julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

Hi! I'm Fiona!

Add me on the email chain: xfionaxhux@gmail.com

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

I need you to implicate your assertions --- PLEASE I BEG OF YOU!!!!

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

Ks

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

My email: ashutosh.komali@gmail.com, add me to any speech or card doc.

A bit about me, I am a freshman in college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.) and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum debate where I was the AK PF captain. Other events I did were Congressional Debate, Big Questions and World Schools Debate for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District. Hint: World Schools is my favorite event and is the best event, so even though I am an experienced judge, a well warranted "lay" debate is the best strategy for me rather than devoting the round to a fast flow debate

Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.

TLDR; I hate prog, treat me like a shitty lay judge even if I can evaluate your argumentation, don’t make me to extra work to figure out who won, pls have fun.

Most importantly, I know how stressful a debate round can get, I know the anxiety that debaters get before round. I can't really do anything about this, but just know that I want you to just have fun, that's what debate should be, and I'll try my best to make the environment lighthearted and fun. There is nothing better than a cohesive debate community and becoming friends with people you see consistently at tournaments is just top tier, so while you should do your best and take things seriously, don't be so tough on yourself. This is an extremely difficult activity, and while I am your judge, I'm not going to "judge" you based on your debate abilities, I will just do my best to help you improve upon yourself. Anyone who knows me in this activity knows that what I valued most in debate was trying to help others.

General PF Stuff:

Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as it's not offensive or absolutely absurd (impacting out to 1 trillion humans)

Prog Debate: While everything I say below is true, I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame and don't do it to teams just looking for good experience in a tournament. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just to read prog.

Theory/T: I'm not the most experienced with it but I get the gist of it. Theory doesn't have to be answered in 2nd case if they are trying to keep the round trad. You must ask your opponents if they are okay with theory, just a general question as theory debaters won't yet know what potential abuse is made in the round, the only exception to run theory if opponents disagree is if a TW is necessary.

Kritik/K's: Fine, not my expertise but if you explain it to me like I was born yesterday, then it will be fine. Try to keep it in the realm of topical K's but do as you will.

Strike me if you don't like my policy about progressive args.

Speaker Points: I won't go below 28, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.

Don't read 30 speaks theory, please don't skew the round for this, you have a better chance of 30 speaks without this.

These all apply only to the speaker who did them:

• Make an avatar(both avatar franchises included) reference: +0.5
• Make a Stranger Things reference: +1

Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.

I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.

Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.

Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep

Speech Analysis:

Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.

1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.

2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.

Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.

Weighing is always welcome here.

1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.

2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.

NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.

If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.

1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.

2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.

Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.

WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.

Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.

I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.

Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side.

As far as my judging philosophy goes, I do not have particular preferences. I believe that debate is a place for discussion and discovery. Respect and politeness is a very important part of a good debate. Below is a briefing of how I look at each speech/area of the game, for both Public Forum and Policy (shorter for Policy as you should know what you need to do).

Public Forum

Cross-fire – Be polite, be persuasive, and don't beat around the bush. This is not the time for quarrel or to read off new arguments, but it's for answering your opponents' answer directly. I will not flow cross-fire, so if your opponents conceded to an argument or you think you made a great analytic, you need to mention it specifically in your speech so that I can take note of it. Ask good questions! Closed ended ones are always better than open-ended or clarification questions.

First speeches – There is no need to have a Framework, but it will definitely work for you if you utilize it throughout the debate. Often, people read framework just for the sake of reading it, and fail to develop it beyond their first speech. In short, it is a very powerful tool that debaters should definitely consider using and if you're not using it, don't bother reading it in the first place. As far as case goes, any type of arguments work for me – unless it's illogical or very offensive. But I expect that close to half of the arguments you read in the first speech would be extended into the debate, or else reading that one card is just a waste of time if you don't take advantage of it later in the debate.

Second speeches – The most important roles of the second speaker is to attack the opponents' case, defend their own side, and potentially build upon their case by reading add-ons or additional arguments. The order you put these burdens in really depends on how you are taught, but generally it is most effective to put your rebuttals first and case last, with more time spent on your case. Anyhow, I'm not picky about the order, it just have to be strategic in the debate. And again, if you have a framework you should definitely extend it right in the beginning of your speech.

Summary speeches – This is the time when debaters must funnel down the arguments of the debate for the judge. If you do not list out the most important arguments, it becomes time consuming for me to look through the notes and I might miss an argument that you believe you have won on. Don't feel obligated to extend every answer or argument, just explain to me which are the most important arguments and/or clash in the debate. What's even more strategic and effective is to start your impact calculus here, so that there's less work for the Final Focus. A final note is that I shouldn't see any new arguments in terms of contentions (new answers to the opponents are okay). Also, if you shadow extend any cards (meaning you only read it in the first speech not the second speech), I may or may not vote on that card. But if the opponents never addressed that inconsistency, then I will just let it through.

Final Focus – Here is where you want to limit down the debate to that one or two arguments you think you have won on. There are many ways to do this, but no matter what, it should be clear, concise, straightforward, and easy for me to follow. In the end, the more work you do for the judge means the more likely the judge will vote for you. Impact calculus is also very effective here. In short, no new evidence, elaborate your arguments (including your framework if you extended it throughout the debate), persuasion, and a story to sum things up if possible.

Speed – spreading is okay but hopefully you're not doing it in PF. Clarity > speed, always.

Policy Debate

Framework – like Public Forum, framework should be included in your speech unless you have a good reason not to do so. Develop it, use it to your advantage, and extend it across your speeches so that I will take this into consideration when deciding the ballot.

Topicality – if you do not extend it across the your speeches, I will disregard it as an argument, and be sure to include all of the necessary components. Again, this is a tool that can win you a debate.

Theory – must be explained clearly, efficiently, and logically if you're going to mention it.

Kritiks – only run them if you know how to explain them from the inside out. Have a strong link and don't rely on prewritten blocks. You can always tell when a debater doesn't understand a kritik they're running.

DAs – be strategic when running them, especially when paired with a CP

CPs – always have a net benefit to the CP, answer each permutations separately, and be strategic.

Prep – email/flashing is not considered prep, but if it takes an unreasonable amount of time, then down goes your speaker point.

Include me in your email chain: benson_lin@brown.edu

(work in progress)

Above are more like the logistics of the debate. As far as skill, persuasion, and speaker points go, just do your best and learn from your mistakes because it's not something that can improve in a day, but as you have more and more experience.

Good luck and have fun!

Debate:

I have participated in debate for more than 6 years, including public forum, LD, and Policy Debate. I am open to all kinds of arguments and speed.

Clarity outweighs speed. Quality outweighs quantity.

Just a reminder, the purpose of debate is not only to present your arguments but to engage with your opponents.

Speech:

I have experience doing speech as a kid and experience of being a speech judge.

Keep mind of the time management, clarity, and volume.

Competition is never about only about winning and losing, its more about what you've learned.

Please add me to the email chain: rpatel135798642@gmail.com

Speech drop is cooler tho

About me:

LV Hightower '24
POLICY DEBATER
Debated TFA, UIL, and NSDA policy circuit

Not debating in college :'(

NOVICES!!

Stop reading my paradigm (read this section but nothing below)!!! I don't want my paradigm to influence the way you debate. I suggest you don't read it because it will get you confused. Just debate how your coach taught you and I will follow. As a novice, your #1 job is to have fun debating and enjoy your experience. After the round ask me as many questions as you would like and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability with my prior debate knowledge.

Just remember what you practiced and what your coach taught you, no matter win or lose it is great that you are here!

In novice rounds, I will never vote off theory unless it is absolutely egregious/abusive (if you don't know what this means forget I said it).

Scroll down for other events

CX

Tech -x---------- Truth
Condo bad --------x--- Just get good
Policy ---x-------- K
Limits -------x---- aff ground
T -x---------- K aff
Policy fw ---x-------- Any other fw

General:
1 bad - 5 good
Planless K aff - I will use your debate round as an hour-and a half-nap nap then vote neg
DA - 5(who doesn't run DAs)
CP - 5
K - 3 (I only understand a couple so explain)
Topicality - 5 (these are so underused)
Theory - 4 (I love good theory debates that aren't pointless if the theory debate is pointless your speaks will reflect it)

In constructive spread however fast you want(as long as its understandable) just make sure I have speech doc, if you are reading analytics tell me and slow down and make it a noticeable change in your voice so I know what analytics.

Background:

I was a policy-focused degrowth debater in my senior season of high school. So if you run degrowth and you know your stuff, good shot you can win my ballot.

General:

The name of the debate is policy so that's what I expect. I hate going into these debates about how debate is bad and how debate as a norm hurts people. First of all, it really doesn't(why are you here) second of all idgaf. Acc debate something about the topic. Overall I'm tab, I will weigh any kind of argument (Cap good/bad, death good/bad, all that stuff) I'm not picky just make it make sense. The debates I hate judging the most are the debates where nothing is clear and I'm throwing a dart blindfolded for my ballot.

Theory:

If you want me to vote for T or theory it needs to make up at least 2 minutes of the final speech (2nr or 2ar). If you don't cover it at least that much it the arg has to be so convincing that I feel bad for you about the round. Overall I'm pretty open to all theory as long is it makes sense. Be sure to say "down the debaters" or smth if you want me to vote the round on it. Give me some trigger to pull and I might pull it for you.

Condo:

If you want me to vote for condo you gotta go for it (minimum 2 min in the 1ar and 4 min in the 2ar). I am very conflicted on the Condo debate, I know there are a lot of judges that will never vote on an answered condo shell, and there are other judges that will eat up condo if you are answering more than 3 off in the 1ar. I feel like I am somewhere in the middle with it. I feel like if you are answering 4 off in the 1ar its fine as long its not like 3 different Ks. Being the 1ar I'll give you a lot of leeway on condo.

Topicality:

I don't default competing interps but I almost always go for them. I think the whole debate of our definition is a legal one there's is from some article is total bs unless your opponent's interp is from an actual joe smoh. If you want to win the interp debate tell me why you interp is more important for your standards and better for debate.Make your standards and voters clear. If you want me to vote for topicality you need to do a lot of work there. I will buy an aff argument that says "Non topicality good" or "Extra topicality good" if you don't answer it properly. It is so crucial to the neg that you explain why topicality is important and why I should vote for it.

DA:

IDK what you want me to say about DA debate. Its a DA. just run it i guess? idfk. I think the neg has the right to read impact addons in the block, just like the aff has the right to read impact addons in the 2ac. I evualte the DA based on the biggest impact you win on it and I'll compare that in the round.

CP:

CPs were my jam in HS. The group of "traditional" CPs I am the most familiar with are court CPs (Con Con, Preamble, Precedence). Also if you run degrowth as a CP I eat that stuff up. Overall its pretty easy to win a ballot on a CP just show how the aff misses this crucial opportunity and why they can't do your plan.

K:

Imma be so fr when I say I don't really fully understand the K debate. I know how it works and I am comfortable enough where I will vote on it if its done correctly but if you are a high level K debater and I somehow screw you out of a ballot this was your warning. I see the K as another way of looking at debate, I am comfortable with Cap, security, Set Col, and main stream stuff like that. I don't read K lit for fun (I'm more of a geopolitics fiend) so don't assume I understand the background of anything. On K I'm really fw heavy I think you can win a K debate purely on fw and very little offense. I actually like plan focus fw if its done right. I think the whole thing about treat the link wall as a dis ad to the K is pretty valid if its done properly to where I would vote on your K link will if you frame the ballot correctly while dropping the alt. Ks should have solvent alts. When I say this i mean i think a K that says "reject the aff" purely on the basis of something that isn't harmful is a bit dumb. If you can portray that the aff is harmful in someway then I am willing to reject it. I think K with alts of "starting a movement" are really weak because if you want to win my ballot you have to prove to me that the movement will work, or at the very least that a failed movement is still better than the aff world. (I'm not the biggest fan of the far-left identity K's there is nothing wrong with them but they leave me with the feeling of voting for the person, not the argument and that is a moral position I would prefer not to be in)

LD

I know a bit about the debate, if you are prog please run prog its what I will fully understand coming from CX. Other than that I really want to see a good debate between battling frameworks. I think the whole trad LD debate saying "My value is this... My value criterion is this" is overplayed. Just tell me why you win under a fw idc what you value who you value or how you achieve your value. Just outweigh the fw debate and prove you are right and you have my ballot.

I'm cool with DA, CP, and most K's (I'm not the biggest fan of the far-left identity K's there is nothing wrong with them but they leave me with the feeling of voting for the person, not the argument and that is a moral position I would prefer not to be in)

Overall, my ballot is pretty easy to get in LD just don't be basic and be offensive, win FW and outweigh.

PF

I really don't understand this event. I will try to vote as best as I can. I would judge it as a lay CX round about who outweighs the topic. Just be persuasive and make good args and you will be fine. I am very sorry if I jf you. :)

Speaker Points

I tend to give high speaks. I start at a 29 and give you points if you do something good or entertaining and take points if you do something dumb or talk past time (0.1 points for every 5 sec unless ur finishing ur sentence).

If you say "Yeet that argument out of the window" with a straight face in your speech I'll give you one extra speaker point, For WSD I'll give points as I see fit

Hi! I'm Veer(he/him). I did PF for four years at Durham Academy as part of Durham HP. Now I'm a freshman at NYU Stern and an assistant coach for the Taipei American School.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu AND taipeidocz@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments.

General

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, and you can make it funny(it makes my job a lot more entertaining), but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost — tell me where you are on the flow clearly and efficiently, number responses, clear contention tags, etc.

Please collapse. Slow down in the back half and don't go for your whole case. I'm not voting off of a 5 second extension of a half fleshed-out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than five arguments poorly.

I don't flow cross. A little bit of humor goes a long way in making my judging experience more enjoyable and shouting over each other will go a long way in tanking your speaks.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible. If you're going to go fast, slow down for the tags.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team gives me a reason to drop you, I'll do it. Please do good research and read good evidence.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way, you will lose the round.

How I Evaluate

I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. Make sure your weighing is actually comparing both arguments efficiently, use real weighing mechanisms and do the metaweighing if you need to. I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Prog

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments OR are in the varsity division of a TOC-bidding tournament. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

I default to competing interps and yes RVIs, you have to read No RVIs and reasonability with warrants if I'm going to vote on it.

Topical Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Non-T Ks: I've had experience with these, but it's hard to pull off in PF. I've seen it work and I've seen it not work. Avoid personal attacks and stay respectful. Also, please make my role as the judge and the role of the ballot as explicit as possible.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE JUDGES WHEN I DEBATED: Gabe Rusk, Brian Gao, Bryce Pitrowski

My email is walkersmith2022@gmail.com if you need to contact me for any reason.

Debated PF for 4 years in HS.

Got some bids, qualified to NSDAs, and made it to finals at NCFLs so I wasn’t completely terrible.

Random Thoughts:

- Tech>Truth, but the less grounded in reality the argument it, the less it has to be responded to.

- Remember that debate is not about just "winning" as many arguments as possible, but about being persuasive, even in the most technical rounds. Make sure you are constantly tying arguments back to the central question of "So what?" or in other words, why does what you're talking about matter?

- If a framework is introduced in case, it should be extended and applied in every speech.

- Theory is fine but I prefer substance debates, if it’s really fringe and not serious (for example shoes and singing constructives), little response will be required.

- I am fine with talking fast but don't spread, I will not look at a speech doc.

- Preferably use an author name and date, but if you cite cards in any way and don't lie it will probably be fine. (Much stronger evidence is cited from a credible source, for example Smith '22 from RAND >>> Smith '22 from Buzzfeed)

- I will not flow crossfires but I will listen and they may shift my perception of the round, what is said in crossfire should be consistent with positions in the speeches. I am fine with whatever format of crossfire as long as there is equal speaking time.

- Rebuttals should throughly respond to the opponent's entire case, 2nd rebuttal should throughly defend its case, and 1st summary should also throughly defend its case while also covering the round as a whole and weighing.

- No new major arguments in summaries, no new evidence in finals, and no new weighing in the second final. Arguments and responses in finals should have appeared in summaries. Ideally, summary and final should be boiled down to the fewest voters/issues necessary to win the round.

- Actual weighing (explaining how your impacts are more important than your opponent's impacts, not just saying "we outweigh on scope" and then moving on) is guaranteed to boost speaks (and greatly increase your chances of winning the round), comparative weighing (explaining how your weighing mechanism is superior to your opponent's weighing mechanism) is even better.

- If neither side has produced a reason to vote for them by the round, I likely will default to the neg. (depends on the resolution) (this is super rare, nothing I've really had to personally deal with).

- I will only call a card if there is a direct clash or I am told to call a card. If you lied about it or something, you would probably lose.

Good luck, have fun!

Hi! I look forward to judging your round. I am currently a high school debater, so I know how rounds work. Here are my preferences:

• I will buy whatever you say, as long as you have evidence or analysis to back it up.
• I dislike theory, but will not vote against it.
• I love crossfire, but I will not flow it. I prefer to listen to the clarifying, as well as strategic questions that you ask each other. They may affect who I think is winning the round, but they will not be flowed. If you make a good point in cross, be sure to carry it through to your other speeches.
• You do not need to dominate crossfire to prove to me you are a good debater. I appreciate when both teams can speak and have a calm, yet strategic crossfire.
• You can talk as fast as you want (I am also a fast speaker), but prefer you to speak slowly, so I can fully understand your arguments. You will impress me more if you clarify words and speak slower, rather than trying to spread. I will not read a speech doc, you should be able to speak clearly.
• I will not vote on a dropped contention, unless there is a turn on it. You must carry every point through final in order for me to vote on it.
• I will probably not look at called cards, as it is your job to do that and analyze them. If I am told to look at it, or if there is direct clash, then I will. Lying about a card or evidence will probably make you lose, but only if the other team points it out and uses it to their advantage, so be careful.
• I appreciate having an off-time road map, as it helps me flow better, but it will not impact my round decision.
• Please follow debate rules and do not bring up new offense in summaries or new evidence in finals.
• I love weighing, and it will help you a lot with my decision and your speaker points. Rather than just reading evidence and analysis, I want you to explain to me why I should vote for you.

Remember, have fun! I would much rather have a calm, fun round, then a crazy round full of screaming. :)