Hello,

As a judge, I am very particular about teams engaging each other fairly and thoroughly without being rude to each other. Fair and thorough engagements include making concessions when the arguments have been properly analysed and are logical and engaging in fair and broad-minded comparisons. This is to ensure that everyone has an equal chance in the room and that everyone is respectful towards the other.

Secondly, I am fully aware of the fact that speakers usually have a lot of material to cover in a very small time, but please make sure you do not excessively speed through your arguments. It is okay to speak fast but don't run through your speeches. To make it easy for your opponents and me to hear you clearly and understand you, I advise you to speak calmly and distinctly

Lastly, be conscious of what is expected of you in the debate round and try to fulfill them. If you make claims or assertions while speaking, justify them.

Best of luck!

Hi Debaters,
My email if you decide to start emailchain for evidence sharing

drneeruagarwal@gmail.com

I have judged elementary , middle school, Novice High School and Junior Varsity debate last year. I make unbiased decision even if I have some background knowledge of topic and always open to listening and learning. I believe with time information changes and affects our decision. It's always fun to see how new and pro debaters benefit with the rounds.

I will give points based on what you presented , how well you presented, did you have real content or just tried to pass time with some nonintelligent tricks. I will not hold you responsible for what you did not cover about topic.

I am particular about debate rules:

1. Manage time wisely
2. Do not expect me to intervene during crossfire
3. During cross fire do not try to waste opponent time by beating around the bush, ask precise clear questions
4. Use signposting as your strength and also makes judges job easy
5. I will take speaker points off if any arguments are conceded or if new arguments are brought up later than first summary.
6. Come prepared, decide how you want to share the evidence. Do not assume other team may share evidence the same way (ex. google doc vs chat)
7. I strive to start rounds timely and be respectful of everyone's time and effort.
8. Low point wins are possible, but it has happened once only so far for me (so be confident but not rude).

I can follow decent speed but will prefer someone not to rush to put more in given time and not explain their case /argument properly or have unused time on hand. So pace yourself.

I am looking forward to honest, respectful debates from which both the debaters and I will learn debating and the topic. I am fairly easy going person but particular about respectful debates. I am getting familiar with debate jargons but not a master yet. I prefer to give immediate oral feedback as that may help debaters to improve for next round as well as may be looking at all feedbacks later may not give as much clarity and satisfaction. I do not mind debaters asking questions about my decision as long as it's done in respectful way.

I am learning and evolving with debaters. I debated a little during high school and college and love it now also. So let's keep the fun going. Enjoy the topic and debate process do not focus on winning and loosing. Every round you will learn and get better irrespective of outcome.

Thanks,

Neeru

I really don't have any specific preferences as to how fast you might speak. Just be respectful and refrain from showing acts of frustration or anger. I find cross important due to the direct exchange of ideas; it is best to use what you gained from cross in your speeches, but if you don't, I will still consider what was said in cx to an extent. If you go over time in a speech, I won't stop you but I won't take into account anything said past the time. 

Hey y'all! I did LD in high school and do IPDA in college at Mizzou (go tigers!!). I'm an occasional speech girl these days, mostly in limited prep events like extemp and radio, but I'm definitely more knowledgeable as a debate judge. Put me in the email chain: madisonarenaz23@gmail.com

The following is mainly for LD, but feel free to apply relevant points to other forms of debate:

• I'm cool with higher speeds. If you're used to debating nat circ, maybe decrease your speed by about 1/4 for me, but generally I should be good. If I'm not, I'll stop flowing to indicate that I need you to slow down.
• Debate should be accessible! If you need a round without spreading, or if there's anything I can do in general to make the round best suited to your needs, please let me know.
• I try to be a relatively non-interventionist, flow judge. I can believe much more in-round than IRL, but I do still need to believe your arguments, especially if they're a little outlandish. You can sell me on anything if you're clear with those links! Just make sure you're not saying something that I would know to be categorically untrue or misrepresented with the limited knowledge I have as an undergrad polisci major.
• I just don't buy most LD theory arguments I see. I'm not bringing my outside opinions into your actual arg ever, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me to vote on, or even consider, disclosure theory unless the tournament requires disclosure. I tend to err on the side of "drop the argument" vs "drop the debater" for nearly everything.
• I value impact weighing and comparative worlds, like most other LD judges. I have faith that y'all will do that, but novices - make sure you're learning this!
• Please please don't drop framework. I don't love framework debates (seriously it's just a lens I use to evaluate your performance please don't dedicate a ton of the debate to it), but make sure you're proving how you uphold yours. Ideally, uphold yours and your opponent's.
• Run literally whatever kind of arg you want to. I can evaluate a totally trad round, a K vs case, K vs K, a round where y'all are essentially LARPING as policy debaters, a philosophy heavy round, whatever you want. I will note I'm not the best judge for performance affs, but I value their place in the debate world - maybe just with a judge who is better prepared to evaluate them than me.
• If the point above meant absolutely nothing to you, do not worry about it. If you know exactly what I'm talking about and even think I'm putting it a little too plainly, and you enter a round with someone who clearly doesn't know what that previous point is about, ESPECIALLY in novice, consider that the point of debate is education. How you run it is your call from there. Be nice though and I'll boost your speaks every time.
• I prefer roadmaps off-time.
• Too many rebuttals are entirely scripted, and too many cases just aren't dynamic. Adapt your case and your performance to the round. Be funny or be serious, come prepared for every possible point or don't, but give me the vibe that you're actually in the room with us right now and not still on the Wiki or copying your captain. Say words beyond just what's on your cards. Even if I know what you're talking about, make it clear. I'm not a coach, I don't cut cards or develop args for any topic, and if I can't explain the argument you just gave back to your opponent, I'm not voting off of it, even if I do think I understand it. This may make me a worse judge for tricks debate and unevidenced Kritiks.
• Tldr: be a good person. Throw out this whole paradigm if you want! Your argumentation can overcome basically any of this, and anyone who tells you otherwise is doing you dirty. The point of this paradigm is just to ensure a good debate round that I can give good feedback on, but it is not my place to offer absolutes about what you can or should do. It's your activity - make it yours. Above all else, be kind and have so so much fun.

anirv.ayyala@gmail.com add me on the email chain

My name is Anirv Ayyala and my pronouns are he/him.

I have been coached by Nishad Neelakandan and Rahul Ramesh, feel free to look at their paradigms cause everything I've learned is from them.

Overall stuff

I will judge any kind of debate(excluding racist, homophobic or ableist arguments).

tech>truth

Policy

Policy aff - do whatever you want, I'm tech over truth so good ev paired with better warranting will usually get you the dub

DAs/CPs- I've heard enough of these debates to know what they're saying and also be very bored of these debates. Bonus points if u make these debates fun to judge.

I'll only kick the counterplans if you tell me to. I weigh reasonability on condo very heavily. Any other theory stuff is up to debate.

Don’t take counterplan competition for granted, take clever perms seriously. Politics debates- affs, several plan popular cards from 2015 does not make a link turn - uniqueness is a thing.

Impact calc. Please. Maybe even pretty please. This will win you close debates because it's all about the way you spin-off your arguments.

K debate - I am well versed in K debate, My main area of literature have been afropess/anthropocene Ks. I have read Cap Ks, Liberalism Ks, Antiblackness Ks, SetCol Ks, and anything similar too these will most likely be understood. If it's a high theory argument I know the popular ones(Bauldriard, Batalie, all the other french dudes) but i still need a clear explanation.

Long ranty overviews and generic link walls are generally a waste of everyone's time. K debate reveals its intellectual potential when the debaters are committed to the literature and when a team has a unique angle against the aff. If you're doing this, it'll be pretty clear. But if u make ur long ranty overview fun to listen to and slip a link in there i may or may not flow it as a link.

But please contextualize it to the aff don't pull up with "I hate the state *angry face emoji* " do some work. I will be so happy if you do specific link work to the actual implementation of the aff and will love you if you give me applicable historical examples.

I do think that epistomologies can be weighed as a link, but this does not mean u can just say "topic bad" and expect a link - flesh out why the 1ac's epistomologies forwards a bad model that causes x impact

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s author/-ism as possible. Answering the link will prob get you out of every K you hit and makes it terribly easy to vote aff since an answer to the link is a better warrant for the perm than anything you have in your blocks

Kaffs v FW - Kaffs are great too. Yes, I am willing to vote against you on framework. Everything about debate is how well thought through your argument is. I do believe you can break the game - the only rules you cant break are speech/prep/cx times - but you need to prove why you breaking the game was valuable. Fairness is amazing but i do think clash is the better fw impact. I value narrative cohesion in debates - that's especially true in FW debates. Judge instruction in the 2NR or 2AR will make my life easier and probably win you the debate.

Personal stuff

The ballot is decided by your debating and speaks are decided by me - that being said just don't be rude and you'll be fine

LD

Ive done LD and know how the activity works - so dont worry about dumbing things down. Debate how you do and use all the stuff on policy to see what kind of judge I am

My one preference is to have your 2nr/2ar contextualize what your winning to your fw page, just extending fw at the top and extending the impact later is not weighing your impact

PF

Ive never done the activity but i've judged it and have enough experience in debate in general to know whats going on.

LD Specific:

Tabula rasa

You can run whatever arguments you prefer, but do not assume I’ve read the literature/know authors and their theories. You decided to run it, you should be able to explain it.

As much as I know philosophy, do not assume that I will know and understand your hyper specific framework (Kant, Nietzche,etc.). Slow down and EXPLAIN.

When presenting your case, slow down on any prog. arguments (K, Theory,).

I am fine with speed ~7/10~ but slow down on taglines.

General:

I will pay attention to the cross for speaker points, but will not flow it. If it is important, bring it up in the speech.

Write the ballot for me. Tell me why you win, voters, impacts, drops, magnitude, timeframe. I will take everything into account as long as you TELL ME.

I will not shadowflow.

Debate is an extracurricular activity, you are here because you wanted to be, just like your opponents. Be nice and respectful to each other.

Don't hesitate to ask me any questions

Hello! I’m debated in PF for 3 years on the nat circuit.

If you don’t have your cases preflowed and make me wait 10 minutes for you to preflow it during the round, I will dock your speaks and be upset at you.

I've been prepping/judging this topic since June – I probably won't pay attention to cross sorry. If I'm not typing, I promise I am listening to your case I just don't need to write everything down

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is erica.chen0328@gmail.comfor the chain.

Safety > everything else. If you make the round unsafe for anyone in the round, you will lose. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. Trigger warning theory is probably an auto-win. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings aren’t needed/are bad.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 210-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I also don’t want to read speech docs. It’s your job to persuade me in the round, not send me your prep. This is to say: if I can’t hear it, then I guess you lose.

Signpost. If you don’t signpost, I might not understand where to flow your response, or what it is responding to. And then I might not understand what is terminal defense/whether you frontlined your case appropriately/where your offense is, which might make you lose.

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Understandably then - please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative and meta-weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). The same extension needs to be in final focus. Same with defense - everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

If you read a frivolous K/theory/trick in order to not have to debate a structural violence argument, I will auto-drop you, give you 27s, and give the opposing team 30s. Then, I will ask the opposing team if they would like to go out and get some snacks and talk about their day.

Similar sentiments on reading prog on novices/young debaters because you know you can bulldoze them.

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed open source. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms. So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. If you’re running ‘card clipping theory’ or ‘they didn’t disclose good enough’ I will probably think you’re a clown. In that case, I will default to reasonability. I am a judge so I actually do get to intervene :) I also won’t vote for first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid.

I learned the basic of Ks and hit a couple in my career;not super experienced with K lit. I’m open to them and will vote for you, just slow down and explain it, please. I do have standards on what Ks I will evaluate.

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

I do not believe that you should run identity arguments on other debaters of that same identity. People shouldn’t have to debate their own experiences. If another debater expresses discomfort because of this issue in round, I will stop the round and you will lose for making others unsafe.

Frameworks:

Couple notes:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good/I want your discourse to go into more rounds, and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Other than being awesome at debate (which I’m sure you are) here are things you can do to get some extra points:

• debate well and have fun:))

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Lexington High School 2020/Northwestern 2024

For 2024: I haven't judged in a while so I am rather rusty and I certainly don't have any topic knowledge at this point

Before the round starts, please put me on email chain: victorchen45678@gmail.com(no pocket box, and flashing is ok with no wifi)

Scroll down for PF/LD paradigm

Policy:

TLDR: tech over the truth but to a degree. (no sexist, racist, other offensive arguments) You do you, and I'll try to be as objective as possible. Aff should relate to the topic and debate is a game. Just make sure in the final rebuttal speech you impact out arguments, explain to me why those arguments you are winning implicate the whole round.

2022 season: I have absolutely no topic knowledge on this year's topic so expect me to know nothing and make sure you explain the stuff in a very detailed yet not convoluted manner.

The long paragraphs below are my general ideas about the debate

Top Level Stuff

1. Evidence -- I believe debate is a communicative activity, thus I put more emphasis on your analytical arguments than your cards. That being said, I do love good evidence and enjoy reading them. I think one good warranted card is better than three mediocre ones. I am cool with teams reading new cards in all the rebuttal speeches. A good 1AR should read more than 3 cards and don't be afraid to read cards in the 2NR. I believe that at least one speech in the block should be pretty card heavy, otherwise it makes the 1AR a lot easier. I will read the tags during rounds for the most part and read the text usually after rounds, but I won't do the extensive analysis for you because you should have already done that in the round.

2. Cross X is incredibly important to me and I flow them---I find it extremely frustrating when the 2N gets somewhere in 1ac cx, and then the 1N doesn't bring it up in the 1NC. Winning CX changes entire debate both from a perceptual level and substance level. Use the 3 minutes wisely, and don't ask too many clarification questions. You can do that during prep.

3. Be nice -- Obviously be assertive and control the narrative of the debate round, but there's no reason to make the other team hate the activity or you in the process. I am cool with open cross x but you should try to let your partner answer the questions unless they are going to mess up.

4. Tech over truth, but to a degree- If an argument is truly bad, then beat it. Otherwise, I have to intervene a ton, and I prefer to leave the debating to the debaters. However, I'm extremely lenient when one team reads a ton of blippy, unwarranted, and unclear args( quality over quantity). The only real intervention is when I draw the line on new args, but you should still make them and somehow convince they aren't new.

5. Pay attention to how I react in-round --I will make my opinion of an argument obvious

6. Make 1AR as difficult as possible. I know a lot of 2Ns want to win the round by the end of the block. However, that doesn't mean you should just extend a bunch offs terribly. In response, the 1AR should make the 2NR difficult- reading cards and turning arguments.

7. Please please have debates on case. I understand neg teams like to get invested in the offs, but case debate is precious. A lot of the aff i have seen are terribly put together, especially at the Internal Link level. Even if you don't have evidences, making some analytical arguments on why the plan doesn't solve goes a long way for you. I vote on zero probability of aff's ability to solve so even when you go for a CP, you should still go to case so I would have to vote you all down twice to vote aff.

8. Impact/Link Turns-- love them; i don't care how stupid the impact is(wipeout, malthus, bees etc), as long as you read ev and the other side doesn't argue it well, I will vote for you. As for link turn, I don't really need a carded ev for that, just nuanced analytic is sufficient for me to buy them.

9. Be funny-debate is stressful and try to light up the mood. Love a few jokes here and there, but since I am someone not invested in pop culture too much, some of the references I probably wouldn't get. If you do it well, your speaker point will reflect it.

10. Speaks- I am very lenient on speaks. I just ask you to slow down on the tags and author name and any analytical args but feel free to spread through the text of the card. I love any patho moments in the final rebuttal speeches on both sides. Here are how I give speaks

29.7-30: A debate worth getting recorded and be shared with my novices.

29.3-29.6: You are an excellent debater and executed everything right

28.7-29.2: You are giving pretty good speeches and smart analytics

28.5-28.6: You are an average debater and going through the process. I begin the round with that number and either go up or down.

28.0-28.4: You are making a few of the fundamental mistakes in your speeches or speaking unclearly.

27.0-27.9: You are making a lot of fundamental mistakes and you are speaking very unclearly

<27.0: You are rude ie being mean to your partner, opponents, or me (hope not).

Clipping card results in automatic 0 speaks and a loss, but I won't intervene the round for you, you have to call out your opponents yourself. If one team accuses the other team for clipping, I will stop the round and ask the team if they are willing to stake the round on that. If the team says yes I will walk out with the recording provided by that team and decide if the cheating has happened or not. A false accusation results in an automatic loss of the team that got it wrong. Spakes will be given accordingly.

Now on arguments

DAs

Yes, love them(Idk if there is anyone who doesn't like a good DA debate) -- go through their ev in the rebuttals; this is where i would like a team to read A LOT of evidence on the important stuff. You can blow off their dumb args, especially the links.

Zero Risk is very much a thing and I will vote on it.

If the 1ar or 2ar does a bad job answering turns case and the 2nr is great on it, it makes the DA way more persuasive -- and a good case debate would greatly benefit you as well.

Politics is OK -- fiat solves link, da non-intrinsic are arguments that I will evaluate only if the other team doesn't respond to them at all. However, I do want to see good ev on why the plan trades off with the DA.

I think it's best to have a CP and DAs together because there are just a lot more options at that point. If you really wanna just go for the DA, you need to have a heavy case debate up to that point for me to really evaluate the status quo since most of the aff are built to mitigate the status quo.

CPs and theory

I dislike process CPs-- I really don't like these debates -- I've been a 2n as well as a 2a, but I will side with the aff - this goes for domestic process like commissions as well as intermediary and conditional that lurk in your team's backfile. However, I have a soft spot for consult CP (my first neg argument). Just make sure you do a great job on the DA.

States, international, multi-plank, multi-actor, pics, CPs without solvency advocates are all good -- i'll be tech over my predispositions, but if left to my own devices, I would probably side with aff also

Condo -- all depends on the debating -- I think there could be as many condo as possible. but I also believe zero condo could be won. Still, my general opinion is that conditionality is good and aff teams should only go for them as a last resort.

I will read the solvency evidence on both sides. Solvency deficits should be well explained, why the solvency deficit impact outweighs the DA.

I don't like big multi-plank CPs, but run it as you like and kicking planks is fine

Judge kick unless the 2AR tells me otherwise.

Ks

I have some decent knowledge with a lot of the high theory Ks, but I am probably most well versed in psychoanalysis. That being said, I do want you to explain to me the story of the k and how it the contextualizes with the aff well in the block. Don't just spill out jargons and assume i will do the work for you. A good flow is important. What happens with alot of K debates is that at some point the negative team just give up on with ordering and it's harder for me to know where to put things. Any overview longer than 3 minutes is probably not a good idea but if that's your style, go for it, just make sure you organize them in an easy to flow manner. I probably will do the work for you when u said you have answered the args somewhere up top, but i would prefer the line by line and your speaker point will reflect how well you did on that.

FW should be a big investment of time and I think it's strategic to do so. That being said, you have to clearly explain why the aff's pedagogy is problematic and the impacts of that.

I am meh with generic links, just make sure you articulate them well. That being said, most of these links probably get shielded by the permutation.

Alt debate is not that important to me. I don't believe a K has to have an alt by the 2nr. I go for linear DA a lot, but make sure you do impact calc in the 2nr that explains why the K impact outweighs the aff. For the alt, I would like the aff to read more than just their cede the political block, make better-nuanced args.

Planless affs

I am probably not the best judge for these kinds of aff but I will evaluate them as objectively as possible

Framework:

The aff should defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan. At the very least, the aff has to have some relationship to the topic. I want the offense to be articulated well because many times I get confused by the offenses of these affs. I think fairness is absolutely an impact as well as an I/L. I default to debate is a game and it's gonna be hard to convince me otherwise.

I think the ballot ultimately just decides a win and a loss, but I can be convinced that there are extra significances and values to it. That being said, I have seen a lot of k aff with impacts that the ballot clearly can not address.

T

Not a big fan of these debates and never have been good at it.

From Seth Gannon's paradigm:

"Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have cancelled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum."

On this topic specifically, I dislike effect Ts

These debates are boring to me and I will side with the aff if they are anyway close to being Topical, and that's usually how I have voted.

Reasonability = yes

LD:

I feel like most of the policy stuff should apply here. I never debated LD but I have judged quite a bit and I almost always see it as a mini Policy round.

PF:

I am more tech than truth, but I will absolutely check on evidence quality to make sure your warrants indeed support your claims. Feel free to run whatever arguments and I am willing to vote on any level of impact as long as good impact calc and weighing is done. If you have strong evidence you shouldn’t worry. I will not evaluate anything that’s not in summary by the final focus. And also please don’t stop prep to ask for another card. Ask for all the cards you want in the beginning and you will see plus on your speaks.

Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Dublin Jerome High School

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc or your speaks are capped at a 28. Obviously elimination debates are immune from this, but it will make me annoyed with you.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Public Forum---

I don't normally judge PF but I have done it off-and-on and coached the event as well. Overall I dislike "PF-isms" like "we tell you", etc. and I don't think that PF gets a pass from engaging in good extension and rebuttal norms, i.e. nothing is "sticky".

If you are collapsing onto something/kicking something, you need to say so.

Paraphrasing is bad.

Send me all cards read in the debate or else your speaks are capped at a 25.

The only time something is extended for you is the First Constructive in the First Rebuttal. Other than that, you need to do the extensions yourself.

"Delink" is a pet peeve phrase of mine. It's a "no link" argument.

Weighing is extremely important. The teams that do the best weighing and meta-weighing are usually the teams that win my ballot just because I don't think teams implement this well enough.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

Iowa City West High School '23 | she/her | alicedebate3014@gmail.com

About me: I’m currently a varsity PFer; this is my 4th year of debate.

NOVICES: take everything below with a grain of salt, debate the best you can, and have fun!

General:

• "debate is a game" so tech>truth
• I will always disclose unless told not to
• Run what you want as long as it's warranted & has impacts
• Time yourselves
• Be nice
• If you bring me bubble tea before the round, +0.5 speaks
• Feel free to email or Instagram DM me if you have more questions after the round :)

Things I want to see:

• Off-time roadmaps & signposting
• Trigger warning if your arguments could be sensitive
• Start frontlining in 2nd rebuttal
• Weighing, especially in summary and final focus
• Interaction (aka actually RESPOND to what your opponents say, don't flow through ink)
• Collapse, don't extend stuff you know you can't win
• Collapse STRATEGICALLY - aka don't go for the contention/argument that has 8 responses to it (unless you're prepared to/have time to frontline them all), when you could go for the one that has just 2

Things I DON'T want to see:

• "Bruh homies out here having an asthma attack while reading cases." Don't spread. This is pf. If I miss something you say, that's on you. (If your opponents spread, feel free to run anti-spreading theory)
• Don't read frivolous theory
• DONT READ PROGRESSIVE ARGS IF YOU KNOW YOUR OPPONENTS DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABT PROGRESSIVE PF

• "asking" statements, instead of questions, during cross
• New arguments in final focus or 2nd summary. This is abusive; your opponents don't have enough time to respond.
• Bringing stuff up in final focus that wasn't brought up in summary (I won't vote on it)
• DON'T just read card after card. You need to analyze in between and explain how they prove your point
• Discrimination

I think speaks are very subjective, but here you go:

30: God-tier - I see you definitely breaking and making it into deep out rounds

29.5-29: Great - You're breaking for sure, might not make it far, but you're breaking

28.5-28: Average - Might be on the verge of breaking/will be in a bubble round

27.5-27: Comprehendible

<26: Either I can't understand you at all, or you were egregiously rude/discriminatory

link to one of my favorite pf rounds ever!

Hi,

I am an intermediate judge ( flay) . It would be nice if you kept communications easy and straightforward (avoid using jargons).

Please be respectful to all participants. Most importantly.. have fun !!

I have primarily debate PF. I debated for Lambert High School for 2 years, and I have overall 3 years of PF experience.

Add me on the email chain jasonme02@gmail.com

If you are going to read an argument about a sensitive topic, please include a content warning (Trigger Warning). Be prepared to give an alternative case if a team does opt-out. Trigger warnings are extremely serious.

- Cross will not impact my evaluation of the round. However Cross is very underrated. Try and get concessions and try to clarify arguments.

Weighing:

- Weighing Impacts is crucial, if you don't weigh I'll have no idea why I am caring about the argument. If u take weighing to the next level, i.e comparative and link weighing more likely to pick up ballots.

- Weigh turns & disads (If you don't end up weighing them, then I have no idea which piece of offense I should prefer)

- Just saying Strength of link/impact weighing is not weighing

- I have a high threshold for counting Link-ins as weighing but it can be beneficial to try and use a link as an external piece of the offense.

Tech

- Defense is key to muddle arguments as well as cast doubt. extending defense is Summary should be a good strat, but you don't have to extend defense.

[Not Orginal]

- Any type of theory is good with me and is probably becoming more accessible. However, this does not mean you do not read blippy theory for the sake of throwing your opponent off. I will default to reasonability. Still give me a clear interpretation, violation, standard, and voter. [Note: I am not very familiar with progressive argumentation and would prefer it not to be run unless there is real abuse in the round. If you do choose to run it, I will evaluate it as logically as I can, but I cannot guarantee that I will evaluate it the same way your typical "tech" judge would.] Please also weigh your standards it goings to make evaulting theory shells easier especially in a high-tech round.

- No CPs

- Weighing in first FF is okay ig? [This shouldn't happen], but it's better if done earlier (not in second FF though)

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Second rebuttal must respond to turns (I count as dropped otherwise)

- Tech>truth, the crazier an argument gets, the lower my threshold for responses to that argument is.

- Extensions of offense need to be in summary and final focus. If this isn't done, you will 90% of the time lose the round because you have no offense. Collapsing can make extensions cleaner.

- If no offense is left by the end of the round, I presume the team that lost the coin flip. If the round is side-locked, I presume the first speaking team because I believe it is at a structural disadvantage in the round. [Note: if you read presumption please tell me why and give me a warrent on why it is true]

- Frameworks are fine. I think they are important in the round, if you drop the framework in rebuttal I will consider it dropped.

- Don't spread, if you do end send a speech doc. I can follow speed, but the faster you go, the more likely I am to miss something on the flow. Additionally, I find that 99% of the time, you do not need to go fast to cover the flow; you simply need to improve your word economy. Finally, I believe that spreading is can exclude so many people from being able to comprehend and learn from the round, making the activity overall less accessible. If you can speak at a moderate speed while still covering the flow efficiently, you will be rewarded with high speaks. However, if you send speech docs and the other team is fine with it then go ahead.

- Signpost. If I am not writing on my flow, there is a good chance that I just don't know where you are on the flow.

- Do not be rude to your opponent. This includes making jokes at the expense of your opponents. Excessive rudeness that makes the activity inaccessible to marginalized groups will result in me dropping the debater. My threshold for this is not that high because I despise this behavior in an activity that is meant to be fun and educational for all participants.

- I will give you high speaks if you speak pretty and are smart on the flow.

- Do not read 30 speaks theory.

Background

I am a parent judge. I have engineering background and currently working in software developing industry. 

PF

·  I make my decisions based on multiple things while as a new judge, I would more focus on the facts rather on the technique.

·  You can speak fast but please speak clearly. Send me your doc if you want (freefl@gmail.com)

·  Please show respect to each other

policy background but did public forum---do what you do best! be clear, be kind, clash, don't avoid arguments, email me for questions: hari dot debate dot 0905 at gmail dot com (can put it in the chat), have fun!

Hello!

I have competed in several PF tournaments and have judged a few too.

I'm open to any argument as long as it is relevant to the resolution and backed with substantial evidence. Weighing impacts is crucial so make sure to outline not just arguments and impacts, but also why they should be weighed more than your opponents'.

Please structure speeches well and don't speak to fast.

Good luck!

Hi! I am palmer <3

I currently attend Liberty University; I am a Senior and a double major with a BA in History and a BA in Pre-Law

I have debated on all sides, but predominately have read a K aff. I started as a novice and moved up into varsity, so I have experience at each level, and think each level of debate is very important!

Please include me on the email chain -- palmerhastonhamilton@gmail.com

The most important thing to get from my paradigm is that you should just do what you ever you do best! :)

Judging Stuff:

-I approach every debate round as a place to be able to learn, educate, and grow; or why else are we here. While this is true, I do think debate is a game, but it is a game that is happening in real life, with real people, and can have very real consequences.

-Tell me what to do with my ballot and what my role of as the judge is in this debate, and pair that with explicit judge instruction and you should be in a good spot.

-I love cross ex; I think this is sometimes the most exciting part of the debate and I will almost always flow it;

-Don't sacrifice clarity for speed.

K aff's:

These should have a general tie to the resolution or topic, but I can be convinced that this does not have to be true; I do not care if you read a plan-less K aff. I do think you need to win why your model of debate and the education are good. I think you really need to explain what your advocacy is and how it solves whatever impact you lay out.

Policy aff's:

When you have a million scenarios and a million advantages, it takes away from your credibility. Sometimes less can be more, or save some of it for the 2AC. It is not always a bad thing to wait for the 2AC. I may or may not have some knowledge on the topic area. In general I think you should be explaining really clearly what you plan does and how it resolves the impacts you have laid out.

K's:

There needs to be a link to the plan/1AC that is being read. I like specific links but also you should just go for the link they dropped or covered the least; I am familiar with a wide range of K literature, but I am def. not familiar with everything (Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Complexity, etc.), which is why I think in general you should be trying to overexplain things in round or be concise but as specific as possible. Alternative explanations are so important and are often under-covered.

FWK/T:

I think that the more specific you are the better on this page, for both sides. Reading FWK is okay, but you still need to engage with the Aff, and vice versa. I think these debates can be some what shallow sometimes because people are so tied to their blocks; I think that the TVA should meet your own interpretation and while it may not need to resolve all of the aff, they definitely should be allowed to access their education and lit base under your TVA; (side note: The negative has the burden to prove that the TVA can access the aff's lit base and education, not the other way around) Each sides need to be making sure they are answering the specific offense that the other team is going for. I don't generally buy fairness as an impact, unless its dropped.

DA's and CP's:

The DA needs to have a link to the aff and I would prefer a specific link. Impact weighing is super important at the end of the debate, so don't forget it. The CP needs to be competitive, solve the aff (or a significant portion of the aff), and have a net benefit. I may not be super versed in a very specific CP or DA that you have so make sure you are clear and it is well explained.

Other stuff to know:

-My face says a lot about how I feel about your arguments, so look up when you are debating and my face my give you a hint

-Do NOT read spark, wipeout, or nuclear war good in front of me

-I feel like you should be stuck with all of the planks of your counterplan, but I could be convinced otherwise

-I do not always think process CP's are the best strategy

-I believe that the person who was hurt determines the parameters/acceptance of an apology not the other way around

hey, i'm ben! (he/him)

i'm a policy debater (2N) at leland (2A'd like two times ever). i have almost no judging experience (except a middle school PF tournament and i don't think that qualifies for much). for speech events — I've done info/expos and duo :)
email - lelandhsdebate@gmail.com ('hs' stands for han shih, not high-school) and lelanddebatedocs@googlegroups.com

general
- tech > truth (usually)
- be clear — spreading is ok
- time your own prep
- done a lot of lay debate (w stock issues) — if I'm in a panel u can treat me like a parent judge

Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents

Hello!

Yes include me on the email chain—Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com

I am a policy debater at Liberty University.

General things---

1. Tech over truth—-my job is to determine who did the best debating in round. I will vote for any argument regardless of personal convictions.
2. Quality over quantity—-I am much more persuaded by a few warranted arguments than by numerous blippy ones.
3. Line-by-line—- do it.
4. Judge instruction—-my goal is to have the least interventionist RFD, and telling me what my RFD should look like will go a long way
5. case/da turns are great
6. If you make me laugh, I will boost your speaks
7. Be kind, if you're racist, sexist, etc. I will vote you down
8. I'm fine with any arguments other than death good, just do what you're comfortable with

PF---

1. Make sure you extend the story of your arguments and answer theirs.
2. Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.
3. Keep track of your own speech times and prep.
4. Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.
5. Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.
6. Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.
7. Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.
8. If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.
9. I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.
10. I'm not sure that PF is debate.
11. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.
12. If you ask to preflow after start time, use prep time or I doc your speaks

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

I appreciate debaters who are able to analyze their arguments and datas beyond simply quoting. Step by step analysis is very important as it will strengthen one's arguments or evidence

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: Don't spread much and speak at a resonable speed please. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isn't sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Don't do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

add me to the email chain: benjaminkleiman5@gmail.com

TLDR: read anything (unless its discriminatory and/or mean)

I default tech > truth and truth testing unless told otherwise

the ballot determines if you win the round, the speaker points determine how much I want to vote for you

postround me! i like it when the coaches join in on the fun too.

I debated Public Forum for 4 years.

Most important: Please collapse and comparatively weigh your argument as early as possible! The more arguments I have to evaluate, the less likely you get the decision you want

Some specifics:

- Frontline ALL offense you plan to go for in 2nd rebuttal (and don't go for too much!!!). You can expand on frontlines in 2nd summary, but they should all be in rebuttal.

- Extending = explaining/summarizing your argument, not just reading the tagline

- I will evaluate K's and theory arguments but don't assume I know common jargon

- Content warnings are mandatory for potentially triggering content

- Misconstrued evidence will significantly lower your speaks even if it isn't important for my decision

- Skip grand cross for 1 minute of prep if both teams agree

- Be nice to each other and have fun!! I don't flow crossfire and the nicer you are the happier your speaks will be :)

Ask any questions you have about the decision if you want - it helps me improve as a judge. As long as you aren't rude :)

• Treat me like a parent judge
• used to do LD - so I understand some jargon 
• persuasion is everything 
• ask me questions about my paradigm before the round if confused 
• i like people are funny but humor is unique so don't attempt anything but I like it when people try 
• i wont stand for anything that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. 
• dont misgender someone 

I will evaluate the debate based on how well you explain and support your reasoning with evidence, the quality of your questions and responses in the cross-fires, and how well your summary speech and final focus weigh and make a compelling case for your team. Clear organization, strong evidence, and good articulation make a winning team. It also helps to stay calm and composed and avoid being overly aggressive. 

Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.

Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.

When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.

Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)

I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.

Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.

Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.

Have fun debating!

General

- Speak as fast as you want, but try not to spread. The words should be clear

- Focus on understanding of the topic and the depth at which one understands a topic

- I can time the speeches but prefer you please time yourselves

- Add me to the email chain: vishwas.manral@gmail.com

- Be respectful - don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

• Flay/treat me more lay
• Send me your cases

Arguments/ Debate etc.

I don't like progressive debate at all (No Tshells, K's, CPs, tricks, etc.) I will probably end up dropping you if you run it. If you do end up going for it -- please explain to me clearly why it should be a voting issue at the end of the debate.

Squirrelly arguments are ok but you need to actually explain your link VERY clearly or you can't access your impact.

I love when people signpost; it helps me follow along with what you are saying in your speech.

Please make sure that you can your provide evidence to your opponents. If you fail to do so, the argument is dropped.

I prefer off-time roadmaps but keep them brief.

Dropped args should not be brought back into the flow, but point out when your opponents' arguments are dropped. You know the rest of the rules, so please follow them.

As far as framework goes, I am fine with anything as long as you are following your framework. Debating against framework- if the opposing team provides a better framework that works and proves why the other team's framework is irrelevant or etc. then I will consider that. If you run SV you need to tell me why I should prefer that over any default util FW.

You run the show, so show me why you should win this debate. Impact weighing is greatly valued.

I won't flow cross (unless they contradict themselves), but if something big happens, tell me in your speech.

I am fine with disclosing cases as long as both teams are ok with it. If not, then please do not be forceful. (No disclo/para theory)

Speaks usually from 28+

Good luck, be kind, happy debating!

Hey, I'm Aidan! I competed in Public Forum and Extemp at Benilde-St. Margaret's School from 2019-2023, primarily on the MN local circuit. I am studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Davidson College in NC.

Paradigm for Spring Break Special: NA :)

Hi! My name is Reese Merritt! I am currently a high school PF, Policy, and Congress debater. I was the 2024 Class 5 Virginia Policy Debate State Champion and I have competed at Nationals for Policy and Impromptu. I attend a small school in Virginia where I am the Speech and Debate captain. Throughout the round please be respectful, if you can defend your case and attack your opponents you will have my vote.

A few things:

You should not be spreading unless you are competing in Policy.

I love roadmaps!

I do not like the whole nuclear war destruction argument UNLESS it is backed up. I might call for your evidence if I do not buy your arguments.

If you have any questions please ask me before the round, if my feedback is not clear or if you would like more detail please email me:reesemerritt11@gmail.com

Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, )

Memorial '19 SMU '23 (don’t know why you’d care but some people do)

Yeah, I want the docs --Misrap354@gmail.com I’ll say clear once.

TLDR: Twice as good as your average local judge, half as good as your favorite circuit judge (prove me other wise and you get a cookie)

Judged wayyy to much in college 1year post college now. Take that as u will; no I haven’t kept up with the topic lit or what this years new fad is in debate.

If you have any questions about what’ I like to see: look at my past judging, but please don’t read dense phil. I do not care for it and will not make an effort to understand it.

Any memorial debater, Acadmey of classical Christian Studies JM, or any debater that larps or pretends to larp with hidden tricks describe the style of debate im okay w judging w/ zero topic knowledge

Pretty hard to get below a 28.9 infront of me, esp if u ask for high speaks.

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

4-year PF/LD competitor, 4 year debate judge / coach.

I’m a standard flow judge and will primarily base my decision on the arguments made in round.

Background

Please add me to the email chain. My email isconradpalor@gmail.com. I flow debater's speech performances and not documents, but may read evidence after speeches.

For LD/CX

General

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and encourage debaters to read the arguments they would like to run and I'm happy to adjudicate the debate as such. With that said, I recognize judge's often have preconceived conceptions of arguments, so I've summarized some thoughts below.

Speed- Pretty much fine with any level of speed. I'll yell clear if I can't understand.

DAs

fine with most DAs. If reading political DAs, I think link specificity to the affirmative is key as opposed to generic link evidence. I enjoy evidence comparison in debates on political DAs

K

K (Neg): I am a firm believer in topic-specific critical lit. The more specific your link cards, the better. If your only link is "you talk about the economy, therefore you're capitalist" or "you function through the state," don’t run it, or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K-Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency evidence that explains what the alt does. 3. A clear explanation of what the post in the in the alt world looks like.

K (Aff): I’m fine with critical affirmatives; however, I am also happy to vote on framework. TVA’s are pretty important to me and should be an integral part of any negative strategy, and, conversely, I think the affirmative should have a clear explanation why there’s no possible topical version of their aff. I generally prefer arguments that are in the direction of the topic, but this will not impact my decision if clear framing arguments are presented otherwise.

CPs

I’m fine with most counterplans, although I am of the belief that the CP should have a solvency advocate

I default to the belief that counterplans should be both functionally and textually competitive with the AFF.

I default to perms are test of competition, not advocacy

T/Theory

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps.

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates, defaulting to competing interpretations and drop the debater on theory. I generally want clear explanations of in-round abuse as opposed to potential abuse.

I generally don’t like frivolous theory, but I’m happy to vote on any argument that was not properly answered in the debate.

I generally think RVIs are bad in most debate forms, but I do acknowledge the unique time constraints of high school LD so I would vote off of this argument if well warranted.

PF

I take aula rasa approach to judging. I try to keep my evaluation exclusively to the flow. I'll pick up the worse argument if it's won on the flow. I recognize that a certain degree of judge intervention is inevitable so here is generally how I prioritize arguments in order. In-round weighing of arguments combined with strength of link, conceded arguments, and absent explicit weighing, I default to arguments with substantive warranted analysis.

-I strongly encourage debaters to cut cards as opposed to hyperlinking a google doc. Cutting cards encourages good research skills and prevents egregious miscutting of evidence.

-Please extend author's last name and year in the back half of the letter. It makes it difficult to flow if you are not properly extending evidence. With that said, I strongly value evidence comparison

In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and I'm open to newish responses in summary and final focus to these arguments if I deem they were unintelligible in their first reading

Please collapse

Defense should be extended in both summary speeches if you want to go for it in the final focus

Speak as fast as you want. I will yell clearly if I can't understand what you are saying

Speaker points are mine. I use them to indicate how good I think debaters are in a particular round

Theory and Procedures

I feel comfortable evaluating theory debates and am more than happy to vote on procedural or theory arguments in public forum.

I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, but I'm open to arguments on both sides.

I think theory arguments are theoretically legitimate and should play a role in public forum debate. As such, I have a high threshold for voting on "theory bad for public forum debate" arguments.

-You are welcome to ask questions after the round, and I think it's a constructive part of debate. Please note that I will not tolerate disrespect and if you become hostile to the point where you're not seeking constructive feedback, I reserve the right to lower speaker points after the round

• I consider myself an amateur "parent judge."
• I have a background in Information Technology
• I make my decision mainly on the contentions you win on the basis of evidence, & weighing in the Final Focus.
• I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but don't go too fast (not easy to understand).

Flow your strongest arguments through the debate while properly rebutting and frontlining. At the end of the debate, win in weighing.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hi! my name is Marlon and I currently debate PF at Portsmouth High School. Below is some important information about how I will judge your debate.

Weighing: Please weigh throughout the round. It is the most important thing in a debate and will be the reasoning on why I will vote for you. I would prefer weighing starting from rebuttal, but it is essential to include it in your summary and final focus. Also, make sure that you are comparatively weighing your impacts against your opponents and not simply restating your own.  Probability weighing, or the strength of the link in your contentions, is one of the most important parts of weighing and I will generally weigh it over scope or magnitude.

Warranting: Don't read cards that don't have any reasoning attached to them. If you are reading a card, make sure that there is a clear warrant behind it. I will always prefer analytics over unwarranted carded responses. Make sure to explain your card, as it won't have any meaning unless you explain why it ties into your case.

Speed: I am okay with fast speaking, but make sure to be clear and concise if you do so. Please do not spread as I will not write down anything you say. If you are trying to speak faster so your opponents don't catch what you say, I will probably also miss it, and not write it in my flow.

Summary and Final Focus: These speeches are the most important in the round because they tell me why I should vote for you. Make sure to extend offense, but feel free to drop any arguments that you are not going for. The summary and final focus should be almost the same in terms of content. I will not be evaluating something in the final focus if that topic wasn't brought up in your summary speech. Make sure that you are weighing in on these speeches and explicitly telling me why I should vote for you.

Crossfire: I don't flow crossfire. If anything important is brought up in crossfire, make sure to bring it up in the next speech so that it goes on my flow. Also, please be considerate during crossfire, and keep it civil.

If you have any questions about the above, make sure to ask prior to the beginning of the round.

Note: An entrance with Top Gun music playing will grant you +0.5 speaker points.

Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.

- I am a fairly new judge

- I am not familiar to debate terms

- Please don't go too fast

I am fairly generous with speaker points.

I will most likely give you (28-30)

I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.

Name: Mehedi Hasan Rifad

School Affiliation: Military Institute of Science and Technology

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: less than 1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: less than 1

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? I'm not a coach

What is your current occupation? Student

My opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Not too fast cause greater persuasion won't be achieved if you talk too fast.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Big picture but don't generalize opposition's case. You still need to engage with their each and every arguments.

Role of the Final Focus: Persuading the judge why your team wins.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Will be counted until the final focus.

Topicality: The most important thing.

Plans: Specific plans or models are not required.

Kritiks: Try to engage with the opposition's best case.

Flowing/note-taking: Hugely important so that you don't miss out important things.

I value argument more but I also notice the style.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in my opinion that argument has to be extended in the rebuttal because summary speeches should focus on the summary of the debate.

If a team is second speaking, the team should answer to it's opponent's rebuttal first in the rebuttal speech. If they have enough time after that, they can cover the opponent's case as well.

I vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire.

I would judge the debate as it was. So, try to engage with the opposition's case more and make the debate easier to judge.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

have fun

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Ex-Public Forum Debate, now pre-law student at Ohio State. I can follow the flow and value the flow a lot. However, I do need to understand what you are trying to say to me, so go as fast as you'd like, but make sure you are clear. Keep your arguments organized. If you bounce around everywhere it will be hard for me to follow on the flow and hurt your case. 

I've been debating for a while as a PF debater. I have a couple of preferences.

Not listed in order:

1. Speak Clearly

2. During cross, face the judge, not the opponent! You are trying to convince me not them

3. You can speak fast, but don't speak super fast. Otherwise, you should be doing policy

4. Frontline in the 2nd rebuttal and extend defense in the summary.

5. Know your topic

6. Have cards ready. I will look at cards if it is consistently brought up

Bonus for actually reading a paradigm: +0.5 points for making a Falcons or Hawks reference during the round

I am a student debater and this is my first time judging a tournament. The most important thing I am looking for in a round is Weighing. Aside from that I will be paying equal attention to all 4 speeches. Don’t worry to much about stuttering and mispronunciation, they won’t automatically deter my verdict.  Finally, remember to have fun and not be stressed out!

Speed is ok as long as you don't speak too fast. Your opponent and I should be able to clearly understand you.

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to d
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

for outreach

i havent touched debate since TOC and dk anything about the topic so maybe slow down a little

tldr;

PF for 3 years, tech > truth

pf speed is fine but send docs, be clear and slow down on tags

I will vote off of anything as long as it is explained well and resolved against defense

be nice, debate is a game so we should probably try to have some fun

fronthalf

2nd rebuttal must frontline or else its conceded but I'm lenient with x-apps and new implications in 2nd sum

please impact out and weigh your turns or they literally just don't matter on the flow

good analytics beat bad cards but PLEASE give warrants/examples as to why they are true, saying "this is so unlikely" is definitely not responsive

ev analysis is goated

backhalf

please weigh but quality > quantity of mechanisms

don't read blippy pre-reqs and link ins and please explain why you have bigger links than they do

refer to specific pieces of evidence rather than vague ideas

if you want me to read any evidence you should explicitly say so

do not expect me to do any implications for you, even if it seems obvious I don't want to intervene

ill assume arguments which are "won" have a high but not 100% probability, so don't just read new impact defense as probability "weighing", HOWEVER, I think comparing links and warrants in the backhalf means your arguments can still be more probable then theirs

theory

i mean theory is fine i guess but i can't say im jumping for joy when i hear "interpretation debaters must disclose on the NDCA wiki 30minutes..."

i default to reasonability but no rvis, i will not hack for either of these norms but please read an underview as to why CIs are better (most ppl alr do this so u should fine)

please do not read IVIs unless something v problematic has happened

K

T > K (and ROTB) > substance (you can definitely change my mind this is just what i default to)

ik the basics of how Ks work but I don't have a lot of experience so a little extra time on warranting will go a long way

try not to spam 50 buzzwords every speech and not explain what it means

differentiate on what is prefiat and what is postfiat and what my ballot means in the context of solving for your theory of power

i'd prefer judging a K at least somewhat tied to the topic but i am willing to evaluate anything

speaks

try not to say any slurs and your speaks will be fine (mostly)

High school vpf debater

sstonetn@gmail.com for email chains.

Voting

Flow judge: the clearer the better. Tell me how to evaluate the round; I won't vote on something I don't understand. 

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal or it's dropped, weigh responses (especially turns) and warrant well. No completely new arguments in summary. 

Need sufficient explanation for prog theory and Ks (not too familiar to me). Keep the resolution in sight. Frameworks need to stay clean.  

Extend your arguments through ff if you want me to vote on them. Emphasize what you really want me to hear. 

Tech>Truth

Please call out bad cards :) 

Speak

Pretty generous with speaker points. Start with 30 and deduct from there. No tricks on teams with obviously less experience. 

No spreading. 

Signpost with clear organization. 

Keep your own prep and give me updates. 

I'm not encouraging you to be crass... but sometimes some dry wit and spicy language can make an otherwise boring round more interesting. Still, stay respectful. 

+0.5 for puns. 

Use a point based system awarded on respect for the format of the debate, keeping time. Any humor will be awarded extra points. You are here to learn and enjoy the art of debate - all the best!

I hate long paradigms so here are just a few quick things to take note of. If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask in round.

General

Email if teams decide to disclose (you should if it's online debate!): carnerd737@gmail.com

"Credentials": I am a senior at Plano West Senior High School. I debated both PF and LD through middle and high school, so this paradigm applies for both events. Any event specific paradigms will be at the end.

If you have any questions after the round about my decision and rfd just hit me up at the email I posted above.

Both teams should keep track of their own prep time, but I will keep track of prep time just in case something goes wrong or you forget.

Speaker Points

I am okay with speed as long as you speak clearly. If you are not clear I will say "clear" three times before I start docking speaks.

I'm usually pretty generous with speaker points. As long as you speak reasonably fluently I will give at least a 28.

If you are hitting someone with a lot less experience do not spread on them. If you do that I will dock speaks.

Voting

I will be more likely to vote for you if you make it easier for me to vote (ie: implicating and extending impacts in final speeches)

Tech>Truth

If neither side has any offense on the other by the end of the round I presume negative to keep the status quo. Offense wins debates!

Event Specific Preferences

LD specific

Progressive arguments are okay with me (theory, kritiks, etc) I'm not the most comfortable on these arguments but I can vote off it if needed.

PF specific

I don't believe PF is an event which requires progressive arguments. That's what policy is for.

That's all to my paradigm! Best of luck to you!

I am a parent judge yet I have debated before. When I make my decisions, I look at each team closely and decide based on merit.

lay judge please go slow I am losing my hearing as the days go by

How I evaluate

-I look to who's winning the weighing debate

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

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

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

-if team y is winning case the round is over

-if team y is also losing case I vote lay

Prog is aight but I won't vote on anything I don't understand so explain well

Also I'm tired asf rn try your best not to spread

+0.1 speaks if you reference esteemed TOC winner Ananth Menon or famed Hamilton debater Kellen Jiang in a speech

+0.005 speaks if you give me a $100 amazon gift card

FOR NOVICES:

hi everyone! to win my ballot, you need to do a few things:

1. be thorough with extensions. this means in summary and final focus, you should be reexplaining your own case and defending it, reexplaining key responses to your opponent's case, and weighing. explain all your reasoning.
2. implicate! explain why your points matter and why they are important. if you have an important response, tell me what impact it has on the round and why it is so detrimental to your opponent's case.
3. no new cases or responses in summary or final focus.
4. 2nd rebuttal should frontline (defend against responses).
5. have good organization in your speeches and tell me what order you are going in and what you are about to do.
6. WEIGH!! in a scenario where both cases are true, why do your impacts matter more?

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

hi! i am a high school varsity debater with almost three years of experience in pf. overall: i consider myself somewhere between tech and flay in that i consider the flow but also don't evaluate tricks & have a low threshold for responses to weird arguments. but here are some more specifics:

general:

1. i prefer slower/clearer reading, but any speed is fine as long as you can send a doc
2. even though tech>truth overall, you still need to have good warranting in both case/response and extensions in the back half (i.e. making a one sentence response and extending it by saying "extend _ card" isn't a proper extension)
3. try to stay away from theory, k's, and other prog. because i won't be able to judge it well - especially tricks or frivolous theory because i have a bias against it
4. signpost and have clear organization of speeches or i will be super confused
5. keep your own time/prep time - i don't time your speeches but usually i time prep
6. i will call for any evidence i think is critical to the round
7. anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. loses you the round plus low speaks

front half:

1. frontline in 2nd response or it's dropped - even against weighing in 1st response
2. weigh your responses, especially turns & make them well warranted

back half:

1. extend everything you want me to consider in both summary and final focus (including case & impacts)
2. i love prereq, link-in, amplifier, & short circuit weighing but any is fine. if you're creative with your weighing i'm probably more likely to like it
3. no completely new arguments in summary or final focus or it won't be considered (besides frontlining in 1st summary & backlining)
4. metaweigh
5. make your weighing comparative - saying "we outweigh on magnitude because we save 100 million lives is not comparative
6. PLEASE collapse - it makes the round so much easier to judge

good luck y'all!

I'm a senior and have been a public forum debater for three years. My pronouns are she/her/hers.

Please add me to the email chain: my email is cayan23@icstudents.org.

If you have any questions about the round, my decision, or debate in general, please don't hesitate to ask or email me after the round :)

Things I want to see:

- Warranted arguments that are extended w/ impacts: for me to vote on an argument, it should be extended throughout all speeches

- Off-time roadmaps and signposting (!!) 

- Weighing/voters in summary & final focus

Things I don't want to see:

- Lying: I don't like intervening so please be transparent and direct

- Rudeness: I will likely dock speaks

- Discrimination: your speaks will nosedive and I may drop you.

Speaker points

- 30: v good; expect you to be among top speakers/teams in the tournament

- 29-28: pretty good; expect you to break

- 27-28: average; you may break/be on the verge of breaking

- 25-27: not bad

- Below 25: you were discriminatory/lied/extremely rude :(

- Will add 0.1 speaks for each tasteful roast of Alice Doresca, Ben Kleiman, or Andrew Dong

Miscellaneous

- I can handle pretty fast speaking but keep in mind that I have never debated/judged ld/policy

- Theory is ok when warranted/not frivolous

- Bonus speaker points for humor & good vibes

- Have fun :D!!

A bit about me: I am a student attending Bergen Tech Teterboro and I play volleyball (OH and S), soccer (usually CB), and have two parrots: A sun conure and a yellow-sided green cheek.

Experience: I have competed in PF through all of high school and just recently stopped going to tournaments. I've judged a few minor competitions in the middle school and high school level so even though I debated quite a lot, I consider myself a flay judge.

Preferences:

- Although it may seem obvious, PLEASE WEIGH

- I will not make assumptions for you. For example, if you find an inconsistency in your opponent's argument, don't expect me to take it into account if you don't bring it up in any of your speeches.

- I will also not look at evidence unless I am requested to.

- If a response or frontline to an argument is not made within an adequate time (ex. responding to case in 2nd summary), I will not flow it.

- Collapsing will not always win you the round but it makes it a lot easier to win my ballot if done correctly.

- Time yourselves, I will keep track as well.

- Clarity over speed. I can understand if you talk moderately fast but you must be clear. Don't go above ~250wpm or I will have trouble flowing. I may ask you to slow down one time.

- I don't flow cross but I do listen and it can definitely factor into my final decision.

- No jargon.

- Signposting is very important. Don't forget to do it.

- Defense isn't sticky (extend responses from rebuttal through summary into FF)

- If you run a framework, you must make very clear of why I should evaluate the round based on that framework or I will ignore it.

- Do not run theory or kritik unless absolutely necessary, not only am I not experienced with flowing it, I will have a hard time understanding.

- I love to see tactical or sneaky plays that teams may go for so feel free to be experimental (within reason).

- Add me to evidence chains: ejzeee@gmail.com

- When assigning speaker points, I usually give between 26.5-29.5. Almost never 30 unless the round was flawless. I don't usually go 26 or lower but I can. Don't make me. Making me or your opponents genuinely laugh will probably get you a 30.

- Don't call me judge, that's weird I'm still in high school.

- I will disclose the round result and speaks only if I want to.

Personal Gripes:

I love PF and always have enjoyed almost everything about it, but I feel that some view debate as an opportunity to just topple card after card on your opponent without any logic behind it. Evidence is necessary, of course, but IMO the strongest arguments are those that tell a story. Just pilling prep on your opponents isn't very fun to debate against or judge. That being said, please implicate responses and frontlines and use logic as opposed to just reading off of your paper/laptop.

For Extra Speaks:

+1 speaker points if you can tell me what the back row outside hitter calls for when spiking behind the attack line.

+1 speaker points if you have a parrot and you show him to me.

I will not change my mind about my decision but feel free to make your case post round. As a good friend of mine said, "We're all debaters let's debate abt the debate why not" - Glen Rock OS (O)

If you have any questions about my paradigm or would like to ask me something, just let me know in person or reach out to me at ejzeee@gmail.com.