I'm fairly flexible to most styles and strategies, however, I have a few guidelines:

• I'm not a fan of "spreading" or speed reading although appreciate the strategy.  But please make it easy for your judge and opponents to understand and follow you by speaking distinctly and calmly.  I realize everyone has a lot of material to cover so please don't run through your material attempting a speed record.
• Please do not forget to weigh impacts, preferably in summary and final focus
• I find evidence to support your logic and arguments important, however, please emphasize your logical arguments first.  Make sure they're coherent and fully explained, and be persuasive.  And ensure your data/evidence clearly supports your arguments as opposed to rattling off facts and figures for their own sake.
• And, of course, be polite and respectful to all participants

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Hey all,

I was a PF debater for 4 years

I am greatly opposed to debate Jargon and believe your argument should speak for itself. The content of your speech is greater than the way you construct it. That being said I will always prefer specificity IE calculated numbers (don't give me arbitrary percents they mean nothing to me, if your card says a certain percentage of a population give me the number of people or if it says reduces fatalities 20% calculate that out and give me that number) and clearly linking evidence for how something will happen not just asserting it will.

Be kind to your opponents, no nodding for your partner (I HATE that), and argue respectfully (I will knock points for all these things)

I appreciate unconventional cases and humor (as long as its good but cheesy can be good)

shotty sourcing will land you with an L

You are all deserving of respect and acclaim for the work you have done and the work you will do.

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

Mike Harris
Wichita Southeast

Online norms - Be nice and have fun. Clean tech makes me happy. Fast is not always the best when it becomes unclear. I flow your speech, not your speech docs, especially after the 1AC/1NC.

2020-2021 Update : One of my undergraduate degrees is criminal justice. I'm well versed in both theory and procedures. I've hosted guest lectures this season with speakers on Police militarization and the Use of Force, Death Penalty, and "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness". I have a federal court judge scheduled to speak. My knowledge level is high, which means your arguments are going to have to be explained correctly to persuade me most effectively. Truth is important on this topic, especially when making claims to solve structural problems at a value level.

I have significant experience in the past 15 years judging many tournaments both in Kansas and around the nation. I am the Director of Debate at Wichita East in Wichita. I have multiple students currently competing in the NDT/CEDA, and Parli circuits in colleges across the country. We have had many national qualifiers in policy debate in recent years . I coached the 2nd and 3rd place teams at NCFL, had three teams in the top 30 at NSDA and coached the 7th place team and a top ten speaker, and had two teams qualified for the TOC. I have been exposed to many teams and styles from across the nation. Below is a brief explanation of some of my judging preferences. This is by no means a complete explanation, so feel free to ask specific question regarding my paradigm:

I'm a tabula rasa judge as much as that exists and you will need to address framing in this debate to win my ballot. DOn't care of it's K v K, clash of covs, or policy debates.

Speed - No preference as long as you are clear. I can keep up on the flow with any team although I do not believe that extreme speed is required to win. I prefer clarity and quality argumentation to speed. With that said, I most enjoy a quality high speed round that combines the above traits.

Kritik's - Literature is essential to quality kritik arguments. I do not have any problem with performance k's or kritikal aff's. I'm familiar with kritikal identity and postmodern lit. I am a glutton for solid evidence and I know that the literature exists. Be prepared to explain the literature clearly and succinctly. I have a philosophy degree although I am quite a few years removed from in-depth study of the literature.

CP's - If it solves the for the aff advantages and has a net benefit I'm good. I'm solid on theory. Not often do I reject a team on theory.

Topicality- My threshold for topicality is high. That said, I have voted on T in very significant out rounds when I don't feel it has been covered appropriately, and it is extended effectively. T must be impacted out and weighed to be a factor in my decision. I've judged a lot of debates for a long time, and seen debate go through a lot. Be specific and focus on t what would happen if this specific aff is allowed. I have interesting perspectives on the concept of fairness.

Disads - I am particularly interested in strong specific links and true internal link scenarios. I hate hearing internal links and impacts that are based on evidence from 2007. I am convinced at this level of debate evidence for disads should be updated every week to paint an accurate portrayal of the world. I will weigh a disad impact scenario without good specific links against case impacts in all cases, but the risk will probably be very low. I'm going to vote for whichever team (aff or neg) has the best and most true story.

Case - I love a good case debate. Above I mentioned I have a criminal justice and philosophy background, it is important to note my main degree area if study was political science (IR) and history.. I have found that specific and significant case turns by the negative can be very effective in undermining an aff case and being enough to win a round. Common sense analytics are important to accompany cards for both teams. Shadow extensions do little for me, I want warrant analysis with specific comparisons.

Theory and framework - Ask regarding specifics. Impact it out, ask for leeway, answer independent voters. I think this is an area of debate that is often under-covered and not understood by many advanced teams. I vote for kritikal affs and neg t/framework about evenly. I'll go either way. I don't like cheap theory (disclosure in round one of the first tournament of the year), but understand creative theory as part of the game.

All said, have fun and enjoy yourselves. Please signpost appropriately! I don't always catch the authors and sometimes it gets interesting in rebuttals when all I keep hearing is the "Brown 11' card" over and over. I can usually figure it out, but is annoying and a waste of time. I am very open-minded and will listen to anything, however teams need to explain both claims and their appropriate warrants. [mailto:devadvmike@gmail.com]

Saratoga '25 | PF | leonardo.jia@gmail.com

Background: I am currently a junior at Saratoga doing PF (my partner is Ashish Goswami). My accomplishments include: quarterfinals at NCFL Grand Nationals, semifinals at Berkeley, and semifinals at TOC.

PF:

To win my ballot:

1. If you are winning the weighing, you must win whatever offense is weighed. This offense must be extended in both summary and final focus and frontlined adequately (this means no terminal defense).

2. If you are not winning the weighing, you must win offense (extended in both summary and final focus and frontlined extremely well-this means not a speck of conceded defense, whether or not its terminal) along with terminal defense on your opponents' case.

3. If nobody is clearly winning the weighing, I am forced to intervene and decide who has more offense. In the unlikely scenario that neither teams have better offense, I presume based off of a coin toss or whatever presumption warrants are read.

Non-substance: I consider myself to be a substance debater, but I am fine with non-substance. Run at your own discretion.

Speed: I am fine with anything <=250 wpm. Anything faster is your own risk. I don't flow off docs, they are only for evidence sharing.

Timing: Time yourself. I give a 5 second grace period after a speech's time is up. Anything after is off the flow.

Behavior: DBAA policy.

Everything non-PF: Treat me as a guy who flows. Don't do anything fancy.

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

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

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

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

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

You will receive a speaker point bump if you give your final rebuttal without the use of a laptop. I will give higher points to speeches with errors/pauses/inconsistencies etc. where the speaker debates off their flows than speeches that sound crystal clear and perfect but are delivered without the speaker looking up from their computer screen. If you flow off your laptop I will use my best judgement to assess the extent to which you're delivering arguments in such a way that demonstrates you have flowed the debate.

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

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

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

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

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

Counter-plans-

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

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

LD -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF -

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

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

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

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Hello! I am a junior at Charlotte Latin School. I have done a little bit of Lincoln Douglas and Policy, but my main event is Public Forum. 

Email: 23lalan@charlottelatin.org

--Lincoln Douglas--

I am good with spreading as long as a speech doc is sent, and your opponents are okay with it.  

Frameworks: I believe that Framework is a large part of the debate, all of the offense I vote for has to link back to the value criterion. I will not do that work for you. 

No tricks

Tech > Truth

Hold my hand. Guide me through your argument, organization is key. 

--Public Forum--

I like to see collapsing in order to keep arguments more organized. 

Key things I like to see in a round: 

1. Extensions

• If you do not extend it than I will not consider it at the end of the round

- Do not just read off the card name, make sure to tell me why the extension of that piece of evidence matters 

2. Sign posting 

• Make sure to keep speeches organized and signpost so I can follow along with speech.
• Off time road maps are helpful  

3. Weigh

-Weighing is crucial, it helps me determine who wins the round. Make sure to weigh in rebuttal, and all continuing speeches and clearly outline why your side is better than your opponent. 

—Policy—

Same rules apply as to LD. 

No consult, amendment, or abusive counterplans

I am not an expert, but I will flow and make the best decision I can so make sure to weigh and tell me why you win 

Flow judge who appreciates civility, especially in cross, which should be used for asking and answering questions, not speech making. Generally, a question may be followed by a follow-up, after which it is the turn of the other side. Starting the first constructives with key definitional and framework arguments is a good idea, as is providing, in FF, your view on how the impacts should be weighed. Try to terminalize your impacts in terms of values, including human life, equity, the environment, etc. Debaters should keep their own time only, and provide their account of how much prep time remains after each instance in which they take some and reconcile it with me if I have a discrepancy. Evidence should be represented with scrupulous accuracy, and the source should be fully identified, including the credentials of the writer, the date, and the publication. If I call for a card and observe that the evidence is old and you didn't give a date, I'll be concerned. Likewise, if you use evidence in a way that's misleading, I won't be pleased, e.g. if you use it to make a general claim when it's talking about a specific instance that bears little relation to the contention it's being used to support. Evidentiary challenges should be presented to me immediately after the final speech. Stylistically, debaters should speak clearly and audibly, while avoiding shouting. Speed will always be an issue, and debaters are urged to pace themselves mindfully of their opponents and judge(s).

Policy Update

Please see the above, as applicable, especially as regards civility. I prefer that issues of framework, topicality, definition, and interpretation be dealt with up front. Creativity is fine, but it must be firmly grounded in the reasonable. New arguments should not be presented in the rebuttal speeches, although there's always a judgment call when they're coming in as blocks. Clash is good; clash nullification is problematic. Plans should be substantive and intended to further policy objectives, not trivial and intended simply to confound the opposition.

World Schools Debate Update

I suggest clarifying what is at stake in the debate early on, i.e. if the motion carries, what would be the implications beyond the specific impacts. For example, in a debate on restrictions on hate speech, there might be a lively debate about whether or not the Prop model would, say, have the impact of reducing bias-motivated violence, but I'd also be interested in a framework and definitional analysis of whether hate speech is an instance of free speech, and, more broadly what we'd be both gaining and giving up philosophically if the motion were to carry. Similarly, I'd be interested in hearing about what the standards would be to make a determination that speech was in a prohibited category and who would make these judgments. In other words, this discipline affords an opportunity both to consider PF-style impacts and also the broader, philosophical dimensions of the topic. I'm also interested in each team's thoughts on burdens, both the other side's and its own. What do you think you have to prove in order to win the round? What should your opponents be required to prove? Of course, examples are important, but often I need to know the context, what you're trying to prove, and how the example proves your point. In the example above, perhaps there's a country that has criminalized a certain category of speech. Is there a particular historical or cultural context that we need to know if we are to understand why they did so? Is the example generally applicable, i.e. would its example be desirable in many countries with different histories and cultures? I'm fine with your collapsing a round to your view of the fundamental clashes that should determine the outcome, but I suggest you not ignore an opponent's argument, even if you elect not to extend your analysis of it, i.e. point out why you're dropping it; otherwise, I might think you've overlooked it or are conceding it without showing why doing so is strategic. In terms of style, with eight minutes, there's no reason to talk rapidly or, heaven forfend, begin shouting, or go overtime. You can show your passion through the clarity and cogency of your argumentation, but try to remain calm. Ultimately, you win the debate by persuading me that your side of the motion's world is more desirable than your opponent's--for the reasons you have successfully argued. On POIs, my preference is that a debater signals a POI with their hand, whereupon the speaker, when they notice the signal, either takes the point or gently waves it down. Since the speaker now knows that the opponent has a point, it is not necessary for the opponent to resignal the original point or a different one; however, it's courteous for the speaker to pause before waiting too long to take the POIs they wish to recognize. I do tend to think that each speaker should take two per constructive. Having taken two, if the opponents wish to pose one or more additional points, the speaker may say that they will be taking no further points during that speech. Just a suggestion.

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Qualifications: I competed in speech and debate tournaments for five consecutive years throughout all of high school. Most of my debate experience comes from public forum and I have extensive judging experience as well.

Paradigm:

- I am fine with speed, but please talk clearly. If I cannot understand you, what you say will not appear on my flow.

- Organization is important. If you are organized, I will be able to connect your speeches throughout my flow better and (hopefully) end up voting for your team. Be especially clear with taglines.

- Weigh the impacts and clearly tell me why you win. If you don't, I will end up having to put my input into the vote.

- Impacts are important. Even if you have a clear claim and warrant, nothing will count unless you have an impact as a result of that. I will most likely vote based on your impacts and voters, so make sure they are clear and strong.

- Warrants are important. If you have an impact but no clear warrant or link to the resolution, I will not vote for it.

- Be sure your arguments are backed up by evidence. The better your arguments are backed up, the stronger it will be.

- I do not flow during crossfire. If anything important comes up during crossfire, be sure to mention that within your speeches if you want that to go on my flow.

Any clarifying questions about my paradigm can be asked before the round starts or to anstlgus02@gmail.com.

• Competed in PF and Public Speaking in HS
• jasminejw.park@mail.utoronto.ca
• Send me an email before/after rounds if you have questions; feel free to use this email for an email chain
• Minimal spreading is fine but if I can't understand you, it won't end up on my flow
• Clear taglines are helpful
• Tech > Truth
• Weigh in FF with voters!
• I don't flow crossfire; mention it in rebuttal/summary/FF if you want it to go on my flow
• If it takes you more than 5 minutes to find a card, you don't have it
• If you're asking for every single evidence and I don't see why you needed it, it won't benefit you
• Be respectful during the debate

Hi! My name is Sachi (she/her) and I did Public Forum at Quarry Lane for 4 years on the national circuit. I am now a freshman in college and coach for Quarry Lane. Add me to the email chain: spatel0275@gmail.com

-- UPDATE FOR JV POLICY, GBX/BERK --

I'm familiar with policy but don't have a super extensive background in it. I recommend using my PF paradigm below to understand my judging preferences -- the main principles are the same (weigh well, extend properly, send evidence promptly/adhere to prep time, etc.). For specifics, see the first half of this paradigm.

-- Public Forum --

**Send speech docs with cut cards for case and rebuttal BEFORE the speech. I have more tolerance for less experienced debaters, but if you're in JV/varsity and aren't doing this, your speaks will most likely be getting docked.

Tech > Truth

Good with speed as long as it's clear, if you’re going >250 wpm just send a doc. And please SIGNPOST.

Frontline in second rebuttal → If you don’t frontline defense on an argument you’re going for and your opponents extend that defense, I will evaluate it as conceded.

WEIGH!! very very very important. Make it comparative + the earlier the better, I look to the weighing debate first when evaluating rounds. Hearing smart, well-warranted weighing (clever link-ins, prereqs, short circuits, etc.) makes me happy.

Collapse if it is strategic (most of the time it is). This means collapsing on your own contentions/case args but also collapsing on responses on your opponent's case (Quality > Quantity). Note** I am fine with you dropping case and going for turns on their case. It's fun if you can pull it off well (please weigh).

GOOD EXTENSIONS MATTER. Fully extend case args w/ uniqueness, links, impacts, etc. and responses should be well implicated. This can be as simple as pre-writing case extensions and reading them in the back-half, but for some reason it is still poorly done, which is sad :(

Any offense you’re going for in final focus must be in summary. Defense is not sticky.

I don't really listen to cross, won't evaluate anything from cross unless it's brought up in a speech.

Feel free to postround me -- I think it's educational and am more than happy to elaborate on any part of my decision.

Progressive Args:

I will try my best! Generally lean towards disclosure good, paraphrasing bad but I won’t hack for either. I can probably evaluate a decent theory debate … anything outside of that realm run at your own risk.

Speaks:

Strategic round decisions = good speaks !

Not sending speech docs, stealing prep, being disrespectful = bad speaks :(

Finally, this goes without saying but don’t read arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because they WILL NOT be evaluated and you will most likely get terrible speaks/get dropped.

Have fun!!!

I have been a litigator for twenty years. I expect debaters to treat one another with respect. I flow while judging. I like to hear clear enunciation and prefer that debaters not spread. All theories/ks should be well-outlined. I give little leeway on time, but will allow the debater to finish their sentence. I prefer front lining. Weighing is important - feel free to start weighing in the rebuttal. Good luck to everyone!

Introduction:

Hi, there! My name is Sandeep Sachdeva. I have only judged PF Debate once before this and I am really looking forward to doing it again.

General Information:

You are encouraged to keep track of your own time, as long as the volume isn't too loud. I will keep track of prep time. I highly recommend you do as well. Please keep in mind that once your prep time ends you must be organized and ready to move on with the debate. When reading please stick to a normal speed, I will not be able to understand "spreading" or speed reading. If I cannot understand what you are saying I won't flow it.  

I expect crossfire to be civilized and about the debate only. I appreciate a road map but keep it small and simple. Don't forget to weigh impacts, preferably in the summary and final focus, that will influence my decision. Also, do make sure you clarify which team and speaker you are before the round starts.

Above all, have fun! I am looking forward to being your judge and I can't wait to meet you. 

I am a high school senior who has debated PF throughout high school (flow judge). There isn't anything that alone will specifically guarantee my vote, but general courtesy throughout is always appreciated.

Some things to keep in mind:

• Be respectful in crossfire, and don't interrupt each other too much, as it will hurt your speaker points.
• Speaking fast is fine with me, but don't spread. Still, consider the online environment in your speed of talking.
• I won't call for cards, but please include me in whatever email chains you use.
• Evidence is key: I will likely not buy arguments that aren't backed by empirical evidence, especially if the opponent points those arguments out.

Good luck!

Heritage ‘23 - sharvaa@mit.edu

Background

- I did PF all of highschool and qualified to GTOC a few times.

- (Varsity) My one request is that both teams send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their evidence and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.

Speed:

- No spreading. Constructive should be at most 850-900 words.

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it, it isn't on the flow.

Extensions:

- The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.

- Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.

Weighing:

- Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid weighing that is not comparative

Evidence:

- I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.

- If the ev is bad, I will drop speaks and probably drop the argument unless there's a very good reason not to.

Progressive Argumentation:

- I refuse to evaluate unless linked to miscut ev or in-round safety violations.

Dear debaters,

Welcome to this debate round! As the judge, my role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine the winner based on the quality of those arguments. Here are some key points that will guide my evaluation:

1. Clarity and Communication:

• Clear articulation and effective communication of ideas are crucial. Make sure your arguments are easy to follow and understand.

2. Content and Substance:

• Focus on providing strong, well-researched content. Cite sources where necessary to support your claims.

3. Relevance and Significance:

• Arguments should be directly relevant to the resolution and should contribute significantly to the debate.

4. Logic and Reasoning:

• Your arguments should be logically sound. Avoid fallacious reasoning and ensure your points are well-structured.

5. Clash and Refutation:

• Engage with your opponents' arguments. Address their points directly and provide strong counterarguments.

6. Fairness and Sportsmanship:

• Treat your opponents with respect and maintain a courteous tone throughout the debate. Avoid personal attacks.

7. Time Management:

• Keep track of your speaking time and use it wisely. Be sure to allocate time for crossfire and rebuttals.

8. Adaptability:

• Be prepared to adjust your arguments based on how the debate unfolds. Flexibility can be a powerful asset.

9. Impact and Weighing:

• Explain the broader implications of your arguments and how they relate to the overall resolution.

10. Final Focus:

• In your final speech, crystallize the key issues of the round and explain why they lead to your team winning.

Remember, the goal of this debate is to engage in a constructive and informative exchange of ideas. Best of luck to both teams, and let's have a great debate!

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Hey! I'm Amrit (he/him) and I debated Public Forum for 4 years at the Quarry Lane School and am now a freshman at the University of Washington.

UPDATE FOR NSD Camp Tournament

ICAN NOTevaluate kritiks but I'm very open to theory shells

Tech > Truth (If you make the argument that 1+1 = 3 and it is extended properly and not responded to, I will vote on it even though 1+1 = 2)

Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com

I expect all cards for both constructive and rebuttal speeches before the speech is given. Teams that don't do this will have their speaks capped at 27.

Things I like to see in round:

• Frontlining in second rebuttal
• Extending defense and arguments in Summary
• interacting with frontlines when extending defense, do not extend "thru ink"
• doing comparative weighing (explain WHY you o/w on magnitude, timeframe, severity, etc.)
• ^^this is what will decide rounds for me
• no new weighing in second FF, very minimal weighing in first FF, most of your weighing should come in summary (even better if it's in rebuttal)

Speaks:

• +0.5 if you read cut cards in case
• +0.5 if you are disclosed on the wiki with highlights and cites
• Automatic 30 if you read solely from cut cards in both rebuttal and constructive

Progressive:

Shells:

Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full-fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques:

I know less than nothing about these, please do not run unless I'm the only judge on a panel who doesn't know them.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

I am a judge who gives feedback based on conceptual clarity/presentation clarity and the relevance of points/evidence involved. I also appreciate risk taking (that is respectful and kind). I prioritize clarity and impact more than speed and amount of time spent speaking.

I do not take points away for the diverse ways folks express their arguments/speeches, as I am inclusive to neurodivergence. I still provide notes of these expressions (ie. Eye contact, stutters, gestures, etc.) in ballots. Lastly, my approach is informed by anti-colonialism and equity for all.

I have judged for a few months under a year and I look forward to learning more.

This is my eighth year being the head coach at Kenston High School in Cleveland, Ohio. I have been a lawyer for 33 years and still practice law. I competed for four years in high school (Centerville, Ohio - three years policy debate, one year LD and four years congress) and four years in college (Miami Univ. - two years policy and two years 2-person value debate (CEDA)). Impacts are important to me. I flow the debate vigorously. Please signpost and remain professional. Please don't talk over each other in crossfire. Pronouns: he/him. Email for any chains: svoudris@me.com

I flow, but you should consider me a lay-judge. Win with your arguments and your logic, not debate tactics. In PF rounds, please do not impact your arguments out to 'human extinction.' I do not believe this is a realistic consequence of any of the topics debated in PF. 

I also do not allow off-time roadmaps. I really like roadmaps and signposting, but you need to do it within the timeframe of your speech.

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

TLDR: Warrant out your arguments, weigh, tell my why I should vote for you, be nice, and have fun :)

Background: I'm currently a junior at Stanford University and I've coached PF at Redwood MS and am currently the Speech coach for Palo Alto HS. I've competed in PF debate, Original Oratory, Extemp (primarily international extemp), and have done POI and poetry during my 4 years in high school.

Email: yuyu.yuan927@gmail.com (feel free to contact me about my comments on your ballots or if you have any questions :)

PF Paradigm: I prefer tech over truth so I'll buy any argument you present as long as it's well-warranted and not unethical (i.e. racist, sexist, etc...). I want to see clash and weighing because I think that makes for more interesting debates. That being said you should tell me how I should vote in the round. I won't intervene in the debate. However, if you don't tell me how to vote I will definitely evaluate the link debate first and probably vote off of whoever has the biggest impact second. I will consider dropped arguments as conceded unless you can give me a reason why I should consider the new answer. I don't really want to hear any new arguments in summary though. If it's something that can be cross-applied to an argument that you have already made, most likely I'll buy it as long as the argument still stands. If there was only defense read on your contention but it's something you're not going to go for I'll let you kick it if you don't bring it up again in summary or final focus. If there is offense on the contention and you don't want to go for it you have to kick it yourself, I will not kick it for you.

Policy Paradigm: I'm good with you reading any type of argument. Speed-wise, I'm fine with it as long as you're clear and you send me the doc. I'm a big fan of critical literature and definitely think it belongs in the debate space, but would only appreciate it if it's actual discourse and not just because it's a meme. I think you can read your k aff if you justify it but I want you to actually make sense. I'm good with framework and topicality but any other type of theory arguments I'm not as familiar with. For example, I'm not the most experienced with condo debates. I personally don't think unlimited condo is fair but as long as you tell me why condo is good and your opponents don't adequately address your response, I won't vote you down for it.

LD Paradigm: I don't have much experience in LD but I have judged a bunch of LD rounds. I am open to K's being read in LD because I love the literature, but treat it like you would any other argument (i.e. tell me how I should evaluate it, why I should evaluate it that way, why the links are there, and why your opponents should lose the round). I will not automatically vote for you if you prove that your value and value criterion matters more than your opponent's value and value criterion. I often find that some LDers think that if they prove their value and value criterion matters more then they should win the round and end up forgetting about the rest of their case, but just because you define the utility function doesn't mean you maximize it (i.e. just because you prove your value to be more important, your case or how the arguments are interacting in the round may not necessarily prove it). Otherwise, the rest of my paradigm applies :)

It should be assumed that you shouldn't be mean in rounds so I expect good debate etiquette. If you are rude during the round, at the very least I will give you low speaks. Debate is supposed to be a fun and open environment and we should keep it that way. Overall, just have fun!

Speech: I judge based on content, delivery, and creativity. I appreciate a speech that has solid content where the arguments are well structured and supported. For platform events, I find that many points are surface level so speeches that go in depth on your points will get extra brownie points. I love for analysis to connect and piece together everything for me so that it's obvious the message that you're getting at. Ambiguity in speeches does not equate to nuance and I would make sure that you know why you're leaving things ambiguous so that it is more purposeful in your speech.

For interp events, I focus specifically on blocking and the clarity of the storyline. I like pieces that have a lot of meaning but a clear exposition, climax, and "resolution" (doesn't have to be an exact solution to the problem you present and are showing us, but should be a good ending to showcase your message).