Hi guys, I'm Caitlin. I am a current Public Forum debater at Newton South, and have three years of debate experience. A few things that you should know about my judging style:

Be nice. If you are sexist, racist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, or anything that targets other minorities I will drop you and give you low speaks.

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should be at least frontlining turns, as second summary is too late for opponents.

Summary: This is a time for people to extend their arguments and tell me why they win the ballot. I also highly encourage collapsing as it is cleaner on the flow, and easier to understand the arguments.

Final Focus: Do not bring up new arguments in final focus. Final focus should mirror what is said in summary. This speech should sum up the round and why I should give you my ballot.

Cross X: I don't pay attention during Cross X so if there is something that I should know, please bring it up in your speeches.

Please don't run theory or Ks, I believe they take away from the debate space.

If you run any -ist arguments, make sure to run them with care. Convince me that you actually care about the issue you are bringing up.

How to get speaks:

Comparative analysis: I want you to tell me why I should prefer your argument, as it is a lot easier to judge the flow off of convincing logic. This could range anywhere from comparing strength of evidence to strength of link.

Signpost! I like a clean flow where I am able to understand your arguments as you debate.

Warrant your speeches, I want to be able to understand your arguments.

Don't go overtime in speeches.

----- Speaker References ------

If you can make a reference to any of these: Avatar the Last Airbender, Dwayne the Rock Johnson's Face Off, Undertale, or Gravity Falls, or the song We Don't Talk about Bruno, in a comprehensible way during the debate round, I'll give you +1 speaks.

If you wear a blue jacket and put your hands in your pockets, sing the first part of Megolovania, and start off your speech by saying: "Our opponents are about to have a bad time," I will give you full 30 speaks.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at: angcaitlin0@gmail.com :)

Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

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

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

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

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

General

Speech times are set

Signpost or I will not flow

Overviews are appreciated

IMPACT CALC PLEASE or you will not like the consequences

Policy:

tech>truth

Generally Tabula Rasa

Run your thing but you better explain and justify why it's good idea.

If you run dense philosophy keep in mind that my head is empty, explain what you are talking about and contextualize all of it to the ballot, otherwise don't complain about the decision

Speed is fine but Slow Down on voters and analytics

Little to no topic familiarity

LD:

I think this event exists somewhere in between pofo and policy

So I will still flow without pre-conceptions but I really don't appreciate how it has basically become 1-person policy at the national level.

Please have a well explained value and criteria and contextualize that throughout the debate.

POFO:

truth>tech

Make the debate accessible, that's the point of the event. If you want to run wacky stuff go to policy

Parli:

NPDA background

Speaks:

30: No

29: Top speaker of the day

28: I got you

27: I didn't get you

26: Words were spoken?

25: No, but different

Be nice please. A lot of people think perceptual domination in debate is incredibly important, but in my eyes it is not nearly as important as being respectful and kind.

I have debated pf for 3 years, so I understand how a flow works, and I can handle speed to an extent(I will let you know if you are going too fast).

That being said, I tend to prefer arguments that I believe over speeches that are technically dazzling. I will not be willing to vote off of theory, so please do not try it. I feel like most of the time it is poorly done and unintentionally insensitive, so rather than subject myself to that dice roll of doom, I would rather you just not run theory.

I love good warranting, and will not vote for a point if the warrant is not extended throughout the round. Going for fewer arguments with great explanation and weighing is probably the easiest way to win my ballot.

d.c. Jay Garg <3

I competed in public forum for Acton-Boxborough.

Rebuttal

I have little to no tolerance for new frontlines in second summary (if you’re second speaking team and didn’t frontline at all in rebuttal)

Theory

I don’t know how to debate theory and honestly don’t understand it. Don’t run paraphrase/disclosure/other theory in front of me; I won’t vote off of it. That being said, if your opponent is being sexist/racist/ableist/discriminatory in any way, call them out on it; clearly warrant and explain what they are doing and why it is harmful (if you are the one being offensive you’re getting auto dropped and lowest speaks I can give). In general though, no theory.

• Don’t hesitate to ask if you have questions or if there is any way I can make the round more accessible for you.

• email is ashleydawn@college.harvard.edu for evidence chains

Hi! I debate PF at Newton South High School!

If u have any questions feel free to msg me on facebook messenger or email me @drormia@gmail.com

creds to janani ganesh <33

general stuff

a. i think weighing is like THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in a round pls weigh and give a strong narrative

b. tech ----------------x-------------------------------------- truth

speed/speech:

- u can speak fast but not like extremely fast, try to go like conversational speed

- if u have a speaking disability (ex. stuttering) lemme know before round or msg me but if you dont feel comfortable telling me im not gonna tank anyone speaks for stuttering [the same applies for any other like disablity, i want to make debate as inclusive as possible]

- if ur opponents tell u to slow down, pls slow down there are many factors why ur opponents may ask u that

however if u r spreading send me and ur opponents a speech doc

content

- WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME. DO VOTERS (ex. "there are 3 places ur voting for us in this round") i want to spend as little time after the round deciding who won (unless if theres clash ofc which is rly good) and i rly dont want to intervene

- weighing is so crucial. if there is not weighing i will default whoever's narrative is stronger.

- i hate theory so pls try not to run it. try to treat me like a lay with theory. if ur rly pressed about running theory/k's ask ur opponents first if they are comfortable cus not everyone has the resources to learn about these kinds of things

- make sure to point out which arguments are conceded/dropped but don't lie or i will be sad

cross x

- i dont vote off cross but i will be listening

- make sure ur not just asking clarifying questions but attacking their stance as well

- if both of yall run out of things to say just ask ur opponents how their day was

- dont be rude but be assertive pls i wanna see confidence!!

Debate should be a safe and inclusive environment, if you ever feel unsafe/uncomfortable before or during round pls feel free to reach out to me at my email: drormia@gmail.com

I'm excited to judge all of you! Let’s make every round a fun round!

I am a senior at the Waring school and have been debating since the beginning of my freshman year.

I vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

I believe that a good debate has a balance of truth and tech. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Please be respectful to your opponents, especially in crossfire. Try not to interrupt, unless someone has been speaking for a significant amount of time without asking/answering a question.

I will deduct points for any debaters who are sarcastic, demeaning of opponents, or biased in terms of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or social class.

I will give you +.5 speaker points if you are on the pro and you call your arguments "protentions" instead of contentions.

Hi everyone! I'm Bella, a public forum debater at Newton South.

Some general things to know before round.

*Please be respectful.

*Comparative weighing and analysis is really important for voting.

*I can do speed, but I prefer a general pace.

*Make it clear where I should be voting in the round and when something is conceded.

*I'm not gonna vote off what you say in cross, so if its important please bring it up in speech.

*I do not like Theory.

If you have any questions, just ask me.

Hi! I am currently a senior at Newton South and have done PF for four years. A couple things:

1. Please don't say "just a quick off time road map." Please.

2. In rebuttal, the second speaking team should frontline turns. Not required, but I like when teams collapse in second rebuttal.

3. I don't just care that your card says something—explain to me why it says that.

4. PLEASE WEIGH! Make my decision easy by telling me why your argument is more important.

5. I can't vote for you if in your second half speeches you aren't extending a warrant and an impact (and weighing and frontlining). Please please collapse.

6. I don't like theory and will probably evaluate it wrong. Would *strongly* advise against running it.

7. Make me laugh and I'll boost your speaks:) If you are mean to your opponents, expect your speaks to reflect that.

Let me know if you have any questions! Excited to judge!

I will vote off of the cleanest extension and link chain. Please do not yell during cross or be too aggressive and if you fail to interact with peoples' responses I will notice. Other than that, do not run theory or a k unless it is funny.

Hi I'm Enya! I debated for 4 years at Newton South, mostly on the nat circuit. I'm a few years out.

Add me to the email chain - enya@kamadolli.com (this is solely for convenience in case y'all ask me to look at evidence, I'm almost never looking at evidence unless a team asks me to)

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Please introduce yourselves w/ pronouns

---- For Novices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) You are amazing and we are all here to learn so please don't be stressed or nervous and try to have fun :)

2) Weighing is the easiest way that you can get me to vote for you. Please make it comparative though. Also please remember to also extend a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus (and it should be the same warrant and impact).

3) I don't vote off cross. Obviously I'll pay attention and give you feedback as to what were strategic questions, etc, but nothing you say in cross will be written down by me. That means that you should focus on asking about things that will help you out, not asking about things and saying things that should probably be in a speech.

4) Please please please collapse on just one or two arguments. I do not evaluate rounds by counting. I will only vote for something if there is a warrant and impact and ideally weighing. If you extend three contentions in summary/final focus, you have to do this for each contention.

(If you don't understand any of the things above or below, please ask. Also if at any point during round you are confused about speech times, cross times, or prep time, please ask)

---- General things-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***if you say anything or act in any way that is sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, egregiously elitist, islamophobic, etc, I will drop you and likely report you to tab***

1) Tech > Truth. Keep in mind that if you lose the flow, you will lose the round.

2) I require the frontlining of all offense in 2nd rebuttal. That means turns AND weighing. If those are not addressed, I consider them conceded in the round. You might want to frontline some other stuff too. That’s up to you :)

3) Evidence+warranting > warranting > bEcaUse thE EvIDenCe SayS sO.

4) Please use they/them pronouns with anyone that you don’t know the pronouns of

5) Everyone gets a 10 second grace period. Please do not start anything new during the grace period. However, certainly DO NOT interrupt your opponents, raise your hand/fist, or do anything else disruptive during that 10 second period. I frown upon this practice even after the 10 second period, given that I am also timing the speech and I will put my pen down after the 10 second period, so there's no need to frantically wave your timer at me.

6) the Zoom/NSDA platform technology picks up deeper voices. That essentially means that if a person with a deeper voice and a person with a higher voice are talking at the same time, only the person with the deeper voice will be heard. Please be aware of this and adjust your behavior in cross accordingly!!! If you are a person with a deep voice who ~literally~ does not let anyone else get a word in and/or interrupts others, expect a 26.

7) Feel free to ask me questions about my decision. If you have any questions about how I evaluated any specific argument/weighing, I encourage you to ask them if my RFD didn't make it clear enough. I'll most likely give an oral RFD unless the round runs really late, but if for some reason I don't, feel free to email me with questions once you get my RFD.

8) I'm willing to entertain progressive argumentation if you explain it well and you aren't running it against novices or teams that clearly don't know how it works. I'm quite open to kritiks, but please keep in mind that I don't have a ton of experience with them, so keep them accessible. Any sort of minority advocacy argument will be well-recieved by me. I'm not a huge fan of disclosure and paraphrase theory, but if it's on my flow I'll evaluate it.

---- Things that’ll boost your speaks -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving your opponents prep time if they use all of theirs up (+1)

Collapsing in second rebuttal (+1)

Rebuttal weighing overview (+0.5)

Having some good weighing mechanism that I’ve not encountered yet on a topic (+0.25)

for novice tourney: just be nice and have fun! Please time yourself, I will be timing too but I would rather not cut anybody off. And plz wear mask ty

PLEASE WEAR A MASK!! And wear it properly

***Let me know if you need any accommodations before round.

Im a lay judge, ive never hesrd of debate before

Hi, I'm Aris (they/them) and I'm a senior at NSHS. I've been doing PF for four years.

Tech>truth

1. Be nice. If you are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. I will drop you. If you're unnecessarily rude to your opponents, I'll tank your speaks.

2. No theory or K's

3. I only evaluate extended args in FF, dont drop your links or impacts

4. I won't flow over time.

If you are running a sensitive argument, use anonymous opt-in content warnings like the one linked here before round/speeches.

*Also, if you're comfortable, please let me know if you have a preferred name and/or pronouns that aren't in tab.

If you have any questions, email me at aris.li.email@gmail.com

I debated for four years in Public Forum on the national circuit for Acton-Boxborough Regional High School in Massachusetts. I'm currently a policy analysis major at Indiana University.

General Stuff:

• Tech > truth, mostly.

• You do not need defense in the first summary unless the second rebuttal frontlines.

• I am not that familiar with progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.) so I might have a bit more trouble understanding them. If there is an abuse in round, you can just call it out in speech; it doesn't have to be formatted as a shell.

• I default to the first speaking team.

• A lot of times (I did it too) debaters will see that their judge is a past debater and just spread random cards without warrants. Understand that I still know the topic a lot less than you do. You still have to read warrants and explicate them for me to understand what your argument is.

Things I Like:

• Although I do not require it, I love it when teams frontline efficiently in the second rebuttal. I think it is strategic to do so and it makes for a better debate in my opinion.

• I will always prefer smart analytics over unwarranted cards. If you read some nuke war scenario and your opponents question why war has never occurred it is not enough for you to just drop evidence and say it post dates. Interact with the warrants and show me why your side is stronger.

• Weighing is super important for my ballot. If you do not show me why your arguments matter more than your opponents I will not know how to vote and my ballot might get crazy.

Things I Do Not Like:

• Disads/offensive overviews are yucky, especially in second rebuttal. It gives insecure energy, like "I don't know how to respond to an argument so you're just reading another piece of offense to crowd it out on the flow". My threshold for responses to these are low.

• I do not like new responses in final focus that are disguised as “JuSt WeiGhiNg.” I will notice and it will not be on my flow.

• A lot of teams think that if they frontline case then that just counts as an extension of it. I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made and I will always grant more credence to the args of a team that does so.

Speaks:

I am pretty lenient with speaks but there are a few things that you should keep in mind.

• I was pretty aggressive in crossfire so I am fine with that as well but just be conscious of your opponents. This means letting them respond to your questions, ask their own questions, and overall just have an equal opportunity to talk.

• Talking over someone never won a debate and I can assure you that winning perceptually doesn't really win my ballot.

• If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc. to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speaks. Strike me if that's an issue (honestly quit debate, too <3)

This paradigm doesn't cover everything. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Have fun!

I am a parent judge in my 3rd year. Please present your arguments clearly as I try to capture the flow. Please help maintain the pace of the round by mindful of time limits. have enjoyed learning from the debaters about the topic of the round. I prefer to hear the debaters speak on the resolution instead of the rules of debate.

Hi there, I'm Rachel! I'm a Varsity PF debater at Milton High.

Tech>truth always. Meaning, if someone says the sky is green and you don't respond, the argument stands.

Please weigh!! If you don't weigh, it makes my voting decision a whole lot harder.

If y'all are confused or have questions, just ask! I'm here to help!

Be aware of what you're saying, just because I don't flow cross doesn't mean I'm not listening.

Frontline please, if you don't respond to what they say in rebuttal you don't have a case.

I don't want to see new arguments during Final Focus.

Don't ask for cards to stall, only ask for them if you plan on responding them!

!! If you say anything offensive, you won't win the round !!

Updated Jan 18 2022.

Hello! I'm Jessica. I am always extremely happy to be judging:)

I am a former LD debater from Wyoming! I qualified for Nationals in Big Questions, World Schools, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress. I did CX PF and Parli in college briefly as well.

I am not looking for anything wild in terms of the way you choose to debate. I trust debaters to do what's best for them and persuade me to vote your direction. If you tell me what I should vote on, I will listen, but if you don't I will just weigh the arguments made in round considering the impacts of all arguments, logic of the arguments, and overall coverage of major arguments. Logical arguments will always outweigh cards if you do not provide your own explanation of how the evidence applies to the round. Please provide voting issues for me.

- Please be as polite as possible:)

- Off clock road maps are dandy. Online - I'd also be happy if you said your name and side before you started speaking so that if I happen to not be looking directly at the video I can still tell who's who.

- You can talk fast if you need to, I do understand speed but it will make me sad in anything that is not CX.

- I will not read the evidence in the docs (except in CX), especially if you are not reading them at a speed that I can understand probably, but you sure are welcome to send it to me, and if you specifically tell me to "look at ___ because," then I will.

- I will listen to arguments made in CX, and please be sure to bring them up again in another speech.

- If you are debating LD, please debate LD, not policy. This is not to say I won't vote for you if you are running a counter plan, or talk fast, it just means your debate needs to be centered around ethics.

Email - jessicapetri@gmail.com

Hello Debaters. The only paradigm I can have is just remember to quantify your impacts, this means provide numbers to impacts also remember to signpost so I know where in the flow you are. Its okay to speak fast, critical thinking is appreciated. Remember to weigh impacts.

Thank you

About Me:

Georgetown LW

Homestead MW

Put me on the chain: zidao.debate@gmail.com.

If you are interested in debating at Georgetown or attending Georgetown camp, feel free to reach out!

TOC Update: I have done a moderate amount of topic research and have judged 26 rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. Explaining acronyms and highly niche things would still be incredibly helpful.

Conflicts: Westwood, Northside, GBS, Woodward.

Top Level:

Debate is a competitive activity that emphasizes research and persuasion. The best debaters possess skills regarding both.

Great debaters make strategic choices backed up with well warranted arguments and well researched evidence. I love seeing confident debaters demonstrating the culmination of a year's worth of research through the arguments they make, whether that's an innovative new counterplan or a topic specific K.

I don't think I have any major anomalies as a judge that should heavily impact the way you debate. I am open to judging and deciding any argument.

My biases will only come into play at the absolute margins. All can be overcome with technical debating.

I have three non-negotiables:

1 - Debate should not be about issues that occurred outside the round. If something has occurred outside the debate that threatens the well-being of any of the debaters, I will end the round and go to tab.

2 - Everyone must follow speech times, speech orders, prep time, there will be one winner and loser, etc.

3 - No asking for speaks or crowd participation.

Decision-making:

Tech over truth. However, truth significantly helps your ability to win the argument. Unwarranted or ridiculous arguments can be easily dismissed, but you must answer them.

Zero risk is possible, but my threshold is higher than some other judges. For example, if the 2NR drops "fiat solves the link to the politics DA" and it was well-warranted in the 1AR, I would likely assign the DA zero risk.

Try or die does exist. It is when either in the world of the DA or the case, there is no defense to the claim that extinction is inevitable (Ex: 2NR goes for only alt causes to climate change). However, I can be persuaded to discount that frame by either team.

Author quals matter. Cards written by undergrads, etc. should not be given much weight.

Clarity and ease of communication > extremely fast/unclear subpoints that are impossible to flow. Nine times out of ten you are better off slowing down and emphasizing strong moments of connection.

I am not a robot. Debate is a communicative activity. Sounding like you're winning will help.

You can insert re-highlightings if it's within the text of the card that was already read, but you must give it context and explain the implication. If you're inserting something 3 paragraphs after the original card, you have to read it.

If your evidence is extremely under-highlighted, you will have a tough time selling me in a close debate.

Theory:

On the Aff, everything seems to be a reason to reject the argument except condo (but you have to say it).

I will judge condo like any other debate. However, I am intuitively more persuaded by Neg flex than most Aff objections.

The less intuitive the CP is, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it absent evidence. I am a harder sell for solvency advocate theory.

T vs Plans:

Topicality says this debate should not have occurred because the Aff was not within the bounds of the agreed upon resolution. Therefore, it asks me to forego evaluating a debate about the topic in favor of punishing the Aff.

I default to offense/defense in lieu of a reasonability argument. However, an offensively framed reasonability argument can be persuasive to me in light of my above thoughts. This must be grounded in predictable and qualified counter-interp evidence. Additionally, the Aff must win a significant amount of defense to Neg standards.

I don’t view reasonability as a gut check or a decision based on “vibes.” A successful reasonability argument still requires the Aff to win offense for why viewing the difference between two interps through the lens of offense/defense is a bad frame. It is also grounded in the reasonable doubt burden of proof in criminal law.

I am most likely to vote Neg when they are winning a large link to limits, doing concrete impact calculus, and explaining why they have an inroads to predictability/why Neg ground outweighs.

DAs:

DA turns case/solves case can be high impact. The earlier this debate gets started the better. It's also far more persuasive if you can get it higher up the link chain (ie: link turns solvency > nuke war turns warming).

I care a lot about the story-telling component of DAs. In other words, don't debate the parts of the DAs like a bunch of disaggregated pieces without a clear vision. Focus on the core narrative of the DA and ensure that your line by line supports that narrative. Ultimately, I need to be able to articulate in a few sentences the thrust of the scenario the Neg is trying to sell me. Similarly, the Aff needs to explain why the Neg's story is inaccurate.

Impact turns can be great debates, but the closer they get to spark/wipeout the more they start feeling like bad debates.

CPs:

Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates and what internal links or impacts the Negative is claiming it solves. This necessity is magnified by vague 1NC planks without solvency advocates.

Compare what the counterplan does to the 1AC internal links/impacts. Explicit comparison of these warrants can be a great help when evaluating the "sufficiency" of counterplan planks.

Not the greatest for process stuff that is not about the plan. If you have a net benefit that is a reason the plan is bad or even genuinely mutually exclusive with the 1AC, then I will be extremely receptive on competition. However, most consult and process backfiles are not competitive given equal debating. Best route to an Aff ballot vs these CPs are perms. This preference, like all other preferences, will not come into play unless the debate is extremely close.

If two teams are advancing different visions of competition in the final rebuttals, I will strictly evaluate the offense and defense for each interpretation.

PICs are fine if they result in something different than the Aff. Not the best for word PICs that do the entire plan. If you have good evidence that the inclusion of a certain topic word affects the plan implementation, then I am much easier to sell on your word PIC. This needs to be grounded in an argument about what constitutes a function.

Ks:

The more your K is secretly a counterplan and a DA, the better I am for it. If your K does not exclude weighing the plan, I find it important for there to be an associated framework argument that checks back against an otherwise relatively persuasive 2AR on perm double bind.

I'm not willing to split the middle ground on framework arbitrarily. If the Aff is saying "No Ks" and the Neg is saying "Only Reps Matter" in the final rebuttals, I will decide on one or the other. However, either team can advocate for a middle ground during the debate and I will be receptive. If you are doing this, make sure to clearly explain what your interpretation looks like and how I should make decisions based on that framework.

I am worse than average for Ks that entirely moot the plan. If equally debated, I find fairness and clash objections to these relatively persuasive. I evaluate these type of Ks similarly to how I would evaluate competition for a Process CP. To win, Affs need to be technically sufficient and answer all tricks/checklist items.

The best 2NRs make clear strategic choices on the K. I find myself voting Aff most consistently when the 2NR fails to collapse the debate down to a core set of issues. (Ex: Going for too many links, trying to both win fiat Ks and links to the plan, not developing your core theory of power enough). Similarly, most 2ARs against the K have to win a few core issues, and the rest usually falls into place.

K Affs:

I will flow and listen to any 1AC. You do not have to read a plan. All you need to do is out tech the other team. If you can’t do this, I am likely to be persuaded by T.

Against T, I am equally fine for an Aff that defends a counter-interp and an Aff that just impact turns. If the Aff wins that topically itself is violent, then a lot of objections about "models" or "ballet solvency" seem to go away. However, I find most objections to the reading of topicality unpersuasive.

I have no experience adjudicating K v K debates. I don't find "no perms" persuasive, but am entirely open to other things besides the advocacy statement being a basis for philosophical competition.

I am also good for impact turns. Does the 1AC say "attempting to control other states" is bad? Sounds like NPT Good is offense. Did the 2AC say reject "all instances of American imperialism?" Sounds like you can say Heg Good. My biggest comment about going for these sort of impact turn 2NRs is that teams need to do explicit judge instruction about what should be a "win condition" for the Neg. This will help hedge back against a 2AR that says it's only a debate about debate. Similarly for the Aff, I think defending your epistemic commitments, either through substantive answers/cross-apps from case or Ks of the impacts, is more persuasive than no linking everything.

If the Aff reads a plan but says it's good for a deontological reason like Kant or Buddhism, I think T is basically unwinnable.

Ethics/Decorum:

Assertiveness and humor is great and will boost your speaks. Have fun! I love debate and love to see people enjoying the activity.

Minimizing dead time in debates will not only allow me to make better and more helpful decisions (by giving me more decision time), but will also help your speaks.

Clipping= L + 0. This needs to be multiple lines, not a couple words. Any team may initiate an ethics challenge about clipping or other procedural violations (there must be recorded evidence). If I conclude the team is incorrect, they will lose the round and receive a 25. I will also self police this.

Overt sexism, racism, homophobia, etc = L+0. I am an educator that is responsible for the well-being of minors during the duration of the round. Threats of physical or psychological violence will never be acceptable. I will decide where to draw the line, but it would behoove you to ensure that you are FAR away from that line as possible with your decorum. I will not hesitate to instantly end the round, give you an L+0, and escalate the situation to tab.

Speaker points:

If you opensource (every card you've read) and let me know before the RFD, you will get .2 extra speaks.

If you give the final rebuttal without the use of a laptop, you will get .2 extra speaks (inspired by DKP).

Public Forum Paradigm:

I occasionally judge middle school PF rounds for Holy Trinity, where I am an assistant coach. Although I am a college policy debater, I do not think public forum should be a speed contest or obscure critiques/counterplans should be the focus of the debate. I will not be receptive to teams running these arguments as "cheap shots," especially in middle school.

The three things I care about the most for public forum debates are:

1. Answering your opponents arguments in an organized fashion. I love when debaters specifically reference arguments by labels, (ie: "their biodiversity argument") and then respond to that argument where they reference it. It makes it easier for me to decide the debate. Jumping around different arguments or disorganized speeches make it harder for me to decide.

2. Making strategic choices and doing impact calculus. In final speeches, I think there are little to no circumstances where debaters should be extending multiple contentions/arguments. Public forum speech times are very limited, so it's best to focus on the strongest argument you are winning and play defense to your opponent's stuff. Explain why your impact or argument is more important and why it matters.

3. Paying attention/flowing. Taking notes of what your opponent is saying and paying attention to what arguments they did or did not make are all important. I like it when debaters point out mistakes or what opponents said in prior speeches, because it shows me they're paying attention.

Have fun! Debate is a competition but it's also a fun activity that allows you to learn new things and make friends.