

- New evidence for frontlining is cool

- Extend some defense ig

Second summary

- Extend defense

- Y'all should weigh if you don't that's kinda chalked

Final focus

- Extend uniqueness link and impact

- Extend weighing pls

Cross

- Don't be rude but if you are sarcastic that's cool but there is a pretty thin line between being rude and sarcastic

- If y'all skip gc that would make me very happy which in turn leads to a bump in speaks for everyone

Evidence

- I'll only call for evidence if it sounds fire or someone tells me to

Post Round

- I'll try to disclose every round

- Post-rounding is cool with me, you can do it after rfd or on messenger after the round.

- I presume neg if there is no offense in the round

Donts

- Be toxic

- Spread on novices, if its clear that you are winning just show them respect and give them a chance to learn ie: explain the implications in cross in an understanding way

Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic and all those lists

Extras

Also if you made it to the end, I've noticed the quality of extensions has exponentially decreased since I have been judging. I honestly just want you to extend case and then frontline or the inverse, or if you are the goat frontline and extend thanks.

Please do not feel obligated to get the extra speaker points they are there for two reasons 1) So I can enjoy a debate round a little more 2) So I don't get hangry.

Joey Antonelli Hire 8 rounds

Rishab Chimmanamada Hire 8 rounds None

Matthew Cooke Hire 8 rounds

Ausha Curry Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 8:02 AM EDT

_________________________________

Hi! I'm Ausha

I competed in Policy 2017-2019 and LD 2019-2021 in Washington State, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.

Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.curry@gmail.com

tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.

Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly

Prefs

Policy/LARP - 1

Basic Ks - 1

T - 1

Uncommon Ks - 2

Phil - 3/4

Other Theory - 3/4

Tricks - strike

General -

1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !

2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it

3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it

4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc

5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone

Argument Specific -

tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill

t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size

LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily

Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)

trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)

CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.

DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.

ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.

k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!

performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these

Speaks -

I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions

+.5 for flashing analytics

Allen Ding Hire 8 rounds

Anika Doddamane Hire 8 rounds

Raji Dondapati Hire 8 rounds

Yeou Dong Hire 8 rounds

Victoria Dziasek Hire

James Elliott Hire 8 rounds

Tom Fones Hire 8 rounds

Aanya Ghosh Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 1:03 PM EDT

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open/ CX or use flex prep. Any defaults I do have (would like to think I don't have any) can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

For new 2NR evidence, my thinking is as follows: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is one of my favorite arguments.

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

Given my background, I care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot. Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly. I would prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations when paraphrasing.

PLEASE share all evidence/cases BEFORE your speeches with me (and each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 3 tries for each variant.
Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution
I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
Beat me at Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

Nathan Gong Hire 8 rounds

Liam Halliburton Hire 8 rounds

byria hamblin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat August 1, 2020 at 4:22 PM CDT

I am very laid back judge, but here are a few things I would love to see:

1. Give me a roadmap; even something as simple as "it's going to be aff then neg" is greatly appreciated. If your speech is going to jump all over flow, be transparent about that at the top and signpost as you go. Overall, please be purposeful about signposting/claims and slow down for those statements. I need to be able to follow on the flow as this is the primary factor in my decision.

2. If anyone is using a framework, do NOT drop it post constructive or rebuttal. Once framework is introduced, how each side weighs into that throughout the round is crucial.

3. Utilize crossfire. Do not use that time to solely ask clarifying questions. Be offensive (even in the first cross), that's what we're here for. It's not going to win you the round, but it'll give the round depth.

4. FOR PF FIRST SPEAKERS SPECIFICALLY: The summary speech is the easiest way to win your round. Do NOT just merely extend every little thing your second speaker said; that's useless. Do NOT spend the entire time simply refuting your opponent's responses to your case. Give me a worlds/comparative analysis & weigh every impact. Defending your case can be integrated into these big picture analyses. This speech needs to only hone in on a handful of essential arguments. Be intentional with those two minutes.

5. Second speaking team, first speakers: if you want to dedicate some time in your constructive to rebuttal, DO IT. Keep the round entertaining.

6. Keep track of your prep time. I will also be keeping track, but you should be keeping track of each other as well.

7. If anyone is using hands off prep to get a piece of evidence, DO NOT PREP. I will down you.

8. Avoid blippy responses. I value the quality of your argument over the quantity.

9. If an argument seems to be a wash between opposing pieces of evidence, be prepared to show me the evidence at the end of the round.

10. I vote based on a combination of who won the flow, who outweighed, and who was the most intentional with their time.

If any of this is confusing, just ask me for clarification before the round! :)

Sajid Hasnat Hire 8 rounds

Colter Heirigs Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:07 AM CDT

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Javier Hernandez Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 4, 2021 at 1:26 PM PDT

2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League

2018- present CSU Fullerton

email chain- javierh319@gmail.com

Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.

Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.

Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.

Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.

Cross Ex- Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.

I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.

Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.

Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.

Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness and education are impacts, I'm usually more persuaded by education but fairness is fine too.While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.

Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise because I also love hearing pics and multiple advocacies. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.

DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.

CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.

Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important. Does the alt solve the aff? let me know. You don't need to go for the alt to win

Random/Misc

-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink

-know where u are losing but make it fashion

-dont be a jerk

Charles Huang Hire 8 rounds

Jingfeng Huang Hire 8 rounds

Maddie Huynh Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 18, 2021 at 10:15 AM PDT

i graduated from the harker school in 2020, where i primarily competed in policy debate. second semester senior year, i qualled to the toc in ld/made late elims at a few tournaments. i'm now a second-year at uchicago and coach/judge for harker.

please put me on the email chain – madisonh@staff.harker.org

tl;dr

i like technical, smart debating, particularly of policy arguments. i like even more when these debates are a robustly developed 1-2 off rather than a proliferation of unexplained arguments.

i have come to the conclusion that i do not enjoy watching, nor do i know how to evaluate, ld phil debates, as well as high theory arguments. i'm also not the best judge for a very technical 2ar on theory, especially if the 1ar is fast and/or blippy.

you will almost surely lose if you read tricks, silly theory arguments, spikes, or weird ld arguments using acronyms (including but not limited to rvi, nib, afc, or any spec argument). i will listen to these, but the sillier/less intuitive the argument, the lower my threshold for responses (and your speaks) will be.

online debate notes

please be extra clear & go about 70% speed! after online camp + judging practice rounds, i would probably prefer if you sent analytics, especially theory, t standards, and permutation texts.

if you do not locally record speeches in the event that you drop off a call, i will flow only what i caught. will not let you regive any part of a speech.

more specific thoughts

from miles gray: i think the purpose of any one debate round is to determine whether the benefits of an example of the resolution outweigh its harms and/or opportunity costs. i will, by default and by preference, adopt this position when considering arguments in a debate, and am very skeptical of reasons to evaluate a debate in any other way.

some things that i like seeing in debates

big picture framing and judge instruction
nuanced, fully developed arguments rather than "run and gun" strategies
well-researched strategies that display content mastery
good disclosure (this does not mean i am a fan of disclosure theory)

some arguments i am likely to be persuaded by

appeals to reasonability, especially on theory
plans good/pragmatics arguments vs. nebel t
judge kick
framework versus planless affs
util good & extinction outweighs

some arguments i am unlikely to be persuaded by

personal callouts
framing contentions without substantive answers
process counterplans (but vastly prefer the aff to make competition arguments rather than theory presses)
conditionality bad, or that any non-condo theory is a reason to reject the team
anything in the realm of spark or wipeout or warming impact turns
asking me to ignore large parts of the debate (evaluate after x speech, must concede fw or contention, indexicals, etc.)
frivolous theory and tricks (the bar for answering these is on the floor)

random notes

inserting rehighlighting is fine
evidence quality is very important to me. if you have very good cards, tell me, and i will read them! conversely, point out that your opponents' cards are bad (i think the state of evidence in LD is abysmal)
i feel comfortable voting on clipping/egregiously miscut evidence/other ethics problems even if the other team does not point them out (if it is a novice debate, i will likely not vote on clipping to maximize the educational experience for both debaters)
please be kind and respectful! there is a distinction between being sassy/sarcastic and being rude – if you cross that line, i will be very unhappy

if i am judging you in public forum

...you can probably ignore most of this paradigm. in high school, i did not compete in pf, but i am familiar with the differences between pf and ld/policy and will try to adapt my judging accordingly. regardless, here a few things that might differentiate me from other pf judges:

i prefer flow/circuit style debate, and i will make my decision based off of technical drops and extensions. how "pretty" your speeches are will not affect how i evaluate your arguments.
i firmly believe your evidence should be in the form of direct quotations (ideally cards *with full citations available*). in my mind, paraphrasing has the same weight as analytical arguments, and arguments from the opposing team to discount paraphrased evidence will be very persuasive to me.
arguments need to be extended in every speech for me to evaluate them at the end of the debate. if something is not extended in summary, you will not be allowed to bring it up in ff. consequently, using summary to choose *a few* important offensive and defensive arguments is in your best interest.
i care little about pf formalities (who asks the first question, sitting/standing during grand crossfire, etc.)
speed is fine, but please maintain clarity.

Aryan Jain Hire 8 rounds None

Rushi Jain Hire 8 rounds

Serena Jones Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 5:06 AM PDT

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

SONAL S JOSHI Hire 8 rounds

Lisa Kahler Hire 8 rounds

neel kanamangala Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

Preeth Kanamangala Hire 8 rounds

Amit Khanna Hire 8 rounds

Benjamin Kwabi-Addo Hire 8 rounds

Karin Liu Hire 8 rounds

Stephanie Liu Hire 8 rounds None

Qianzi Loo Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 19, 2022 at 5:16 AM PDT

Hi! I'm a current high schooler and this is my third year debating. I started with some competitive Congressional debate before switching to competitive Public Forum.

email for chains: qzloo888@gmail.com

TL;DR:

Be respectful, present clearly (some speed okay), use accurate evidence, do impact calc/collapse (preferably don't wait until FF), will listen to crossfires but usually won't flow, tech>truth

General:

I will not tolerate any sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. comments -- you will lose the round and receive low speaks for being disrespectful and offensive. Debate is supposed to be fun and competitive! Don't be rude :) I consider myself to be tech>truth but will rule against plainly false arguments.

Evidence

Paraphrasing evidence is alright but make sure to have the source. If you can't provide a card to support your point, I will likely drop it. Cite author last name or publisher & year.

*If you plan on talking about things using specific vocab like recidivism, remittances, hegemony, give a brief definition. I'll likely know what they mean but it's better to clarify for everyone in round.

WEIGHING/COLLAPSING

1) be sure to weigh/collapse in your summary/ff (pf debate) -- it'll boost your chances of getting a vote

2) you don't need to weigh in rebuttal but it's helpful

3) don't just include random words like "we win on magnitude, scope, probability, timeframe", explain what they mean

Speed/Speaks

I'm okay with some speed as long as you're clear. However, I would prefer if you don't spread like policy debaters do (love y'all but the speed is too much).

Speaks: will try to avg around 27.5 but will adjust based on attitude in round & speaking ability/clarity/logic

T/K

I mainly debated PF and Congress, so not really familiar with Ks. If you plan to run a K, just make sure to explain it well and tell me before round. I know a bit about T-- just make sure you point out the violation and I'll vote on it if the opponents are clearly abusive.

Happy debating!

Wesley Loofbourrow Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

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!

Raymond Ma Hire 8 rounds

Njuguna Macharia Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 18, 2022 at 1:35 AM EDT

My judging criteria is as follows:

1. Truth of claim :

The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is in responding to responses of your proof of the claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team could attack a link in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response then the likelihood of truth of your argument becomes diminished. The result of this is that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which greatly reduces your chance to win the debate.

2. Impacting :

The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases. Ensure your impacts are reasonable within the debate and can be proven rather than looking for a huge impact that is unlikely to be proven within the debate.

3. Responses :

There are two level of responses I think are important within the debate. Responses that are constructive in nature which means you are responding to a rebuttal that was attacking your argument and rebuilding your argument. The second are deconstructive arguments attacking the opposing teams arguments. It is important to have different responses to the most strongest arguments in the round. Firstly because it allows you to mitigate the other teams arguments much more and reduces the likelihood the response is answered by an easy response from the other team. Lastly because you need to prioritize the strongest arguments and respond to those particular arguments within the round because they are the most likely to win the round and time limitations do not allow you to respond to every single argument.

4. Weighing :

Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.

5. Structure :

It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.

Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best !

Klaudia Maciejewska Hire 8 rounds

Emi Maeda Hire 8 rounds

Nicholas Marques Hire 8 rounds

Ananth Menon Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:26 PM EDT

Email Chain: anmenon@scu.edu

Competed in PF for four years from 2018-2022 on the national circuit under the codes University MN and University HM for University School.

**For TOC '24 - be clear, I'm not gonna flow from your doc. (the clearer you are, the better the decision will be!) Please do not expect me to evaluate progressive debate well; I have little to no experience debating theory or k debate.

TL:DR

I will judge off the flow. Pls pls pls pls weigh. Have a nice narrative in the round. Feel free to ask me in the round if you have any questions or clarifications!

look at this and it'll be the easiest round of ur life if you can follow the steps below:

How I evaluate

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

-If team x is winning the weighing I look to their case first

-if team x winning their case, the round is over

-if team x is losing case, I look at team y case

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I presume neg

Long: (copied from dan yan lmao)

General:

1. Speed: Speed is fine unless you're unclear. Send a speech doc if you plan on going super fast. I won't flow based on the speech doc if I can't understand what you're saying at all.

2. Weighing: Please do comparative weighing and start it as early as possible! If you just say "we outweigh on scope" without explaining why I will be sad. If both teams do different types of weighing and do not meta-weigh then I will also be sad and have a headache. I will not default to prioritizing a certain weighing mechanism–I will simply tally up who has more.

3. Frontlining: You must frontline offensive arguments in second rebuttal including kicking out of turns. If you are biting a delink to get out of a turn, please explain how it delinks it. If you choose to frontline defense in second rebuttal on a certain argument, you must frontline all of it or else it's conceded.

4. First summary: First summary only needs to extend defense if it is frontlined in 2nd rebuttal.

5. Final focuses: All offense in final should be in summary. If you want something to be on my RFD, it must be in final focus.

6. Implications: Please implicate everything clearly! This is especially true for (but not excluded to): Overviews, cross-applications, turns.

7. DA's/ADV's: Call them like they are. If you say they are "turns" but they are clearly unrelated to the argument, I will be sad.

8. Turns: I like turns, especially if they are explained very well. I encourage you to go for them if it is strategic. However, be sure to fully extend the argument just like any other argument! (link, turn, impact)

9. Collapse: Please collapse only if it is strategic (Most of the times it is). If there is no reason for there to be 8 pieces of offense at the end of the round I will be sad and speaks will be lower.

10. Extensions: I care about good extensions. I will not appreciate it if you simply say "extend our Smith '18 response." You need to fully extend the response and implication. Same thing goes for case arguments. I will not consider poorly extended arguments only if the other team points it out–otherwise, I will grant bad extensions (unless it's 2nd final).

11. Analytics vs Evidence: Good warrants are good warrants even without evidence. In fact, I'll probably be more impressed by you if you can give well warranted analytics.

12. Evidence: I will try my best to not call for evidence and only judge off of what was said in the round. I will only call for evidence if the round is unresolvable without it where one team says it's good and the other says the opposite and you ask me to call for it. I will not call for your evidence just because you claim it is good and want me to look at it. IF I do end up calling for evidence and it indicts itself later, it will not factor into my decision unless the other team points it out.

13. Crossfire: Have fun & make me laugh. Use this time to ask clarifying questions and help yourselves– I'll only care if someone makes a critical concession and is brought up again in a later speech.

14. Progressive Arguments (I'll try my best)

I will most likely not understand anything beyond what I've mentioned so run them at your own risk. (don't like frivolous theory)

Speaks: (I tend to give high speaks)

1. I'll be a big fan if you make a cool strategic decision (ie. weighing out of turns ect.)

2. Make me laugh

3. Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

4. Don't doc bot

5. Off-time roadmaps: Just tell me where you're starting and signpost idc about every little thing you're doing. If you do an elaborate roadmap and then don't follow it I'll be sad :(.

6. come preflowed please

Adam Najie Mimou Hire 8 rounds

Sreedhar Mogulla Hire 8 rounds

Aamir Shamim Mohsin Hire 8 rounds

Tessa Murphy Hire 8 rounds None

Lakshmikanth Naredla Hire 8 rounds None

Tracy N Njogu Hire 8 rounds

Amanda Nobra Hire 8 rounds

Kavi Patil Hire 8 rounds None

William Phong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 11:27 PM PDT

2024 update: I haven't judged in a while so just keep that in mind, most of the below isn't too relevant to pf but if you have any questions just let me know

Torrey Pines '19

Pronouns: he/him

Email: williamphong10@gmail.com

General

- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent

- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)

- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it

- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me

Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)

- Neg on presumption

- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi

CP - Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.

DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.

Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Ronak and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.

K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.

Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.

T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.

Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.

Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.

Tricks – 0 experience

Avanti Rajadhyaksha Hire 8 rounds None

Parth Shah Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT

pasdebate@gmail.com

Maine East ‘20

University of Pittsburgh ‘23

TLDR- Good for clash rounds, okay for K v K rounds, bad for Policy v Policy rounds simply based on lack of experience. I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on TikTok

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Saundarya Shah Hire 8 rounds

Monali Shenolikar Hire 8 rounds

Sam Snitkovsky Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 20, 2022 at 9:53 AM EDT

Tech judge who flows and discloses

Tech > Truth

If you plan on using a lot of jargon and/or abbreviations, it's fine if you just make sure to explain it.

If someone cards you, put the link to the website you used in the chat with a small excerpt so the person can find it. I know you might have some technical issues, but if you can't provide a card within maybe 5 minutes I will consider you to not have one. Some teams like doing email chains for evidence or creating docs to paste in cards. Don't do that, and use the chat instead to exchange evidence.

If your card is a news source that's super biased, I'm not going to take what it says seriously if opponents contest it at all. With that being said, you can say "according to my imagination, everyone will get nuked tomorrow if you don't vote aff"; and as long as opponents don't contest it, I'll consider it valid evidence.

If your card is the actual topic being debated, I will consider it invalid. For instance, if the debate is about the US government and your positive information is from the white house website or if the debate is about the UN, and something positive is from their website, that's not evidence.

Even if what you're saying makes more sense in crossfire than what your opponents are claiming, interrupting or raising your voice will make me consider you as the one to have lost that round.

If I can, I will disclose at the end of the round and say why I made my decision.

If a framework is introduced and you don't respond during first rebuttal, it means you accepted it. That being said, the opposing team accepting your framework isn't necessarily a "win". If you propose a utilitarian framework, and they decide to not challenge it because they believe their argument can work that way, that's just the round moving forward.

Also, for whoever is introducing the framework, don't just say what it is, explain why it makes sense for the context of the debate.

If your speech is more than ten seconds out of frame of what you have, I will penalize it. So if it's a 4 minute constructive, you have to make it between 3:50 and 4:10. With that being said, I expect you guys to time yourselves and call out opponents if they're overusing prep. It's your job to be diligent, and if your opponents are being unfair, don't feel bad about telling them that their prep is used up and they have to go.

Don't use lay speeches.

I'm okay with fast-talking (can capture around 200-220 wpm), but don't spread too much and enunciate.

Extend impacts, and always answer "why does it matter?"

Example: This leads to environmental damage "Why is that bad" ➞ more climate change "Why is that bad?" ➞ people die "Why is that bad" ➞ our framework is quality-of-life and death is the ultimate reducer of quality-of-life

Weigh, especially during final focus.

If this is jv debate or below, absolutely no theory or ks. When you do use them, kritiks are ok(ish), but if you're running theory about proper debate practice, you're just wasting time.

Regarding speaker points, my big personal thing is interrupting. If you interrupt at all in crossfire, that's a big minus for you and I'll count whatever loaded questions you might have asked to have meaningless responses. I'm honestly okay with crossfire going a little bit over time, but nothing excessive.

If you want to personally suck up to the judge, don't.

Feel free to ask questions at the end. I have experience in tournaments, and I can point out some ways you could improve responses, the case, etc.

Kruti Soni Hire 8 rounds

Matthew St-Germain Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 9, 2024 at 11:25 AM CDT

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).
Policy debate judge (1995-present) with ample LD and PF judging experience.

(most of this is tailored to policy, there are specific PF/LD comments below)

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it while simultaneously hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to bank for subsequent paraphrasing. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable & competent adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Lincoln Douglas:

Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Hui Tang Hire 8 rounds

Catherine Terrace Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:42 AM CDT

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Prashant Thakwani Hire 8 rounds None

Nagaraja Thirumalapura Hire 8 rounds

Jun Tong Hire 8 rounds None

Asher Towner Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 5:25 AM EDT

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Mia Wang Hire 8 rounds

Sana Wazwaz Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 3, 2023 at 6:46 PM CDT

I debated in PF for four years at Spring Lake Park high school, and currently compete on the Augsburg University forensics team. I also judge LD and congress and have done so at local tournaments and on the National Circuit.

LD AND PF PARADIGM:

Overall, I'm truth > tech all the way.

In other words, dressing up a mediocre argument in debate jargon won't do it for me. I care mostly about the strength of your arguments.Sure, if you give me a really strong argument early on and don't extend it all the way through, I can't declare you the winner.However, your bad arguments will still be bad arguments even if you (attempted to) weigh it and extend and whatnot.

I look for arguments that:

1. Have convincing grounds, warrants, and impacts

2. Are not convoluted (see my comments on this below)

3. Are backed up by strong evidence

If you argument is problematic, illogical, fallacious, has weak/unconvincing warrants, etc, it doesn't matter to me how well you extended it.

If the card being used to back up an argument was not credible or cherry-picked, I will not weigh it even if it goes uncontested in round. (See pet peeves below)

Other general things I look for:

1. Signposting: Please be organized in your delivery so it is easier for me to flow and for you to keep track as well.

2. Clear speaking: Although I debated for four years, I have never ever been in favor of overly fast speaking whatsoever. I think it a cheap way to cram in too many arguments and then later say they never got refuted. I know how to comprehend general speed (sorry, it is hard for me to give exact wpm!), but if you are just spreading your case, unpopular opinion, but I think that reflects poor speaking skills.

- However fast you speak, please enunciate.

3. RESPECT AS A SPEAKER: If I see rude behavior, that is an automatic L from me. I don’t care how strong your case is.

4. Collapse arguments in the second half of the debate (summary and beyond) and please give me clear voters

5. Credible cards that aren’t cherry picked, outdated, or sketchy (see my elaboration on this below)

Pet Peeves:

1. Insisting that quantitative impacts are superior over qualitative ones:

- I don’t believe an impact is inherently not significant just because it cannot be expressed in a number. Numbers are incredibly important to prove the magnitude of a point, but it does not always outweigh a properly explained and cited qualitative impact. Although numbers tend to be more concrete, qualitative impacts can in some cases be quite powerful.

- For example, I cannot give you an exact number of how many people will die if we don't make college free (for example), but that doesn't mean the impact is meaningless. You can give all sorts of studies linking college education to employment, give research on how this might impoverish people, etc. But if you don't have numbers for the exact amount of people that will DIE, that doesn't mean the point is meaningless.

- But if you have numbers, use them. Just don't assume that your opponent's impacts aren't there just because nobody has done a formal study on how many would die.

2. Catastrophic impacts

- I am unconvinced by catastrophic-sounding quantifiable impacts. Examples include people saying "1 billion people will die from nuclear war if we do this;" "x policy will cause mass extinction;" "the passage of x bill will bring back the ice age;" etc. If you’re gonna give me an impact that billions of people will die, I’d like to hear a credible explanation with a warrant that isn’t convoluted. I am skeptical when debaters pull very unrealistic, outrageous sounding numbers, so be cautious of this.

3. Cherry-picking cards or using ones that aren’t credible

I am very good at being able to pick out when a card sounds fishy, and have caught debaters using such cards. Have integrity, use evidence that you’ve verified, and don’t cut and paste the portions that suit your narrative.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

All the notes above still apply.

My other note - please try to move the debate along in your speeches. Too often, I see congressional debaters repeating the same points in later speeches and it doesn't do anything to advance the debate. Throughout the session, you should be addressing the points of contention from the round.

Holden Jacob Weisman Hire 8 rounds

Harold Woo Hire 8 rounds

Makenzi Claire Wright Hire 8 rounds

Qi Wu Hire 8 rounds

Joanne Zhang Hire 8 rounds None

Yufeng Zhang Hire 8 rounds

Jianjian Zhu Hire 8 rounds

Login to Tabroom

March Potomac Intramural

2022 — Online, MD/US

Public Forum Judges Paradigm List

Judges