Tabroom.com

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2023 — Tempe, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Wyatt Alpert Oakwood School 3 rounds

Aravindh Anantaraman Mira Loma High School 5 rounds

Marissa Armstrong Hire 6 rounds None

Chetan Avlani BASIS Chandler High School 6 rounds

Kay Bakshi Desert Vista High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 6, 2023 at 4:26 AM MST

TL;DR: Just look at the bolded stuff in the Flow Section if you don't want to read everything.

Background: I debated 4 four years in high school in Public Forum Debate (2016-2020). I dabbled in Extemp.

Lay Stuff:

Don’t be a jerk, otherwise I'm going to give you low speaks and a low point win if you happen to win by flow. If you are any type of -ist in round or has an argument that is- you are dropped. Be inclusive and kind

Speed = fine, but I will say “clear” and stop flowing if too fast.

Speaks: high avg speaks if you do everything right- 28. Ill drop speaks if you are not civil, have an abusive argument/fw. If u make me laugh/snicker +.5 speaks. Also if you do key voters right +.5 speaks.

Clipped or Falsified Evidence = drop, be ethical, stop clipping

Time yourselves and hold each other and your opponents accountable.

CX: it’s for you guys to clarify things/poke holes (it's ok to use it to clarify, don't feel bad). I may listen I may not, I'm still not gonna flow it either way. Whatever you or your opponent says that is important in CX better be brought up in speech otherwise it doesn’t count. Don’t be abusive with follow up questions.

Flow stuff:

I really don't care for Rhetoric heavy debate, just get to the point. I want clash and clear warranting.

I expect 2nd rebuttal to respond to the first rebuttal responses. (The fact that some people don't do this is weird to me).

SIGNPOST WHEREVER YOU GO, it’s a basic skill every debater needs to do.

In general I prefer the Quality > Quantity of responses. Please Don't Card Bomb Me.

Don’t flow through red ink, I will likely catch you and what you say won’t be counted in round. Additionally I have a pet peeve of saying “flow through contention 1” or "flow through smith 19" and then moving on, u better explain to me exactly how your contention/warrant/card actually flows through and what the argument/content is.

I like Key Voters but if you don’t know how to do them I’m fine with down the flow as long as u signpost and condense/collapse well. In Summary since it’s now 3 minutes, I want some weighing analysis at the end, but there should be more weighing in FF.

In your final speeches (esp Summary): Extend your warrants otherwise I am not giving you access to your impacts. If something is brought up in FF that isn't in Summary, it doesn't count- don't flow through red ink, and be consistent with your partner.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING GOOD WEIGH IN YOUR FINAL SPEECHES. If you don’t weigh you essentially leave it up to my opinion on what I value the most. If you guys can use and talk about multiple weighing mechanisms like the probability, scope, time-frame, magnitude of your impacts in relation to each other, and which mechanism should be preferred over the other- you'll catch my interest. Alongside any logical fallacy names like; “slippery slope”, and “straw man”.

Also you can definitely talk about cards and methodology in your speeches. Just don't let evidence debate be all that the debate boils down to. I may ask for and read for critical cards after the debate too, regardless of evidence debate.

Ill probably disclose at the end if you made the debate clean and easy (and if I am allowed to) but if not I detail the ballot.

Framework/Nontraditional stuff:

Don’t ever give me a “framework is utilitarianism” in case because that is inherently what Public Forum debate is (you can use it as a response in rebuttal and so on). This also goes for "Cost Benefit Analysis" if it is in the resolution. That being said I welcome non traditional frameworks and interpretations of the resolutions that have a rational basis that you can explain well and have cards to back up. I really enjoy and love fw debates. Also shouldn't be an abusive fw.

Please respond to your opponents framework if they have one, cuz that could ultimately cost you the round.

I'd rather not judge a K/theory/plans in PF please (don't really know about them in depth anyway). Although I would rather not judge it, I am open to hearing these Kritiks/Theory but you will need to be able to explain VERY clearly and how it works in round not only to me but your opponents, because if they don't know what you are doing it kind of ends up being abusive cuz they can't or don't know how to respond to them. If you end up using progressive debate techniques in PF I hope it is supplemental to traditional debate cuz as I said above I have a very loose understanding of this stuff and would likely be a time waste.

Plans are not allowed in PF (NSDA Rule). You can have a advocacy (NOT A PLAN- difference is in a plan you specify how you are going through with it, advocacy is just a general recommendation) as long as u can explain how it makes sense under the resolution in round (not after when u are trying to persuade me). Also make sure its not overly abusive to your opponents and puts them in a corner where they can't get out, that ties into being a jerk.

Feel free to ask me questions about any of this or something not here.

Ujji Bathla Hire 6 rounds

Mike Bausch Kent Denver School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 19, 2024 at 8:22 AM MDT

Mike Bausch

Director of Speech and Debate, Kent Denver

Please include me in email chains; my email is mikebausch@gmail.com.

Thanks for letting me judge your debate. Do what you do best, and I will do my best to adapt to you all. Here are some tips for debating in a way that I find most persuasive:

1. Flow the debate and make complete arguments. I care about line-by-line debating and organization. An argument must have a claim, evidence, and an impact on the debate for me to vote on it. I must understand your reasoning enough to explain to the other team why I voted on it.

2. Be timely and efficient in the round. Nothing impresses me more than students who are prepared and organized. Please conduct the debate efficiently with little dead time. Don’t steal prep.

3. Focus on argument resolution after the first speeches. Impact calculus, developing specific warrants, identifying what to do with drops, answering “so what” questions, making “even if” statements, and comparing arguments (links, solvency, etc) are all great ways to win arguments, rather than just repeat them.

4. Feature judge instruction in the final rebuttals. The best tip I can give you is to go for less distinct issues as the debate develops and to focus on explaining and comparing your best points to your opponent’s arguments more. Begin your final rebuttal by writing my ballot and explicitly saying what you’re winning and why that should win you the debate.

5. Remember that this is a communication activity. Speak clearly, I do not follow along with the speech document and will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. My standard for clarity is that I should be able to write down the warrants from your evidence as you read it. Use your cross-examination time to persuade the judge and prepare for it like a speech.

6. Talk about your evidence more. I think a lot of teams get away with reading poor evidence. Please make evidence comparison (data, warrants, source, or recency) a significant part of the debate. Evidence that is highlighted in complete and coherent sentences is much more persuasive than evidence that is not.

7. Identify specific evidence that you want me read after the debate. I am more likely to read evidence that is discussed and explained during the debate and will use the debater's explanation to guide my reading. I am unlikely to read evidence that I didn't understand when it was initially presented, or to give much credit to warrants that only become clear to me after examining the evidence.

8. Develop your link arguments more. I think that the policy consequences and the ethical implications of the resolution are both important to consider when debating about the topic. For all strategies, it starts for me with the credibility of the link. Unpack the precise reasoning of your link evidence and use the specific language of your opponent’s case when applying your link arguments.

9. Compare your impacts early and often. Impact analysis and comparison is crucial to persuading me to vote for you. In depth explanation is great and even better if that includes clear comparisons to your opponent’s most significant impacts.

10. I prefer clash heavy instead of clash avoidant debates. I think the affirmative should present an advocacy they can defend as topical, and the negative should clash with ideas that the affirmative has committed to defending. I am most impressed by teams that demonstrate command of their arguments, who read arguments with strong specific links to the topic, and who come prepared to debate their opponent’s case. I am less impressed with teams that avoid clash by using multiple conditional advocacies, plan vagueness, generic positions without topic nuance, and reading incomplete arguments that lack clear links or solvency advocates.

*Note: Because evidence comparison is a valuable skill, I think all formats of debate benefit from evidence exchange between students in the debate and would prefer if students practiced this norm.

Ninad Bhaskarwar BASIS Peoria

Tommy Billings Hire 6 rounds

Shabbir Bohri The Quarry Lane School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:19 PM CDT

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Margaret Braun Desert Vista High School

Ted Braun Desert Vista High School

Last changed on Tue November 16, 2021 at 11:25 AM MST

I am a former parent judge and now I suppose a citizen judge (our daughter who did Speech & Debate graduated high school in 2019), and this '21-'22 school year is my 7th year judging.

I have primarily judged Debate (all events), but have judged Speech as well.

I enjoy having the opportunity to watch students press themselves intellectually while expanding their speaking and debating skills. In addition I believe our Speech & Debate coaches and those who run and support tournaments are performing a meritorious service for students. For these reasons I can think of almost no better way to spend my volunteering time.

I take judging seriously and as such I try to ensure to always put forth my best effort.
Thus you can expect for debate events that I will have an at least abecedarian understanding of the subject(s) being debated and will have done reading on the resolutions and topics leading up to tournaments. I would like to think this enables me to do a more equitable job in judging.
What I won't have is a predetermined way of thinking based on my individual beliefs or preferences.

I am fine with spreading on any topic so long as it does not get too fast to capture key points and facts (which I will be using when weighing the results of the debate). I will be flowing down points as fast as I can make my fingers move.

I like to think that I am a pretty "vanilla" judge. Meaning that when judging I am going to be primarily focused that (depending on the event) contentions, values, frameworks, criteria and arguments are clear, and that they are backed up with impactful facts.
I may be slightly different than a completely "vanilla" judge in this last point - meaning that I am looking for points and facts which impact the argument the most. As this shows not only that the debater / speaker has done her or his homework, but that he or she is able to put the argument into perspective by bringing in impactful facts and figures into the debate/discussion which promote her or his argument.
Additionally I will be looking that debaters are able to think on their feet based on their opponents arguments as this is a mark of a good debater. Asking questions, poking holes in your competitors key points in a reasoned manner, as well as defending your arguments logically is what makes the debate a debate, and in congressional debate shows that you are attentive and engaged in the round.

Finally I will also be looking to ensure that all rounds are conducted in a professional and respectful manner. If conduct towards competitors crosses the line it will impact my ballot.

Most of all I look forward to doing as fair and good a job as I can.

Abigail Danette Cammiso Hire 6 rounds

Allison Carr Hire 6 rounds None

Anu Chandra BASIS Phoenix High School 2 rounds

Bo Ava Chen Canyon Crest Academy 5 rounds

Dongni Chen Saratoga HS 1 rounds

Michaela Chen Hamilton High School 2 rounds

Gurkaran Chotalla Brophy College Prep

Nyla Crayton Park City 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 16, 2024 at 11:52 AM EDT

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my third year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, would much prefer you to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism!

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- Speech time: I will continue to flow your speech until ~10 seconds after time is up. I will stop listening/flowing past that point.

- Prep Time: I do keep track of prep in the round, and I will be a bit unhappy if you go over that time. If you end up using more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing: please finish before the round starts.

If you have any questions or want any clarifications, you can shoot me an email or ask me before the start of round! Email is nylacrayton@gmail.com

Hanh Do University High School - SFO 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 3:31 PM CDT

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Hannah Du Canyon Crest Academy 5 rounds

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 10:36 PM EDT

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

Blake Enwiller Brophy College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:29 AM MST

Hello, I'm Blake Enwiller, and I debated Public Forum for three years and competed in Congress and Impromptu for two years.

Hugh Downs VLD - scroll down for LD-specific paradigm, but mostly everything in the below paragraphs (PF paradigm included) summarizes what I value while judging. Since the tournament is flighted, please pre-flow before the round (with the exception ofout-rounds).

Ultimately, I believe that Speech and Debate is an activity to foster effective and convincing rhetoric in addition to strong argumentation. Please do not engage in anything that hinders fair debate, especially in Public Forum since it was designed for lay judges.

Please make this round educational for all participants. In addition to the general knowledge I have, I believe that each side has the burden to teach me the topic and provide clear links between their arguments to that topic. I'm always open to questions after the round (or before the round if you want to clarify anything in my paradigm).

Email for additional feedback: blake.enwiller@vanderbilt.edu

Public Forum Preferences

General Philosophy: Please stick to PF's central purpose in the round, which is to promote an accessible debate format to the most general of audiences. Though I am a flow judge, I still value strong links and tangible impacts that are reasonable and comprehensible. Also, the best debate rounds are always ones where debaters understand their cases. Being able to succinctly and persuasively explain your argument causes better extensions, better analytical interaction, and easier decisions for the judge.

1. I do not handle spreading. Moderate speed is fine (220 wpm, 880 word case is close to max I can handle), but spreading prevents your opponents and myself from understanding the arguments and having an effective debate.

2. Argument-wise, I'll vote on anything warranted with clear links. However, I prefer when teams' arguments are the ones you would use in general conversation about the topic rather than squirrelly links with obscure evidence. I value links, probability, and warrants over impacts with high magnitude (nuclear war, extinction). I'm highly receptive to arguments that question your opponents' warrants and evidence, especially the impact.

a. I do not like “overviews” in first rebuttal that function as hidden contentions.

b. No progressive arguments. This event is called Public Forum for a reason; your arguments should be accessible and reasonable. There is no real-world application to deviating from an important topic by providing non-resolutional and extraneous arguments, unless you're intending to be a politician.

3. Second rebuttal must respond to turns, but I don't require extensive frontlining. I ask that the first summary extends defense, even if it was unaddressed in the 2nd rebuttal just for continuity of flow.

4. Please extend your arguments. Cards/links, warrants, and specific numbers within the impact being extended throughout the round are important. The entirety of the logical progression with each of these elements must be mentioned each time you extend your arguments. This is the best way to get the argument on the flow and make it easiest for me to vote.

5. Regarding weighing, it's important. However, I'll only evaluate weighing on arguments that each team won. Having large numbers isn't as important as actually winning the arguments.

6. Given evidence issues in PF, I will allow reading cards without using prep time, but when there are a lot of cards being requested but not mentioned or indicted in speeches, that becomes suspicious and prep will be required. Any misconstrued evidence will not be voted on.

a. Please feel free to ask me in speeches to read cards that you find suspicious. Explain why the card is bad in your speech so I know what to look for. I don't like intervening in rounds, but I also don't like voting for arguments that I know are either fallacious, poorly-linked, or incredibly far-fetched. Please call this out; I don't enjoy imposing my opinion on evidence quality unless you tell me to. I will choose to view your evidence at my discretion after the round.

b. I will drop cards I find to be misconstrued. If it's an impact, I won't vote on that argument.

c. I frequently ask for cards after the debate for my own clarity.

7. I will time speeches and crossfires. Please do not make any new arguments over the time limit. I will not flow them. I'll let you finish whatever argument you were on, but I won't flow anything else.

8. Brief speech orders are fine. I like them, unless it’s 1st rebuttal.

9. Etiquette:

a. Prefer standing over sitting.

b. Respect is important. Unnecessarily aggressive crossfires are uncomfortable and exclusionary. No talking during opponents’ speeches. Try to avoid overly emotive facial expressions.

c. Don't care where you sit; feel free to orient yourself near the outlets should you need a charge.

d. I’ll watch and pay attention to cross apart from a brief score check during baseball and football season. Bring up concessions in speeches, but make sure they're actually concessions. There are better ways to explain the round besides yelling the word "concession" for every argument on the flow.

Lincoln Douglas Preferences

I have a similar philosophy for LD as I do for PF, but with some modifications owing to event differences. I do not want to read off a document, and I don't handle spreading. Debate is an oral event. If you want to use e-mails for evidence exchange, I am fine with that, but I will not be reading off a document during any speech.

1. Please include Value and Value Criterion. If you run progressive argumentation, please be aware that my confidence in my ability to properly judge those arguments is alarmingly low. Your choice and your risk. DAs, CPs, and Plans make sense to me. Theory and Kritiks are where my evaluation capability might be questionable. When I evaluate LD rounds, I look first at the arguments that each side is winning, and then I see whether those arguments apply to the prevailing framework. During your extensions, please connect back to your V/VC so I know how to weigh. Again, as a former PF debater, I’m not familiar with evaluating FW debate — if both you and opponent are running different frameworks, it might be advantageous for you to weigh under both frameworks.

2. I understand that the style of cutting cards in LD with random, sporadic chunks of words is the norm. However, if there is any evidence misinterpretation or deliberate omission of parts of a card that alters the meaning, please feel free to make that argument. I don't want to intervene, so please call it out.

3. I need warrants to buy your arguments.

4. Etiquette is the same that I wrote in my PF paradigm. I'll abide by traditional LD event norms and require prep time to read cards.

Congress Preferences

1. Congress, at its roots, should be an event with mostly extemporaneous speaking off of a legal pad. Speeches that are clearly pre-written with no regard to opposing arguments will not be ranked high, as these speeches typically rehash arguments.

2. Each speech besides the authorship should refute. I appreciate when later speeches introduce new arguments and weigh impacts.

3. I do not appreciate when there are 3+ speeches on the same side in a row. This isn't debating, and most of the time, these are rehashed arguments anyway. When debaters refrain from moving to question so they can get an earlier session end time, it's not fair, especially when the speeches on that bill become rehashed and debate is one-sided.

4. I appreciate when debaters are the presiding officer. I am more than happy to rank a PO high that either (a.) volunteers when veteran debaters who are well-versed in procedure do not PO or (b.) exhibits excellent command of procedure.

5. I do enjoy arguments about the constitutionality of a piece of legislation.

Nelson Funes Orellana University High School - SFO 4 rounds

Demece Garepis Palo Alto High School

Arnab Ghosh McClintock High School 4 rounds

LJ Gomez Hire 6 rounds None

Nate Graziano Kent Denver School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:47 PM UTC

Current coach at Kent Denver School, University of Kentucky, and Rutgers University-Newark. Previous competitor in NSDA CX/Policy, NDT/CEDA, and NPTE/NPDA. Experience with British Parliamentary and Worlds Schools/Asian Parliamentary.

> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <

TL;DR - I like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine. Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note to coaches and debaters - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in chronological order of how I resolved them. Because of this I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews. Round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end of the debate, is something I reward both on the flow and in your speaker points. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent and their argument, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

I've voted for, against, and judged many debates that include narration, personal experience, and autobiographical accounts.

If you have specific questions or concerns don't hesitate to email me or ask questions prior to the beginning of the round - that includes judges, coaches, and competitors.

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will always receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.8-28.9.

Neha gupta BASIS Peoria 2 rounds

Anna Herrig Arcadia High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 10, 2024 at 5:45 AM MST

Email: Annaherrig2@gmail.com

General:

UTT 21-Present

Please send speech docs! (also if you say "mark the card here" please mark it)

Lets all learn something from each other. Debate is supposed to be fun, that being said, if you are having fun, I'll have a better time judging the round. The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Signposting is important, please do this throughout your speeches and tell me the order beforehand.

Tech>truth.

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Topicality

I will vote on T. I think you need to be explaining why you have the better internal link to either fairness or education. I think these debates have gotten increasingly shallow, and no one goes for it as a super compelling strategy in the block anymore. Explain why under your interpretation, debate is better and you method is better for debate at large. Arguing the spillover effects of your interp is an easy way to win this on the negative. Generics will not do it for me. I default to competing interpretations.

Disads

You should be cutting new uniqueness very often, and if you go for this strategy the quality of your evidence will have an impact on my decision. "If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is." -Kristiana Baez. There is such thing as 0% risk of a link.

Counterplans

Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs. I really like counterplans, and I like process counterplans. I don't love super generic CP's with the same set of solvency cards each round. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

Kritiks

Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates. You should have specific links to the aff. I am the best for cap. Anything else, especially anything pomo, you will need to explain to me like I am a 5 year old. If you're arguing that the k outweighs and turns case, you need a solid articulation as to why. You also need to be arguing specific impacts of the k, and how that compares to the claims made in the affirmative. I need a very clear explanation of framing here, and if you go for the K in the 2NR you should be writing my ballot for me. I also need a very clear picture of how the alternative functions, and why you solve the aff if you do.

K v K

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments.

Theory

Dumb theory or tricks won't do it for me. However, the less generic you are, the more I would be willing to vote on this. I believe theory that is done well and is well-articulated could be a compelling place for me to vote. I think proving in round abuse is important. Generally, I think condo is good.

Pref Stuff:

I am best for a policy v policy debate and or policy v k debate. Most familiar with running and judging cap&fem

I like the ptx da when done well

Eeman Huda Hire 6 rounds

Benjamin Hughes Fairmont Prep 1 rounds

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

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

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

Win/Loss

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

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

Speaker Scores

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

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

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

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

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

Education

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

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

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

Current Employment

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

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

Akhil Jain Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Sebastian Javadpoor Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 6, 2023 at 4:20 AM MST

Hey guys! I'm Sebastian Javadpoor, and I competed on the circuit for 4 years in Public Forum, Congressional Debate, Duet Acting, Duo Interp, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Impromptu Speaking. As for qualifications so you don't try to trick me (O_O), I've won state championships in three different events, was nationally ranked in four, and qualified to nationals in four (Extemp TOC, NIETOC, and NSDA). Currently, I am a Public Forum debate coach in NYC while studying Political Science/Psychology at Columbia, so I am still keeping up to date with what is going on in the PF scene.

PF Paradigms:

1. Do. Not. Spread. Please. I've done debate for a while, and it's still annoying, and it doesn't really help the debate space. You can speak quickly, but once I say clear, do not go back to that speed.

2. S I G N P O S T ! It's a really ez way to make the judges luv u!

3. I won't time checking cards for the first 30 seconds, after that it comes out of prep. Also please reference the name of the card in your case so I can flow it more easily. And if you want me to check an opponent's card personally, lemme know and I will do so while forming my decision.

4. I don't flow cross fire but if it gets a bit too heated I will probably give ya a dirty look and may drop your speaks a bit. Please be nice. Being a meanie but winning on your args still will result in a drop.

5. I am pretty strict on the flow, and I want to see some good clash and weighing. What isn't extended throughout the round to the end will not be used as a reason for my decision. So please coordinate and flow through what you want to collapse on!

6. Time yourselves please.

7. Debater math is insta-dropped. Have evidence for your calculations!

8. If you spot misrepresenting in an opponent's card, call it out and I will specifically ask for it. If I find that you are right in contesting the card, it is dropped. Don't clip, powertag, splice, make up your own news source, etc. It also would make me drop your speaks.

9. I really really really don't like theory in PF (especially disclosure theory in local tournaments). However, if you argue it well, I won't let my bias prevent you from winning off of it.

10. Speaks start off at a baseline of 26. 30s are rare but I will be favorable to those that incorporate rhyme into their speeches.

11. If you ask if I favor tech>truth, the answer is a "mostly yes"

Policy Paradigms!

Not much policy experience but I'm a flow judge so it'll be fineeeee.

BQ Paradigms!

I also do not have much experience in BQ, but considering its similarity to PF in terms of structure, most of those points still apply. Again, I'm flow, so take that into consideration when forming arguments.

also - email for speech docs (if necessary) - sebastianjavadpooracp@gmail.com

Arnob Kabir Hire 6 rounds None

Jasmine S Kabiri Hire 6 rounds None

Manisha kedia BASIS Scottsdale High School 6 rounds

Rumana Khan BASIS Chandler High School 6 rounds

Waldo King Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 3:42 AM MST

Public Forum:

TLDR: I was a four-year high school debater (standard flow judge that appreciates extensions and warranting)

Tech > Truth

Speed: If your case is above 800 words (200 wpm), cut something.

Cross: I don't listen to crossfire unless things get extremely heated. Cx is a time for asking clarifying questions, not bashing your opponents.

Weighing: Standard (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, reversibility). Feel free to weigh economic impacts over lives. I like interesting weighing mechanisms.

Impacts: Call out your opponents if they have floaty/non-quantifiable impacts. I'll probably buy it.

FF: Please carry through all your desired responses and offense into the last speech. Offense is not sticky, but defense is (please at least briefly mention your defense though).

Concessions: Please don't say the opponents conceded when they didn't. That is my biggest pet peeve.

Links/Warranting > Giant nuke war impacts

2nd Rebuttal should Frontline and begin weighing.

Turns: If the turns are nonsensical and only serve to reduce the amount of response time from the opponents, I'll drop them. Also, don't turn an argument more than once.

Blippy arguments: Please try not to win a round by flowing through a blippy/unwarranted impact that is not responded to by the opponents. I will probably still give you the win, but will be unhappy (because debate is about clash, not overloading the opponents). My tolerance is low for blippy args, so almost any understandable response can be used to delink a blip. Tip: if you're feeling like you're only winning with a blippy argument, you're probably losing in my book.

Lincoln-Douglas:

TLDR: Never competed in LD, know the basics of prog, but prefer trad.

Speed: I don’t enjoy doc debate but keep the speeches at a comprehensible speed OR send me a document for everything.

I would PREFER that the NR follows a similar speed to AC. I find it abusive when the negation spreads when the AC is slow.

Theory Defaults-

tech > truth

comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

reasonability > competing interps

DTD < DTA

Condo bad

PICs bad

FW- util if nothing is read

key voters > line-by-line (prog)

line-by-line > key voters (trad)

Tricks: don't.

K's need to be topical at least in some way, and I'd prefer for them to have solvency.

Regarding other preferences, please skim over the PF paradigm as most of that will apply.

Christopher Klugman BASIS Scottsdale High School 4 rounds

Sedona Korzay Phoenix Country Day School

Last changed on Mon February 5, 2024 at 2:16 AM MST

Experience:

Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.

Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)

General:

I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, sedonakorzay@gwu.edu

Speed:

- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something

- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.

- Don't extend through ink.

- Please roadmap/signpost.

- Collapse; if you don't, you might not like how I vote

- Don't abuse and overview

Weighing:

- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...

- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.

- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you

Speaker Points:

- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE

- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks

Notes on Progressive Arguments:

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or most Theory, you're lowering your chance of me voting for you. PF is supposed to be accessible.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.

Misc.

I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)

- Have fun!

Nate Kruger Oakwood School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 11:33 AM EDT

for speech: im cool with whatever and am excited to judge!

hey! i'm nate. put me on the email chain. natenyg@gmail.com facebook.com/nate.nyg

he/him! will boost speaks +.1 for debaters who ask before round :)

i did ld at hunter and qualled to the toc my senior year. I was a 2n at wake forest for 2 years where my partner and i reached quarters of ceda. i did pf my freshman year, so i'm familiar, but don't assume i know every single thing about the activity and its conventions.

i'm willing to vote on anything and am purely tab with the caveat of intervening against oppressive argumentation. if you're reading theory or k's in pf, i'd vote on it, but please make an effort to make your arguments accessible to your opponents -- pf has not entirely adapted to new norms and if you don't try to adapt your arguments to pf and instead just assume your opponents will know your exact format and everything i'll be annoyed and speaks will suffer. bad theory and k debates are lame, frivolous theory in pf is probably the stupidest thing i can think of lol

oh also i'm judging policy now lol -- what i said above is still true -- was a 2n at wake, haven't debated in like a year, my partner and i quartered ceda reading black feminist lit on the aff and cap on the neg, that's a pretty good indicator i think of the types of arguments i enjoy voting on and judging the most. i'll judge a policy round if you want to have it obviously, i also have been coaching pf 2 years now so my ears are at least a little more attuned to util impacts than previously. in the same way that critical teams are expected to justify why they are moving away from the topic, i believe policy teams should be justifying why they are choosing to debate the topic in clash rounds -- this doesn't mean i'll hack for Ks -- it just means that the same standards apply because i view topicality/its reading as a speech act and i'm not sure why the fact that a speech act is also a procedural would mean i should disregard its implications or its context. that being said, my sophomore year my partner and I won R1 at the season opener reading disclosure, i'm willing to vote on whatever. if you're racist or talk down to women or misgender your opponent or do some other messed up stuff without both making good faith attempts to repair the potential for a safe debate and apologizing without reservation for said messed up act you will get an L20. one time my partner and i debated this guy who would only respectfully talk to me and refused to listen to her whatsoever, talking over her constantly. when we called him on it he said it was because of his adhd and then kept doing it (as a psych major i have never heard of adhd that only appears when you're talking to women!). please use that as an example of what NOT to do.

in the same way i try to hold policy teams to higher standards -- if you're reading a k -- i'm not just gonna hack. justify why the aff is necessary in debate, this round particularly, what my ballot does, make and justify spill up claims, have an awesome theory of power, make material arguments (the best thing i ever learned as a debater is how to read cap links that are 100% disads to the aff -- do that)

good luck have a great round hope it's fun feel free to ask me any questions i am happy to answer them

if you're curious -- my thoughts on debate right now are most influenced by asya taylor, darius white, jacob smith, and the wake coaches who read Ks when they debated (jgreen also)

for k teams -- i am in big support of high schoolers reading k's, i think it's super educational and definitely made me a lot of who i am now (ew. hate typing out that debate made me part of who i am, kinda gross), in support of that practice please feel free to after rounds ask me any random questions you have about lit or strategy, even if it's not related to the round you just had -- i'll do my best to give you some help! it's my understanding these tournaments are designed in part to increase debate access/let teams that might not otherwise get to too many nat circuit tournaments attend -- i coach a lot and have worked at ld camps the past few summers, i also understand wake has a very genius/expensive coaching staff and would be happy to redistribute some of what i've learned from debating here down because truthfully the coaches here are incredible and it should not just be a few debaters at random colleges getting their knowledge!!

Meghana Kulkarni Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 4 rounds

Edward Kunkle La Salle College Preparatory 6 rounds

Daniel Kyle Hire 3 rounds

Brandon Lazna Arizona College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

Hello! First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm. If you have the time, please read the sections that are important to you. My paradigm is broken up by events, and each section will include my preferences and general thoughts on how the round should go. Each section will include a TLDR if you don't have time for whatever reason and it's right before the round, but otherwise PLEASE read the entire thing!

VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW; TLDR

I competed for three years in Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, extemporaneous speaking, and Impromptu speaking. For two of those years, I personally coached many in extemp, impromptu, and public forum while also helping others in congress. If you have me for any of the ad libs events, congress, or pf, these are my strong suits and I hope you like me better than your average parent judge who has never competed themselves. I as a judge will work to accommodate you while maintaining the integrity of the round and the sprit of speech and debate. i.e - If you need a minute before the round starts to take a breath or get a drink of water, please inform me and feel free. I was there not too long ago myself. Finally, speech and debate is about growing your skills as a speaker, a debater, and growing yourself as a person. Not winning. With that being said have fun, and just be respectful of others!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

TLDR; I know what congress is (for the most part).

Full version

I was in house finals at nationals.

PUBLIC FORUM;

TLDR; I know how to flow tech debate, but I like it when you make good arguments that are backed by a solid logical link chain in a more of a lay appeal style. DO NOT SPREAD. I can understand spreading (mostly), but I can understand your speech better if you do not spread and you explain everything in a logical manner, not just trying to spit out as many words as you can in a minute. If you start speaking too fast, I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Just rhetoric won't get you very far either, actually interact with your opponents arguments and WEIGH them against your own.

Full version

Speech and debate is meant to make you better at debating and speaking. I do not like spreading at all. I understand speaking slightly faster than normal in order to get all of your points in (more so if your in summary or FF), but you should not spread. Public forum is supposed to be PUBLIC FORUM, it was originally a "laymans" form of debate, in which someone off the street should be able to judge your round with reasonable competency. I am well aware that the debate space is all about inclusion, however spreading in public forum if anything makes the debate inaccessible to those who can not understand spreading (either opponents or the judges). If you start spreading too much I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Same thing goes for theory, don't do it in PF. If it's a local tournament, 99% chance there is no reason to be running theory in PF. If you really feel you have to in pf, in my round, my understanding of theory is minimal in comparison to someone who spent three years doing LD. Chances are I won't be able to understand it for the most part, and if it comes down to a technical level I probably won't weigh/vote on it. If you have to read theory, first ask me if I'm okay with it in the round. If you just start reading it off, especially in the first or second speech (without asking me), I'll just drop it. In crossfire look at the judge so things don't get heated. Be respectful of each other, but also be assertive. I don't weigh crossfire unless you get a concession or have an important point to make, however you have to bring it up crossfire in speeches for me to weigh it. In general, if your respectful, there should be zero issues. Next, I want to see actual interaction in the round between you and your opponents arguments. Simply giving me endless rhetoric or restating your case won't get you far if you don't respond to the uniqueness of your opponents arguments and how they WEIGH against your own. PLEASE WEIGH in summary and final focus, and if possible do so in rebuttal. Make the vote for me as a judge easy to make, tell me why your side should win the debate comprehensively. I go off the flow, I'm mostly tech over truth unless you straight up lie. Lastly, have fun! Time goes by fast, and debate is something that should be fun and propel you in your future endeavors.

Extemp. (to be updated very soon)

Impromptu (to be updated very soon)

All other debate formats, and IE events will be updated very soon!

Maureen Leo Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 4 rounds

Nick Leonardi BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

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

Please do not spread.

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

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

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

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

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

Madhavi Mallareddy BASIS Peoria

Pranav Mantri Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 1:37 AM MST

Hey! I'm Pranav. I debated PF for four years in high school and now I'm a sophomore in college.

email: pranav.mantri@columbia.edu

You can run whatever non-exclusionary arguments that you want. An ideal winning team writes the path to the ballot for me. I'm lazy. I never really hit/ran progressive arguments but if you explain what you are running it should be fine.

Don't go fast. If you really want to, send a speech doc but I'm not gonna spend any time reading it cuz then I'm doing work for you. I'm lazy.

Would appreciate fun cross fires. Back when I was a debater (less than a year ago) I always tried to make jokes or have fun because its one of the chill parts of debate. Dead air is bad. Say something.

Do what u want in first rebuttal but don't "rebuild [y]our case."

Frontline in second rebuttal or responses are conceded.

Defense is sticky and extension in final focus is unnecessary, but if you want to seal the deal I suggest at least reminding me that the dropped response is there.

Offense is not sticky lol. Ideal extensions are short summaries of the arguments you are going for (uniqueness-> warrant-> impact).

Impact numbers are unnecessary, but impacts are necessary. "No impact" defense isn't terminal on impacts that exist but are unquantified. Quantifying is overrated ballparks is where its at. Vagueness can be fun and unfun at the same time. Either way, if there is no weighing and I'm left with one quantified impact and one unquantified impact I will prolly j vote on the "more convincing argument." But don't let it get to this stage.

Rebuttal weighing=good speaks for team.

Winning weighing/framing ≠ winning round. Weighing is a whey for me to way-in your offense. If no offense, weighing don't matter. Probability analysis isn't weighing. If you tell me what it really is i'll give you +0.2 speaks.

Good debate ability = good speaks. Speaking style doesn't necessarily matter. I weigh smarts over delivery, but delivery matters too (i.e. stuttering w big brain debating would yield higher speaks than a soothing voice that is saying empty words).

Ways to get good speaks:

a. Say something funny/ make jokes in speech

b. Give me any food/drink

c. Not being a speechdoc debater cuz flows are cool.

d. Good Eminem reference (+0.5-1 speaks).

L Friv Theory

Nota Bene: As I said in my paradigm above, I have little to no experience with progressive argumentation, but I am willing to hear it. In fact, I'm excited to judge it because I think that that is the best way to vote. Avoid jargon and you should be fine.

This isn't to deter anyone from reading prog arguments. If you do so and you succeed and you educate me well, I'll give you 30 speaks.

If you are reading anything off topic definitely send it to my email.

Speed: 300 wpm MAX and then I lose you. Send a speechdoc to pranav.mantri@columbia.edu if you really are gonna go mega fast (300 wpm<=), but even so I evaluate off my flow and if I forget to write something down from the speechdoc that's your fault not mine.

2 clears then no flowing

Ask Questions before round.

Sergio Martinez Oakwood School 1 rounds

Lisa McGonagle Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 8, 2022 at 5:54 AM EDT

I am a policy wonk and NSDA trained Adjudicator. For history, I competed from high school through college in debate. I have worked with Boston Debate League judging for several years.

My pronouns are I/she/hers. Please let me know what yours are as well as your preferred name if it is different from what is on tabroom.

On the issue of speech: you are awarded speaker points. Your speaker points are comprised of rate of speech and clarity. I should not have to refer to your cards to understand your speech. My focus as an adjudicator is on you, not your cards the entire time.

The policy mapping I use: rate of speech, clarity, pre-round prep, evidence sharing, flow, in-round strategy, audience adaption, and thinking on the fly. Things I look out for: evidence distortion and non-existent evidence. When you give me all your evidence know that I will read it to check for distortion and non-existent evidence. During the debate you have my full attention.

Policy is my favorite section to judge. Remeber the question and present a solution. This is not LD, although I also judge LD. Please do not try LD K's in policy. I want an evidence based debate that addresses the proposed question. KNOW YOUR EVIDENCE! I like to hear theory and substance. You must have a strong theoretical framework to warrant deontological or consequential arguments. Who provides the best value and criterion? Giving me an "end of world" solution does not belong in Policy. We're here to solve a problem.

Be prepared. Pat attention to time because I do. Be polite at all times. The point of debate is the civil exchange of opinions. Clash is good! If you find yourself getting nervous, stop and take a breath. Above all, you should have fun and always use this as learning process.

Strong argumentation begins with the topicality, harms, inherency, framework and solvency. Hit each of those.

A thread of logic is required throughout the argument; meaning you cannot begin with one aff and veer off onto a completely different aff simply because your opposition is forcing you to. It is imperative to stick to your aff; be prepared to argue it, defend it in the neg, and have good, solid counterpoints prepared.

Debate is an inherently competitive event. Having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event provided the jargon does not become the event. However, they should not replace substance and do not automatically add impacts. Words matter. Choose them wisely. You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I could rattle off all the terms, but really, they add nothing and from a National Debate Champion and former trial lawyer, debate is not won or lost on terms. It's won or lost on topic knowledge. Know your stuff. Know the purpose of your 1AC and 1NC. Your NR's are only to make your final points and address last arguments; by that time all heavy lifting should be done.

Your NR's are your summations. Lay out your argument, EVIDENCE, and reasons for a decision.

My ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it). Speaking quickly is fine; as all things in debate, please be clear about it. Please have your camera on when speaking.

Taylor Mittelstedt Phoenix Country Day School 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:28 PM MST

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

ki ung Moon BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

Sekar Mylsamy BASIS Peoria

Venkata Nagabandi BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

Pinak Panda Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Pavan Peddireddi BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

Dhanunjaya Penmatcha BASIS Peoria 2 rounds

Adrian Penn Advanced Technologies 3 rounds

Brandon Pham Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 5:02 AM MST

Hiiiiiii I’m Brandon Pham and I competed on the circuit for 3 years (if you count online as competing XD). Tbh I’ve done it all, as in I preferred to just try out different events rather than focusing in on being good at one event (weird ikr but I’m here to have fun). I typically know what to look for in each event and what the standards of each event are like. I consider myself a fairly technical and flow-based judge. Most of my success was in my senior year of s&d consistently placing in my events, and I qualified for nationals reaching triple octas representing Arizona on the World Schools Debate team: Team AZ Citrus or Team AZ Yellow idk they kept changing the name (at one point it was one of our teammates’ names). not only that but i’m also part of the ASU forensics team traveling across the country for our own tournaments so if im not on the judging pool its probably because im competing at my own tournaments. i *kinda* know what im doing. im practically yalls age so i dont mind if you treat/see me as such. im chill like that.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

DEBATE

I’ve done every debate event (PF, LD, CX, BQ, WSD) except congress, so if I ever judge congress bc of judge desperation, go easy on me o.o. (I have judged congress a few times including the harvard semis round so I still know what I'm doing ish) Regardless, I know how each debate event is run with their nuances and how to judge.

1. SPREADING: idc about spreading and can keep up with it bc i used to spread *occasionally* but if you’re gonna do the “speak in a super loud monotone voice with no inflections thing” you better start an email chain or at least preface that you’ll spread. If I say “clear”, chill out brev, and that means you have either a) not started a sufficient email chain and b) are just speaking way too fast to the point I can’t even flow.

2. SIGNPOSTING: istg if you don’t signpost i’m docking speaks and am less likely to give you the dub. it helps with flow reference, make you appear organized and not fumbling mid-speech, and it even helps your opponent know where you are to sufficiently rebut!

3. CARDS: tag cards appropriately during speeches and reference them as such + key info during later speeches. saves time, helps flow, and is just a more organized form of debating. novices, i get it i was there too, but if you have questions on this or other things ASK. for checking cards, i won’t take prep unless its just a seriously long time. ill start prep the moment you show your opponents the card bc ngl the longer you take to find a card, the more time your opponent will have to prep and that’s your own downfall for poor organization. if you as the opponent need me to check a card bc of a mutual misunderstanding of it, lemme know. also, i *might* ask for cards post round - shouldn’t affect decision too much but it better be cut appropriately!! misconstrued cards reflect HORRIBLY on you so be careful!!

4. CROSS FIRE: lmao i don’t pay attention here. if im on my phone, its bc i couldnt care less what happens here. this is your time to clarify or find weak points. anything brought up in cross ex MUST be brought up in a later speech if you want me to consider it. also for policy i am cool with tag-teaming.

5. EXTENSIONS + WEIGHING: this is the most critical point in the round. i go by the flow, so if you do not flow it through in summary, its lost in the abyss forever. obv u dont need to flow everything, just collapse on the key voters. again, flow cards with tag + info/stats and explain why this is important. i also like seeing great clash and further elaboration on your arguments/rebuttals, not just a repeat of your constructive/rebuttal. also, pls try and properly weigh. ive seen too many debaters weigh the wrong way. use weighing mechanisms and why you win on a certain arg. also, don’t forget to frontline! and be very organized with these speeches/say which side/arguments you are addressing. if you want you can offer an off-time road map, up to you.

6. TIMING: time yourselves bro. i’ll be timing too, but take responsibility. if you’re over by five seconds, ya done. anything you say after i won’t even listen/flow. if your opponent is over and you want them to stop, raise a closed fist in the air and i’ll cut them off. also, yall shouldve practiced speeches beforehand so you should know what your time is like. if you’re under time, i couldn’t care less and won’t dock you as long as your arguments are great and well developed. i will have a bit of judgement in the back of my mind if you give like a 2 minute constructive tho, i just wont consider how short your speech is in the round.

7. DEBATER MATH: no.

8. THEORY: i was never too much of a theory debater, but if you are, you do you boo. i do understand theory and will know what you’re talking about, but just thoroughly explain what your argument is and also why your form of theory is necessary here. poorly run theory will get docked!! pf i don’t really see theory and don’t see much of a purpose, but for other debates feel free. policy, make sure you have your stock issues, or else… youre dead. and for policy make sure you guys have a solid solvency card(s) bc this is one of the most important parts of the debate for me.

9. SPEAKS: lmao speaks will NEVER determine who wins an argument for me. you couldve given the worst speech ever but if your organization and arguments were there and you were doing your job to win the debate, you can def still win. i do appreciate some passion and style tho bc lets face it, debate in the real world relies on this type of stuff and for those of you looking into any kinda public speaking career, nows the time to start practicing! i will, however, give extra speaks for people who gimme a snack or some kinda energy drink or coffee/tea. i love love love boba o.o. but don’t try to suck up to me. i will give you LOWER speaks if you do this.

10. tech>truth

11. Congress specific: I have two primary criteria for judging your speeches; Content and Delivery. I might abbreviate them as "C" and "D" on the ballot but that's just for efficiency for me. I like to see a lot of critical analysis on topics and providing originality on your speeches rather than just regurgitating info you found from a card online. Having a unique and attention-grabbing hook helps with receiving delivery points from me. Also, make sure you are asking questions that help to develop the bill and opens room for debate, if that makes sense. As for my POs, I rank you guys very well and POs almost always make it onto my ranking list. As for whether or not you rank highly depends on how efficiently you run the chamber and ensuring that you are allowing each representative a fair chance at giving a speech and ensuring that everyone tries to speak once per bill for around a total of two speeches throughout the session. I personally don't know much about the certain nuances or the amendments to bills and whatnot, so just make sure that in the event that this does happen, POs, that you handle this situation properly and whatnot.

12. World Schools Debate specific: I go based on exactly the ballot, so I judge based on content, style, and strategy. I need content that develops why we should or shouldn't pass this motion and has a highly analytical basis. Make sure you have evidence that really drives your points and helps with developing your arguments. Make sure to hit the golden number two P.O.I.s and make sure they develop the argument. also be INCREDIBLE speakers pls to me this event gives debaters the chance to simulate actual policymaking when being voiced in a public session. gimme some passion + good arguments. obv have your own style of speaking, but motivate me! for strategy, I also love some good bench comm bc it shows you guys are a team! try to be a lil more ad lib and dont read off your notes. be sure to incorporate things your opponents have said and what your teammates put forth in the round to really bring it all together. like everything else have good organization, speak clearly, and be confident. ive never judged world schools before but ive done it.

If there is ANY instance of discrimination, homophobia, racism, sexism, or ANYTHING that needs to be brought to my attention PLEASEEE do. I take these things seriously and will make sure that your opponent is NEVER seen on this circuit again and receives sufficient punishment. pls do this asap before/after round or whenever is most convenient so that we can get appropriate action to prevent further tournament complication. and if for whatever reason your opponent isn’t punished, i’ll sick my poodle on em.

email: phambrandon668@gmail.com

-for email chains or if you have any questions about rfd or just want advice or even need a friend to talk! i swear im not that scary uwu fish are food not friends i mean huh wo- i think imfunny huh..

that was a lot im sry even i got tired of typing all this but i got a lotta things to say. im pretty flexible tho so lets go wild. if you have any questions ask away ehe. again if you have any questions about rfds or my ballot, need advice, whatever, my email is phambrandon668@gmail.com.

glhf girls bros and nonbinary ho- *ahem* :D

Rio Pham Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 2, 2024 at 8:38 AM MST

I'm a college student and did debate in high school. Nothing is off-limits, but I do ask you guys to be civil and courteous towards one another.

Debates:

Where do I even start? I'm not gonna start with the usual talk about how judges don't want to weigh in on the debate and intervene....but, throughout my judging experience, I'm forced to be an interventionist so... Yes, I will be dropping/weighing arguments if things are unclear. Yes, I will be asking for cards. And no, I will not use my knowledge (tech > truth) to refute your ridiculous contentions but you might get a very angry ballot.

The quality of your argument is BETTER than the quantity of your argument. Don't lazily extend your arguments without explaining WHY IT MATTERS ON THE FLOW. This is very important to remember ~~to obtain higher speaks.~~

Slow down your speech. Idc if you have 100 sources to read in your 1AC, 2NC, slow down and explain your arguments clearly. Fast is cool but If I don't type, I'm not listening. And don't ask me for a wpm MEANING NO SPREADING. I can understand fast reading and will flow your arguments to the best of my ability, but zero tolerance for spreading.

Run tech stuff (DA/plans/counterplans/theory/Ks) if you think it's genuinely interesting and not a gotcha against your opponents. (I can tell if you really know your things/just doing it to win). For Ks in particular, bonus speaks if you show effort. Pls no spreading.

And uh, no friv and tricks. Zero tolerance.

Do the weighing for me. If your impacts are numbers and statistics, compare them to your opponents'.

If your impact is nuke war/extinction stuff, tell me why it is LESS PROBABLE to happen on your side. NOTE: Nuke war impacts without comparative analysis will get you a very frustrated judge.

You should be combining great rhetoric with great arguments and evidence. Consider me a parent judge. Lead me through your positions and point out why I should vote for you (insert key voters). Just Debate 101. And some miscellaneous things:

Time yourselves.

Do whatever with your cross. I will probably not pay attention.

I'm fine with disclosing after the round.

Prefer speechdrop for evidence sharing (if need to). No emailchains. But don't rely on the evidence-sharing to be lazy in your speeches. I have a very low tolerance for this.

And pls don't run prog in PF, lol.

Ravi Pinnamaneni Dougherty Valley High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:20 PM PDT

Hello All,

Background

I work in the Technology Sector in the Bay Area. I judge for Dougherty Valley, and though I am quite novice at judging, I have watched a lot of rounds and have a good understanding of the format and logistics.

As a heads-up, I plan to take notes during the debate, but it is better if you treat me as a "lay" judge.

I have a good amount of general knowledge on the topics provided for these events, but may not know the specifics of your topic.

Preferences

a) Speak loudly and clearly. Please no "spreading". I will not be able to understand what you are saying, so speaking slower will allow me to process your arguments more clearly.

b) Be polite and fair to your opponent. If you are outright rude (ie. yelling, mocking, laughing, cutting opponents off) you will not get good speaks. Also, please note that team work is key and I find that the best debaters can work together efficiently.

c) Explain arguments thoroughly. Remember I do have some background in topics but not in debate so terms such as "uniqueness" should be more elaborated upon. Another important aspect is organization so try to state clearly what you will be talking about. (ie. Next, lets talk about the first contention.)

Decisions

I will try to be as fair as possible and explain my decision in the best way I can using the above criterion as well as the debate itself. I will not carry personal biases into the round.

I will vote for the team that explains their warrants and why their impacts matter to me.

If your arguments are too complicated to be understood by the average person, then I will probably be less likely to vote for you.

Additionally, presentation will probably also influence my decision. Be confident, if you make it seem like you are losing then I will think that.

Other

I expect teams to time their speeches themselves. But, if you want me to time, I can do that as well.

If you think that I should look at your/your opponent's evidence, please let me know.

Good luck!

Sarah Pino Hire None

Luke Probst University High School - SFO 2 rounds

Heather Rasmussen Mountain Crest High School 5 rounds

Rajesh Rauniyar BASIS Peoria 2 rounds

David Rodgers BASIS Chandler High School 6 rounds

Morgan Rumsey Kent Denver School 6 rounds

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 11:53 PM PDT

Nats:

If this is an intra-economic impact debate please avoid economic soup. I've judged about 8 rounds so far on this topic and I find by the end of most of these debates if there are 4 to 5 unique uncontested economic impacts without weighing which impacts matter more. If small business closures increase in the EU but FDI increases in the US how do I evaluate or weigh these competing impacts? Terminalize economic impacts to a common denominator more or tell me why certain economic impacts are more important than others. This could be something like which groups are particularly affected by said impacts, how long these economic effects persist, the severity of the economic impact, the immediacy of the impact, the reversibility etc. I think it's obvious that a trade deal will have both positive and negative effects but your job in the round is to do net analysis (which is hard because we are doing formal economics) but if you can't do that give me reasons why certain economic impacts matter more than others.

If we get into contesting the specific economic impacts themselves (BTA increases GDP by 2.5% vs BTA decreases GDP by 1%) you need specify or demarcate the reasons why your a. evidence is better or b. the underlying warranting is better. How do you prove one economic study is better than the other? Tell me about the data set, the controls, which journal it was in, who wrote it, why it is more specific, longitudinal, or takes into consideration variables the other study does not.

If you are running politics be them China, US, or EU related your evidence should take into consideration events in the last six months if not month. Plx evidence from 23 is sus.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).
What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Surabhi Sajith Hire 6 rounds

Imtiaz Sajwani BASIS Chandler High School 6 rounds

Tequa Salehi-Rad BASIS Scottsdale High School 6 rounds

Sowjanya Samanthapudi Hamilton High School 2 rounds

Orli Sanyal Hire 4 rounds

rita sathe BASIS Peoria

Harishri Savdharia Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Hitakshi Savdharia Fairmont Prep 5 rounds

Charles Schletzbaum Milpitas High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 16, 2024 at 12:55 PM PDT

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

*TLDR FOR NSDA NATS*

35 years of LD competition, coaching and judging

TRADITIONAL LD, WHOLE REZ, If someone proves the aff side true, I vote aff. Follow NSDA RULES.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Anthony Schmidt Hamilton High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 12:12 AM MST

General Stuff:

- Tech > Truth

- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new evidence in second summary.

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.

- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.

- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.

- Please COLLAPSE and extend case properly in summary and final focus. I won't grant you any offense if you don't extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.

Things I Like:

- I don't value weighing as much as most judges. I think that if you disprove your opponents then you don't need to weigh because your opponents are wrong anyway. That being said, you should still weigh because you won't be able to guarantee that you disprove your opponents from my perspective.

A. Weighing has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.

B. Please metaweigh. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.

C. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).

- Consistency between summary and final focus is important

Things I Don't Like:

- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round.

With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.

- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.

- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.

- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I don't believe it has a place in PF. If you run it in any massive way I will drop you.

Gavin Serr Park City 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu July 18, 2024 at 10:31 AM MDT

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City. I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I did PF when the summary was 2 minutes long and most people were liars.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

I strongly prefer that debaters send their entire cases and rebuttal docs in an email chain that I am included on. Speaker points will reflect this preference. gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum. A paraphrased card is an analytic.

I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

I occasionally judge policy and LD. Consider me a lay judge in these instances.

If you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears.

Err silly and down to earth over dominant and aggressive.

Impact comparison is very important to me, as it is rare that one team categorically wins the debate on every issue. At the end of the round, I can generally identify won advantages and won disadvantages of the Aff; explicitly tell me why I should prioritize one outcome over another. The team that makes the most "even if" statements tends to win my ballot.

I am not impressed by teams which analytically claim to "pre-req," "link-in," or "short-circuit" their opponents' offense. These arguments are strongest when predicated on warrants and data from quoted evidence.

I tend to think it's strategic to answer weighing. I find it absolutely bizarre that most teams drop such arguments.

The probability of an argument being true in my decision is derived from the happenings of the debate. I do not think it is a form of impact comparison, nor do I have some lower threshold for responding to arguments I personally disbelieve. If an argument is silly, it should be easy to answer.

Arguments you expect me to vote on have to be in summary and final focus.

Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

The K:

Consider me a lay judge in this realm.

I will vote on the K if you clearly articulate what my ballot does and win that it is good.

Theory:

I tend to think that paraphrasing is probably bad and that disclosure is probably good.

I dislike the way that teams are getting into the weeds with their interps. I don't have strong opinions about open-source, round reports, author quals, or other such interps that have proliferated on the national circuit recently. I want teams to disclose and quote evidence, but I'd strongly prefer not to evaluate interps that demand more than that.

I find these debates painfully boring, as they are always regressive regurgitations of arguments I've seen someone else articulate more persuasively. Speaker points will reflect my disdain for strategic use of theory.

IVIs:

No.

Neha Sethi Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 7:57 AM MST

In terms of experience, I was a high school debater, and have also helped coach teams as a college volunteer. While I competed in LD debate, I am familiar with all styles. I can also follow both lay and flow style debates.

General Points

1) Please include me in all email chains. My email is: neha_sethi@msn.com

2) I don't mind spreading for the most part, but please don't go overboard. I can't vote for you if I don't know what you are saying. If you spread to the point where I can't understand you, you will also lose speaks.

3) I do my best to treat all evidence presented as the truth until it is refuted by the opposing team. However, if I feel that you are lying or misconstruing the truth excessively, I will generally dock speaker points even if I have to give the win to your team. If your opponent is lying, you have to point it out to me, otherwise, I will note that they win the point by default.

4) If you want me to evaluate something, a card or tagline generally isn't enough. You should be warranting your argument thoroughly. I find it valuable if you tell me why your evidence is of higher value than your opponent's, especially if it directly contradicts their evidence.

5) Signposting is great. I don't necessarily need a full off-time roadmap, but I can follow along better if you let me know during your speech where you're going.

6) As you head to your last few speeches, do your best to write my ballot for me. If you don't tell me how the round should be evaluated, how the arguments should be weighed, and how you win the round then I may not give you the win.

7) Lastly, feel free to ask me any clarifying questions about my paradigm or otherwise before the round starts (if time permits it). Please just be respectful about it.

Lincoln-Douglas:

1) I am not a fan of pre-fiat Kritiks, especially since they're usually just a way to exclude the affirmation from the round. Ensure you have role of the ballot which will warrant why my vote has an impact on the real world.

2) A role of the ballot only influences how I vote on pre-fiat argumentation. It is not a replacement for framework unless your entire case is pre-fiat. Also, make sure that you provide evidence on how the ballot will cause change.

3) Please try and reserve theory for arguments that are generally abusive of positions that leave one side without any ground. I'll vote on RVIs (reverse voting issues) if they are made, but I don't usually vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "vote against the opposition for violation x..."

4) For post-fiat Kritiks feel free to run anything you want. However, I prefer alts to be more fleshed out than a simple "reject the resolution..."

5) I have no issues with topicality as long as the impact of the topicality on the round is specified.

6) Generally, I value framework and impact analysis over everything else. Skipping one will make me less likely to vote for you, as I either won't know how to evaluate the impacts of the round or because I won't know how to compare them.

Public Forum:

1) For the most part, I don't really flow crossfire, but if something significant is mentioned I will take note.

2)I would recommend weighing arguments in the context of magnitude/probability/time frame. I also appreciate impact calculus.

3) Your Final Focus should not have 3-4 different arguments. It should be focused as you have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate.

4) I'm not a huge fan of theory in public forum, but if there is substantial abuse and the theory is not just a way to get out of debating I'm open to it. If you run theory you need to explicitly tell me how to evaluate.

Policy

1) If you throw extremely topic-specific acronyms at me I may be confused, I don't know the topic as well as you do. For the most part, I'm fine as long as you don't go overboard with the acronyms in a sentence.

2) Kritik is ok if you can tie it to the topic at hand. Please do not use an arbitrary Kritik that has no relation to the topic.

3) I usually value engagement and clash over anything else. In order to win, you should address what your opponent is saying, as this should not be a debate where two teams are talking about two completely different worlds.

Deepika Sharma Mira Loma High School 6 rounds

Shiven Shekar Hire 3 rounds

Jason Shen BASIS Scottsdale High School 2 rounds

Shelly Shi Saratoga HS 1 rounds

Ruchika Singh BASIS Chandler High School 2 rounds

Amanda Sinha BASIS Peoria 2 rounds

Adhi Sivathanu California Debate Institute 4 rounds

Brandon Stewart Mission San Jose High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 8, 2023 at 3:17 AM PDT

I am the coach for Mission San Jose. I believe that speech & debate is first and foremost an educational activity, and much of my paradigm is framed through that lens. I have a few simple rules regarding conduct and content of the debate.

Debate

1) Proper debate cannot exist without clash. If you make a contention in constructive but never mention it again I'm dropping it from my decision. I don't judge strictly on the flow (more on that in point 4), but if none of you thought the point was important enough to bring up again, it must not be important enough for me to judge on.

1a) Spreadatyourownrisk. I will be flowing the debate and will do my best to follow you, but you run the risk that I might miss something important if you do.

2) Deeply engage the topic. I'd much rather see a few well-developed points with thoughtful analysis and solid foundational evidence than a "shotgun" approach where you throw out as many loosely-articulated arguments as possible and see what sticks.

2a) I enjoy creative arguments. As a coach I hear a lot of the stock arguments over and over, so if you run something a bit more unusual you'll get my attention. I'm not going to vote for a squirrely case that redefines the motion in a really weird way, but feel free to run off-the-wall arguments in your case (just make sure you can prove they're relevant to the topic).

2b) I don't generally respond well to theory arguments and meta-gamesmanship; I'd much rather judge an actual debate on the topic at hand. This is especially true of case disclosure theory -- Aff already has a burden of presumption weighing against them (see point 4a), so if you feel like you can't prepare a decent counter argument without knowing the opponent's exact arguments ahead of time, you either need more prep or more practice. That said, I will listen to your theory case, but I probably won't vote for it unless the opponent is doing some particularly egregious.

3) I'm not going to do your work for you. My job is to judge the arguments as presented, not do my own analysis to prove you right or wrong. I will assume evidence is truthful and will not call for cards unless the opponent gives me reason to believe otherwise.

3a) If you try to make a point that is obviously factually incorrect (e.g. "Dubai is the capital of Pakistan") or wildly outlandish (e.g. "veganism will lead to nuclear war"), you will loose credibility and will cause me to view the rest of your arguments with more skepticism. And yes, those are actual statements I've heard in rounds.\

3b) I probably will not flow anything said in cross examination. I may take some notes to clarify what I've already written down, but if you want me to factor something said in cross into my decision you need to point in out in your next speech. However, I do consider how well you handle cross ex when awarding speaker points.

4) My judgement will be based on what is presented in the debate. Don't expect me to bring in other information that wasn't presented to fill in the blanks for you. While my ballot comments may mention things that weren't presented in the debate, that information is intended to help you refine your arguments and did not factor into my decision.

4a) In final focus, tell me what to weigh and why I should vote for you. By default I will judge on whether I am led to believe that the Aff case as presented accomplishes more for the greater good than the status quo. If Neg runs a counter (non-negation) case or a counter-plan (assuming it's allowed), I'm going to judge it on balance with the Aff case/plan, meaning I will decide which case I believe leads to overall better outcomes for the greater good within whatever scope/scale we spent the most time discussing during the debate. If both sides agree on a framework for deciding the winner, than that's what I'll vote on instead.

5) This is a debate, not a sound bite contest. That said, if you want maximum speaker points, vary your vocal dynamics to help emphasize your speech, employ some clever rhetoric (alliteration, allegory, etc.), and/or incorporate some classic rock or science fiction references. I'll usually award speaker points in the 27-28.9 range, with 29-30 reserved for speakers that I found particularly engaging and those who make especially good use of cross ex.

6) Respect your opponent and your fellow humans. Academic debate is no place for sexism, racism, religism, or any other prejudicial and marginalizing -isms. Use your CX time wiseley to clarify the opponent's argument and find holes to exploit later in argumentation, or to perhaps plug up a hole you didn't realized you'd missed, not show off how much you can talk over the other person. And if you feel a need to resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost me and we're done.

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Youseok Suh Torrey Pines High School 2 rounds

Medha Tambe Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 9:24 AM EDT

hi i'm medha! i did natcirc pf for four years in high school & i'm now a college soph

in general: i get that you can use your computers and you can recite your whole speech from a doc but if i wanted to hear the word-for-word prewritten prep you (and whatever coach(es) you may have) typed up before the tournament i would just read the doc myself and eliminate the middleman (you). please for the sake of my sanity don't doc bot, and if you do, at least pretend you're not

tldr be chill, say something interesting, debate well, and tell me to call for sus evidence in ff. look at the tldr of pranav mantri's paradigm – i'm on the same vibe as him

the basics

- frontline offense & weighing in 2nd rebuttal, ideally frontline everything but i won't hate you if you don't

- defense is sticky

- paraphrasing is cool and honestly i would prefer it (only half-joking)

- i have a relatively solid understanding of progressive args, but i will say there is a very real chance i could make the wrong decision when evaluating one, so do some risk appetite self-eval before round

- i don't wanna be on the email chain & i also would rather not flow off a speech doc

- fully extend args in both summary and ff

- i can handle a considerable amount of speed (<300 wpm), just be clear

- i would consider myself tech > truth. i am willing to vote on arguments that i might personally believe to be factually untrue if they go completely uncontested; ie if your arg is that elmo is the head of mossad* and nobody argues otherwise, i'll buy it. on the flip side my threshold for responses to terrible args is obv low

specifically on evidence

I CANNOT OVERSTATE HOW LITTLE I CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT NOBODY TELLS ME TO CALL FOR IN FF.

maybe this is a hot take but i quite literally have zero interest in unilaterally verifying whether your evidence is real or not. i firmly don't think it's my job as a judge to sleuth through your ev and see what's legit. even if you tell me you have evidence saying the world is unified under a secret governmental organization run fully by cows*, I WILL BUY IT IF NOBODY TELLS ME TO CALL FOR IT. this does not mean i condone bad evidence ethics. if you have a problem with your opps' evidence, PLEASE tell me to call for it and i will tank speaks and potentially the team if it's super bad. if yall spend the entirety of your speeches debating a single controversial piece of evidence but nobody tells me to call it in ff, i will drop it from my flow (in pain) and find somewhere else to vote. i do this bc 1) i am convinced it's your opps' job to police your ev ethics, not mine & 2) i think it's interventionist to let my unsolicited interpretation of your ev affect the round outcome

scenarios in which i will give auto-30 speaks (assuming you were not a jerk)

- if it’s your bubble (just lmk before the round) and you generally followed my paradigm

- if you read > 10 independent well-warranted, impacted, and weighed turns in first rebuttal

- if you're super funny

- if you bring me food or hot chocolate :)

in general i will be extremely generous w speaks as long as you're not rude bc imo speaker points can only be assigned in one of two ways: 1) to measure "how good you sound" which is variable to several factors you may not be able to control, or 2) to measure clarity/skill which is largely adjudicated by the actual decision anyway. therefore i have decided i don't care and almost everybody will be getting above 29s unless you do something egregious in round like addressing me by "judge" instead of just my name (kidding but like not really pls just call me medha)

overall

relax and have fun i just wanna judge a good round and not see anything racist/sexist/any other exclusionary -ist, so make those two things happen and you can show up in your pajamas or swear or eat mcdonalds in round or roast each other or whatever & i won't care

if you need any accommodations or have any questions, please let me know either irl before round or at my email: medha.tambe@columbia.edu

good luck & lmk if there's anything i can do to make the round less stressful/more accessible for you! also if both teams are down i am willing to scrap the debate and oversee a 2v2 chess match instead (again only half-joking)

* note: i may or may not actually believe elmo is the head of mossad and that cows run the world – if you make a convincing arg to me before/after round in favor of either or both i might possibly be inclined to give you 30 speaks

* note 2: i am unironically a really good lay judge in the sense that i am great at zoning out (if you ask me to, not in general obv lol) and then making a decision based off vibe. i have about a 97% accuracy rate in guessing decisions made by lay judges in rounds, so if you want me to judge lay or you have a lay panel and you'd rather not adapt lmk and i'll scrap the paradigm & judge lay

Ninad Tambe Hamilton High School 6 rounds

Malhar A. Tamhane Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 5, 2023 at 6:43 PM CDT

Hello

I have not judged a debate round in around 2 years and have not competed for a few years. my ears are probably not accustomed to very quick speaking and I would appreciate slightly slower speeches. rapid is fine but full speed probably not the best idea

email: mtamhane@asu.com

I did policy for four years at Wichita East, nat circuit senior year (2015-2019)

I am currently on the Arizona State Speech team (2019-present)

I was relatively mediocre in high school, but I know how much work debate is and I hope I can a put fraction of the work into judging as y'all put into competing

Policy Paradigm:

Overall Philosophy

explain your arguments please

You do you-- I want to hear the arguments you know the best and are most comfortable with

I think impacts are important--what those are and how they should be evaluated compared to your opponent's impacts should be clear.

I 100% have preconceived notions about debate but if you tell me to evaluate the round differently, I will. I just need a persuasive reason why your framework for the round is the best. Please tell me how I should evaluate the round, it makes my job easier and your arguments more persuasive.

Fairness is an internal link to education, but is not an impact (this one is pretty ingrained--if you believe fairness is an impact please just impact out to education. I have a very low threshold for a fairness impact, that is just not that persuasive)

Racism, sexism, anti queer garbage etc. is very bad. You'll lose.

case

I love case debate. I will vote on presumption if the negative demolishes the affirmative case on defense alone. I know thats probably weird, but honestly if you put in the work thats required crumble an aff case I will reward you in speaks and the round. Offense is great though.

Das

Unique impact scenarios are fun. Ptx das esp fun if you have a solid story. I love a good disad case debate. Offense is best strategy for 2ACs imo, but im willing to vote aff on defense if your arguments are strong/uncontested.

Some cps are definitely cheating, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for them. Read theory if its cheating, please.

Just make sure to explain your argument with the least amount of jargon as possible. I'm not super familiar with many literature bases, but I think the best K debaters can explain their Ks without jargon. I've read some setterlism lit, some baudrillard, and I have some small familiarity with Lacan but I am by noooo means an expert. Like at all.

K affs

Im down. I wil vote for T/FW or the aff, just make sure your impact turn/response to T is clear and rooted in your affirmative.

KVK

Just makes sure to flesh out and explain your links.

I will vote on it, but please don't just scream jargon within jargon. Explain clearly why they don't meet, why their interp is bad for education etc.

Other Theory

Go for it, just don't go top speed when reading a wall of text or at the very least send me that wall of text. Please respond to opponents when engaging theory and don't just read your blocks.

Condo is good, but it could be bad if you are convincing

Miscellaneous

save the aliens plz

please be nice to each other.

LD is weird

Because of this I have decided my default is consequentialism/util unless you tell me otherwise

please have uniqueness in your disads

Nathan Tanner Rowland Hall 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed June 19, 2024 at 1:58 AM MDT

Here is a collection of my most recent paradigm for each event I have judged. I'll try my best to keep my current tournament at the top.

Speech (MS NSDA 2024)

To put my experience briefly I did two years of debate and one year of FX, placing at HS Utah state finals in 2019. I've been coaching and judging on and off ever since.

I have one simple rule: entertain me. If the speech is entertaining and memorable and well executed you will get my vote. Extempers, bring good sources, I will be counting. I expect a good structure and an introduction as well. Impromptu, if your speech feels canned at all it'll not get a good reaction from me, you're better than that. Oratory, the floor is yours for 10 minutes, go wild, but please don't abuse the grace period. Interps, I expect an overall compelling narrative not just overstimulation for 10 minutes.

CX (ASU 2024)

nathanut919@gmail.com

Let me open with this: I did policy debate for a year, but I am not a “policy judge.” I am typically a speech or public forum judge.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

I am not well versed on this topic and have only judged a couple novice rounds at the beginning of the season. I am, however, well versed on the different types of arguments you can run in policy, so go for whatever you are comfortable with as long as you give me ample context.

Given my lack of dedicated policy experience I will not be able to keep up with speed compared to other policy judges. Please slow down a bit, I would much rather hear you speak instead of reading a document for eight minutes. Please be very clear when you sign post. If I do not know where to write your argument, chances are I will be too concerned trying to figured that out and I will miss what you are saying.

I'd also like to stress the fact that the majority of my experience competing, coaching, and judging is with speech. If you want to cater to my paradigm heed the following advice. When it comes to the words that you say and the arguments you put forth, quality over quantity will unequivocally be in your favor.

I keep most biases out of the door in the debate space, but there is one I must address for fair competition. I am a scientist by trade, which means I have a heavy bias to truth and fact. I am not crazy enough to say truth > tech, but the only arguments I want to hear are arguments you truly believe in.

Last thing because this has become a pet peeve of mine. If an argument is dropped by one team, and then it is not addressed by the opposing team in the next speech, I will be kicking it entirely for the rest of the round.

PF (Jack Howe 2023)

Something I should say right off the bat, I have zero experience judging or coaching this particular topic.

What I look for in a public forum debate is accessibility. Feel free to call me archaic, but I believe that this event should stay true to it’s name and not become a hyper-competitive and hyper-meta space like policy. What I look for is great speeches with thought out articulation, not just a slew of cards thrown at me down a line. That being said, I’m flexible with the arguments you can run and don’t carry much bias in that regard. I’m perfectly fine hearing arguments that are a little out of the box and not just stolen from a brief somewhere, the variety is nice. I also weigh your demeanor and respect for your opponents heavily when it comes to speaker points.

One bias I like to be transparent about is that I am a scientist by trade. I am perfectly capable of accepting tech over truth in a debate space, however, if the round is close, being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.

Debate smart, be polite, be truthful, and remember to have fun!

Charlotte Thomas Lake Oswego Senior High School 4 rounds

Laura Van Hook West High School SLC 6 rounds

Anish Verma Hire 3 rounds

Daniel Waks BASIS Scottsdale High School 2 rounds

Raghav Warrier Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 8:44 AM MST

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Devon Weis Poly Prep Country Day School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 7, 2023 at 12:52 PM EDT

I've been debating and coaching teams across the country for a while. Currently coaching Dreyfoos AL (Palm Beach Independent) and Poly Prep.

MAIN STUFF

I will make whichever decision requires the least amount of intervention. I don't like to do work for debaters but in 90% of rounds you leave me no other choice.

Here's how I make decisions

1) Weighing/Framework (Prereqs, then link-ins/short-circuits, then impact comparison i.e. magnitude etc.)

2) Cleanly extended argument across both speeches (summ+FF) that links to FW

3) No unanswered terminal defense extended in other team's second half speeches

I have a very high threshold for extensions, saying the phrase "extend our 1st contention/our impacts" will get you lower speaks and a scowl. You need to re-explain your argument from uniqueness to fiat to impact in order to properly "extend" something in my eyes. I need warrants. This also goes for turns too, don't extend turns without an impact.

Presumption flows neg. If you want me to default to the first speaking team you'll need to make an argument. In that case though you should probably just try to win some offense.

SPEAKING PREFS

I like analytical arguments, not everything needs to be carded to be of value in a round. (Warrants )

Signpost pls. Roadmaps are a waste of time 98% of the time, I only need to know where you're starting.

I love me some good framework. Highly organized speeches are the key to high speaks in front of me. Voter summaries are fresh.

I love T and creative topicality interps. Messing around with definitions and grammar is one of my favorite things to do as a coach.

Try to get on the same page as your opponents as often as possible, agreements make my decision easier and make me respect you more as a debater (earning you higher speaks). Strategic concessions make me happy. The single best way to get good speaks in front of me is to implicate your opponent's rebuttal response(s) or crossfire answers against them in a speech.

Frontlining in second rebuttal is smart but not required. It’s probably a good idea if they read turns.

Reading tons of different weighing mechanisms is a waste of time because 10 seconds of meta-weighing or a link-in OHKOs. When teams fail to meta-weigh or interact arguments I have to intervene, and that makes me sad.

Don’t extend every single thing you read in case.

PROCEDURAL LOGISTICS

My email is devon@victorybriefs.com

I'm not gonna call for cards unless they're contested in the round and I believe that they're necessary for my RFD. I think that everyone else that does this is best case an interventionist judge, and worst case a blatant prep thief.

Skipping grand is cringe. Stop trying to act like you're above the time structure.

Don't say "x was over time, can we strike it?" right after your opponent's speech. I'll only evaluate/disregard ink if you say it was over time during your own speech time. Super annoying to have a mini argument about speech time in between speeches. Track each other’s prep.

Don't say TKO in front of me, no round is ever unwinnable.

PROG STUFF

Theory's fine, usually frivolous in PF. Love RVIs Genuinely believe disclosure is bad for the event and paraphrasing is good, but I certainly won't intervene against any shell you're winning.

I will vote for kritikal args :-)

Just because you're saying the words structural violence in case doesn't mean you're reading a K

Shoutouts to my boo thang, Shamshad Ali #thepartnership

Holden Weisman Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas 4 rounds

Kelly Ye College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 4:49 PM PDT

Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24 (Studying Computer Science, not debating) || Assistant Coach @ College Prep || she/her/hers

Please add both kellyye16@gmail.com and cpsspeechdocs@gmail.com to the chain.

Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code. Please make sure the chain is set up before the start time.

Background

I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum. I'd say my comfort for judging rounds is Policy vs. Policy > K vs. Policy >> K vs. K.

I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur, and I think about debate in the same way as this guy.He's probably the person I talk to the most when it comes to strategies and execution, it would be fair to say that if you like the way that he judge then I am also a good judge for you.

General Things

I'll vote on anything.I think there is certainly a lot of value in ideological flexibility.

Tech >>>>>>>>> truth: I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments.

Looooove judge instruction - if I hear a ballot being written in the 2NR/2AR, I will basically just go along with it and verify if what you are saying is correct. The closer my decision is to words you have said in the 2NR/2AR, the higher your speaker points will be.

I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis & contextualization - I think that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical skills. As a result, I tend not to look at evidence after the round unless it was specifically flagged during speeches. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of resolution done by teams in a round. You probably don't want this because I feel like its opens up the possibility for more intervention -- so please just help me out and debate warrants + resolve the biggest points of clash in your 2NR/2ARs.

2023-2024 Round Stats If You Care:

Policy vs. Policy (11-18): 37.93% aff over 29 rounds, 22.22% aff in a theory debate over 9 rounds

Policy vs. K (5-2): 71.43% aff over 7 rounds

K vs. Policy (2-3): 40% aff over 5 rounds

K v K (1-0): 100% aff over 1 round

Sat once out of 12 elim rounds

Disads

Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. I start evaluation at the impact level to determine link threshold & risk of the disad. My preference for evaluation is if there is explicit ballot writing + evidence indicts + resolution done by yourself in the 2NR/2AR, I would love not to open the card document and make a more interventionist judgement.

CPs

Default to judge kick. If the affirmative team has a problem with me doing this, that words "condo bad" should have been in the 2AC and explanation for no judge kick warranted out in the 1AR/2AR.

The proliferation of 1NCs with like 10 process counterplans has been kind of wild, and probably explains my disproportionately neg leaning ballot record. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."

I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.

Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.

Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.

To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“

Bad for post-modernism, simply because I've never read them + rarely debated them in high school. If you have me in the back you need to do a LOT of explanation.

Planless Affs/Framework

Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”

For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to the topic. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.

For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I don't think I'd never vote on fairness, but I think the way that most debaters extend it just sound whiney and don't give me a reason to prefer it over everything else. Impacts like agonism, legal skills, deliberation, etc are infinitely more convincing to me. Stop with the question of "what does voting aff in round [x] of tournament [y] do for your movement", you're hardly ever going to get the gotcha moment you think you will. Absent a procedural question of framework, I am just evaluating whether or not I think the advocacy is a good idea, not that I think the reading of it in one round has to change the state of debate/the world.

Topicality / Theory

I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.

Topic education, clash, and in-depth research are more convincing to me than generic fairness impacts.

Theory debates are usually the most difficult for me to resolve, and probably the most interventionist I would have to be in an RFD. Very explicit judge instruction and ballot writing is needed to avoid such intervention.

Ethics Violations/Procedurals

I don't flow off speech docs, but I try to follow along when you're reading evidence to ensure you're not clipping. If I catch you clipping, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't know what you're doing. I will give you a warning, but drop you if it happens again. If the other team catches you and wants to stake the round on an ethics challenge, I doubt you're winning that one.

Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations. If you believe the ballot should resolve a question of norms (disclosure, open sourcing, etc), then I will evaluate it like a regular procedural. If you believe it's an ethics violation (intentionally modifying evidence, clipping, etc), then the round stops immediately. Loser of the ethics challenge receives an auto loss and 20s.

Evidence ethics can be really iffy to resolve. If you want to stake the round on an evidence distortion, you must prove: that the piece of evidence was cut by the other team (or someone affiliated with their school) AND there was clear and malicious intent to alter its meaning. If your problem isn't surrounding distortion but rather mistagging/misinterpreting the evidence, it can be solved via a rehighlighting.

Online Debate

Please don't start until you see my camera on!

If you're not wearing headphones with a microphone attached, it is REALLY hard to hear you when you turn away from your laptop. Please refrain from doing this.

I would also love if you slowed down a tiny tiny tiny tiny bit on your analytics. I will clear you at most 3 times, but I can't help it if I miss what you're saying on my flow ;(.

Lay Debate / GGSA
I actually really appreciate these rounds. I think at the higher levels, debaters tend to forget that debate is a communicative activity at its core, and rely on the judge's technical knowledge to get out of impacting out arguments themselves. If we are in a lay setting and you'd rather not have a fast round when I'm in the back, I'll be all for that. There is such a benefit in adapting to slower audiences and over-explaining implications of all parts of the debate -- it builds better technical understanding of the activity! I'll probably still evaluate the round similar to how I would a regular round, but I think the experience of you forcing yourself to over-explain each part of the flow to me is greatly beneficial.

Public Forum

I've never debated in PF, but I have judged a handful of rounds now. I will evaluate very similarly to how I evaluate policy rounds.

I despise the practice of sending snippets of evidence one at a time. I think it's a humongous waste of time and honestly would prefer (1) the email chain be started BEFORE the round and (2) all of the evidence you read in your speech sent at once. Someone was confused about this portion of my paradigm -- basically, instead of asking for "Can I get [A] card on [B] argument, [C] card on [D] arg, etc...", I think it would be faster if the team that just spoke sent all of their evidence in one doc. This is especially true if the tournament is double-flighted.

If you want me to read evidence after the round, please make sure you flag is very clearly.

I've been in theory/k rounds and I try to evaluate very close to policy. I'm not really a huge fan of k's in public forum -- I don't think there is enough speech time for you to develop such complex arguments out well. I also don't think it makes a lot of sense given the public forum structure (i.e. going for an advocacy when it's not a resolution that is set up to handle advocacies). I think there's so much value in engaging with critical literature, please consider doing another event that is set up better for it if you're really interested in the material. However, I'm still willing to vote on anything, as long as you establish a role of the ballot + frame why I'm voting.

If you delay the round to pre-flow when it's double-flighted, I will be very upset. You should know your case well enough for it to not be necessary, or do it on your own time.

Be nice & have fun.

Ella Yu College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 6:40 AM PDT

Novice

I'm a flow judge, which means the best way for you to win is to pick your least challenged argument, then explain why it wins you the round by the backhalf.

I know which arguments have been challenged and by how much since I've been flowing, so your job is to do the challenging and explain why you win. Yes, you can and should be very explicit about this! Ideally, final focus should be you writing my RFD for me.

To explain why you win the round, weigh, weigh, weigh. This means telling me why I should prioritize solving for your harm before our opponents' harm. (Note: this is why defending your case from your opponents' challenges is important — I need to believe you can solve your harms before I can prioritize voting for them.)

Prioritization can be for a number of reasons, such as your impact affecting more people or being more urgent/time-sensitive. Weighing needs to be comparative, i.e. tell me not just why your harm is important but also why your opponents' isn't.

If any of this is confusing please ask me about it before round! My job as a judge is to hopefully be educational to you.

**If you're at Western please ignore everything below lol

Nat Circ

tldr: avg tech judge who dislikes intervening with some experience in more progressive styles

Procedural preferences:

Email chain for ev sharing, add eyu@thecollegepreparatoryschool.org
Flex prep and open cross are good with me
Please send speech docs; these don't need to include analytics (I won't flow off them, they just make ev sharing so much quicker)
Sit/stand, whatever makes you more comfortable
If you have an off-time road map keep it short; instead signpost well
Do not spread against someone who has asked you not to

General: I dislike when the round becomes blippy responses that just get recontextualized in each subsequent speech because teams try to win every voter. To not get here, do ballot writing. Collapse and explain why you win the round. To that end, this is why I'm more persuaded by a slower and strategic backhalf.

For me to recognize an arg as a voter, it needs to have:

1] Sufficient warranting/ev

2] Sufficient frontlining

3] Importance in the round through weighing

Extensions: You don't need to extend until backhalf but trust that I will be looking for a uniqueness, link, and impact when you do. There's no need to extend every warrant/internal link if they're conceded.

Evidence: While evidence quality is probably important a warranted card > warranted analytic > unwarranted card. I won't look at ev during the round unless I'm told to, and I only resort to looking at ev as a last resort to resolve clash. That's intervene-y and I don't like doing it, so tell me earlier on why I pref your card.

If your opps' ev is breaking a "norm" (e.g. undisclosed, brackets, etc.), you can run a shell. If your opps break a rule (distorted, non-existent, or clipped ev), you can stake the round and I'll proceed in a typical ev challenge. For you to win the challenge, I need to know the violation was done with malicious intent. I won't hack if it doesn't become an issue in round but if you drop horrendous cards in the email chain I'll drop your speaks.

Speaks: In my mind 30s are given only to novices I really like and kids who innovate and do something creative in debate. If you're just really good I'm sorry but enjoy your 29.9.

Presumption: I default neg on policy-worded resolutions, and first-speaking otherwise.

Theory: I personally find theory debates to be boring but I'm capable of judging them. I default to DTA, no RVIs, CI > reasonability, spirit > text, theory uplayers substance, education > fairness. To make me happy, please ground your standards in the round. I.e. don't read the same predictability stuff every time you read the shell. Instead, explain why your opponent's specific violation is unpredictable. I lwky think friv theory is funny.

Ks: I like Ks because I think they can be very creative and fun to judge. I'm familiar with sec, cap, fem IR, and queer Ks, but if you're running psychoanalysis/deconstruction/postmodern Ks treat me like I'm dumb. Hold my brain in the palm of your hand like an egg because it really is that size and it really is that fragile. If the K debate happens I'll pretend it's policy. Yeah lwky the neg's alt is too counterplanny for pf and yeah lwky aff's perm has too much fiat for pf but if nobody says anything I won't. That being said, I'll prefer Ks being run by neg speaking second, like in policy.

For me to be happy with your K:

1] Have a link that is nuanced and very res/reps specific rather than just "state-action"

2] Actually run framework that is strategic and theoretically justified. The alt is the weakest part of the K, but if you win framework and links to your opp's reps, I don't care about the alt because you probably win. Every time a team runs a K w/o answering framework questions an angel loses its wings.

3] Be very explicit about what the ballot means in the round. At minimum, a ROTB needs to tell me the conditions for deciding who gets the ballot. But I'm most convinced by ROTBs that are clear about my role and what casting the ballot does. Without instruction I default to being a policymaker who compares worlds.

Performance: I'm probably not your judge for this. I have a hard time believing voting for you does something.

Tricks: I'm game to eval paradoxes and skep but not unwarranted blips that rely solely on ur opp missing them. I would like to see more tricks besides these because I honestly think that a "tricky" arg is often js smth very interesting and creative.

Login to Tabroom

Arizona State HDSHC Invitational

2023 — Tempe, AZ/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges