I am an experienced University Debater with multiple breaks in judging along with past IA experience. Some of my accomplishments are Huber Debates 2020, ESL Break, Open Break at Uhuru Worlds 2020, McGill Winter Carnival 2020 Novice Champion, Seagram's IV Waterloo 2021 IAship.

I like to bring this competitive experience into my judging. The most important aspect that I look out for is comparative engagements. I vote for teams who can rightly identify the crucial aspects of their opponents' cases and be deliberate in outweighing and refuting those arguments. I also look for teams who can impact their research and show why their impacts are the most crucial in the round. When cases and arguments are similar in strength then I emphasize on framing and pick the team who can best elevate their arguments given the agreed upon conditions affecting the round.

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

Updated: 12/9/2023

Hello! I'm a sophomore at college. I debated for four years in Minnesota and now do APDA in college. I mainly did LD, but know a bit about PF and Congress. I've only done traditional debate, but I have some baseline knowledge of some circuit-level arguments like kritiks and theory (more on that later). I qualified and competed in the State tournament three times in LD, so I think I'm somewhat knowledgeable about Debate. Glad you are reading this since most don't.

TL;DR:

Be nice; don't run stupid and random circuit arguments unless you can explain them well; weigh your arguments; don't lie in the last speech; don't use problematic arguments; I prefer cameras on but I won't really care; don't expect me to know exactly where Fuentes, 2018 is without telling me where it is; and please signpost.

General:

Don't purposely be racist, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, ableist, classist, or any other thing. Just. Don't. If you are, don't expect to win. Expect an L20 :)

Don't be passive-aggressive or belittle your opponent. This is all for fun and you shouldn't bully people because you know more about China than them. If you do, expect very low speaks. Maybe even a loss.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

You should be aware of who you are in the Debate space. Sure, in a round, you truly have no identity (you are just a debater who is trying to convince me you're right), but there's something strange about a white man using eco-fem or Black Anger. While I believe that you should be allowed to use arguments that don't pertain to you (for example, me, an Asian guy, talking about how something might perpetuate misogyny), I ask that you first try to reevaluate why you are using those arguments. Are you using them because you believe it or because it will grant you more bodies on the flow? If it's the latter, maybe rethink it.

I won't drop you because you used an argument that doesn't pertain to you at all, but it's something to recognize. A good question to ask yourself is if you would be comfortable making these arguments in a room where a person from that group is in. For example, if you are using an argument about Asian-Americans, would you still say it if an Asian-American was in the room? If not, you probably shouldn't make it at all.

Again, I won't ever hold it against you. I think that would be silly if I'm allowed to gatekeep arguments from you just because of who you are. But this is just a PSA for life in general.

Allowable arguments:

I'll vote on almost anything (except bigotry): even extinction and "death good" arguments. Be warned that certain arguments are much harder to prove. This means that I'm generally tech over truth.

Please please please have a trigger warning for anything that may trigger people (things like sexual assault, suicide, etc.). Especially if you use arguments that are descriptive of those triggering arguments. If you are using descriptive mentions of something that can be triggering, ask yourself if that is really necessary. There's no reason why you can't just mention their existence and still use them. Trust me, your argument doesn't become weaker because it's a non-descriptive mention of them.

Regarding Kritiks: as I said, I only did Trad debate, but I know what a K is and how it works. So do explain things to me very clearly if you use some weird literature for your K. If you hate that, sorry not sorry.

In terms of Theory: I am going to have a pretty high bar for a "drop the debater" voter. I'm also not going to weigh any frivolous T that is just... stupid. Sorry for the judge intervention but idc if you argue very well that I should vote for the shorter debater to stop height discrimination. Or something like first, last three words or whatever. Please stop.

Speeches and Rebuttals:

Please signpost. I'm not a mind reader; I can't magically tell where you are on the flow. If I don't know where you are, I can't flow it. If I can't flow it, I can't give you that argument. If I can't give you that argument, I can't give you the win. If you use multiple arguments against something, number them. So don't get mad if you see a ballot that isn't in your favor because I didn't catch your third response to their fifth response in your first subpoint in your second contention that was about somelastnameyouspedthroughandididnotcatch, 2014.

Please address the fact that your opponent dropped your argument. If you drop the dropped argument, you don't get the point. Mention your opponent dropped something and extend it and say why that drop is important. For example, if the AFF dropped the NEG's contention two, then in the next speech say they did and explain why it's important.

Please weigh your arguments. I shouldn't (and won't) have to weigh them myself. Weighing them for me gives a clear reason to vote for you since you explain why your arguments are more important. If you forgot, the main weighing metrics are magnitude, probability, timeframe, and scope.

Don't lie in the very last speech. I get that if you're losing you have to say something like "I outweigh on this" even though you didn't. Who knows, maybe your last speech will persuade me to vote for you. What I mean by lying is saying something like, "My opponent dropped this" when they did not drop that. It's frustrating when something like this happens especially in front of a parent judge since you can't correct them. You'll lose speaks if you lie on purpose.

If you run out of time during a speech, finish your last thought. If you keep going, I will stop you.

Cross:

If time runs out during cross, I'll allow the person to answer the last question that was just asked.

This isn't a shouting competition: don't try to one-up your opponent.

Please answer the questions that are being asked to you. Being shady isn't a good strategy. Please stop if they ask you to stop.

Cross is binding, y'all.

I don't necessarily flow cross, but I am listening.

Specifically about crossfire in PF: I am really hating the using cross as a time to badger each other. PLEASE stick to asking questions. This isn't another rebuttal. Calm down. I have (and will) dock speaks because of the absolutely rude and terrible behavior I've seen during crossfires.

Speaking:

If you're gonna talk fast, only talk fast through your evidence. Please slow down while signposting or reading any tags or card names. Maybe even take a break after you say a tag, so I can flow it.

What really annoys me is when people just address something by card name especially if that card is the only one under a contention. Just mention the contention at that point. I get that you have to address it by card name sometimes but please tell me where it is. Sometimes I don't catch the author. Instead of saying "Johnson 20," say "Johnson 20: second card under my contention one." Remember, if you are just saying something and I have no idea where it is on the flow, don't be surprised you lost even though you extended that one magic card when I have no clue where it is or what it says.

I start my speaks at 27 and go up or down based on how well you are speaking and articulating your arguments.

In general for how I evaluate speaks, I consider how poised you are in your speaking (are you speaking with clarity, precision, being efficient with your sentences), how good you are at articulating your arguments, and how you are able to navigate and link between arguments. There's no formula for this.

Online Etiquette:

I prefer cameras on but I don't really care. I understand sometimes cameras just aren't feasible for a lot of reasons. Online debate makes it so much harder to hear so if you're talking fast, speak very clearly and slow down for tags. Covid really did a number on Debate etiquette and it surprises me so much. Just don't be eating or something. It's more important than in-person debates that you ask if everyone is ready.

Pet Peeves:

Don't say, "I win because..." or "you have to vote neg because..." No, I don't have to vote for you. That is my decision.

If you are using Kant, you should not care about consequences. If you care about consequences, you are using it wrong. I'll still consider your framework as is, but I will not be happy.

Please ask if everyone is ready.

.

Sorry that this is long. Have any questions? Ask me before the round, and I will answer them.

For circuits that use email chains: phuong.doan7114@gmail.com. I probs won't look at it unless someone points out something sketchy or something. I just expect y'all to speak in a way that I can flow without me reading it. Otherwise, what's the point in speaking? I also think Debaters have the burden to tell me why a piece of evidence is good or bad. I'm not doing that for y'all.

Background in debating and judging primarily British Parliamentary style. Preference for analysis through heuristics and reason from first principles versus citing statistics (essentially an appeal to authority). Please avoid spreading.

I am a lay judge.

General

Please keep your own time and keep me updated on prep.

Respect me and your opponents.

Enjoy your debate round.

Speech & Rebuttal

Signpost! Make sure I know where you are during your speeches to keep my flow clean.

Please no spreading.

Clarity is key.

Make sure everything is warranted.

Frontline in 2nd response or it's considered dropped. The term “frontlining” refers toresponding to your opponent's responses to your case.

Summary/Final Focus

No completely new arguments in summary or final focus.

Extend everything you want me to evaluate into summary.

Weighing should be comparative. Please tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred.

Hi!

In your debate, please keep in mind the handy acronym IMNFSTEPWR.

If you spread, please send a speech doc.

Make sure everything is warranted. I won't evaluate stuff if you just tell me to extend it.

No completely new arguments in summary or final focus. I won't evaluate them.

Frontline in 2nd response.

Signpost! Make sure I know where you are during your speeches to keep my flow clean.

Try to avoid progressive args - I don't have much experience evaluating them. If you really want to run theory or K's, make sure they're reasonable and you give me a realistic way that it should affect my ballot.

Extend. I won't evaluate anything in final focus that isn't extended in summary.

Please keep your own time and keep me updated on prep.

Weighing should be comparative, don't just give me your numbers, give me theirs. Metaweigh and tell me why your weighing mechanisms should be preferred.

Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. will lose you the round.

When you read your first turn, if you do a spin jump and read "This is a massive 180!" I'll give you +0.5 speaker points.

• Speak with respect and clarity. I am a lay judge, so this is very important.
• Listen to your opponent and be logical in your responses.
• I am a university professor interested in various social and scientific topics. So, I value logic, evidence, and supporting data. Please make your argument strongly supported by evidence.

• This is my first time judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."

• I have a background in Business and Technology.

• I flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the basis of evidence in your constructive and the substance + logic + analysis on defense in rebuttal in summary, and impact weighing

• I am not familiar with kritiks, shells, theory, or any progressive arguments. please refrain from using those.

• I judge on content and delivery. I appreciate you speak clearly with a reasonable speed (don't go too fast). I look for confident public speaking and projection.

• Manage your time. I don't mind you overflow for a few seconds but not too long like for several minutes. I will time your speeches.

I am a parent and I have been serving as a judge in different debates for a few years. I appreciate the effort that organizers, sponsors and particularly students have put into the debating activities.

I am going to skip what students have been doing well since they know that and debate coaches explain that. So let's focus on areas for improvement.

The most important aspect is to make debate points super clear. Students may be busy delivering contents but not delineate their arguments clearly. The net result is that the judge has a hard time to understand the key points.

Number 2, most times students are reading from what they have prepared, word by word. It may be more powerful if they understand the issues / arguments, debate in their own words (of course you can reference what is on paper / screen). That way it is more natural for students to get their ideas across and be convincing.

Number 3, debaters need to think on the feet, especially during cross arguments. When you are answering questions, make sure you understand them first and if not, ask for clarification so you are really answering that question.

Number 4, as for speed, a judge might not be an advocate of extreme high speed. If a debater speaks too fast to make it difficult to understand the point, then it does not help.

Make good points and arguments, and support your points with convincing facts

Present in a respectful manner, no yell. Even during heating debate, don’t make unrealistic argument, but express your opinions and points clearly, if possible with examples or facts.

The purpose of debate is to discuss real world problems, and potential issues it can bring to the society. The goal of debate is to come up with a better solution. So bring in ideas.

I also value partners’ collaboration and support for each other.

Less is more! I will judge by quality of evidence not quantity. Your speech should be loud and clear.

I'm a lay judge, and have some experience in the topics reviewed.

I prefer debate with clear logical reasoning without jumping to conclusions. Also, try and be nice to each other.

Please send speech docs to: evannmao@gmail.com

I have judged almost every form of debate possible. I have been involved in US policy debate since its invention. You must respond to the other teams arguments. Flowing is good. You be your best debater. I will try and be a fair judge. I am very familiar with the PF topics. Be nice to your opponents and your debate partner.

One last thing. I do not think PF debate has the capacity to provide space to have a good debate about arguments relating to "disclosure" and "paraphrasing" as a reason to lose a debate. It is an international event and those particular cultural norms are not accessible for everyone across the planet of debate.

There are six things I feel strongly about.

1. Evidence matters.

2. The aff should be topical.

3. Conditionality works.

4. Clarity is key.

5. CX is important.

6. Stock issues.

I read a lot of evidence and it is a main factor into my decisions in rounds. If you do not have quality evidence and you do not unpack and link it well that will not serve you well in my rounds.

Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. This means you need to not only ensure that your evidence is of high quality but the manner in which you present your evidence in the technical ways in which you go about conducting yourself in the round are both key to ensuring your success debating.

I seem to care more about the link than just about any other part of an argument and more than many other judges. I am a stickler for details. I need to see you clearly unpack the information you're using and showing me that you have a clear train of thought, a clear argument chain, and you actually understand what you are talking about and not just reading a card.

Stock issues matter. I should not have to explain this further for folks. People talk all the time about the role of the ballot. That role for me starts with stock issues.

Debaters who get high points from me are clear, concise, deeply knowledgeable about the topic, able to anticipate their opponent's arguments, good in CX, and clearly demonstrate meaningful preparation by developing new arguments or thoughtfully applying old ones to opposing strategies.

It should be noted for all who get me as a judge, explicit statements that are sexist, racist, etc. arguments will NEVER win my ballot. Also, students who are openly rude or exclude individuals in the round will NEVER win my ballot.

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging debate. Please do not speak too fast and speak with clarity or I will not be able to understand you, and I won't be able to vote for you.

I value research and empirics heavily and well backed up responses and frontlines.

• 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).

Clearly explain the impacts of your contentions, and the internal links within them; the less work I have to do filling in the blanks for your case, the more likely you are to win. Use your summary and final focus to explain to me why your side is winning the debate, don't just use them as extra rebuttal speeches (if I have to go all the way back to both teams' constructives to decide who's winning because rebuttal, summary, and final focus didn't make it clear enough, there's a lot more room for me to think you out of a win). If you don't extend an argument through summary and bring it back up in final focus, I miiiiiight weigh it but even if I do I'm going to weigh it less heavily than if you extended it through summary and final focus. At least frontline responses to turns in second rebuttal. If you want something from crossfire on the flow, mention it in a speech. Speed is fine (make sure to really clearly enunciate names; I can generally figure out a somewhat unclear word, but if a name isn't clear it's a lot harder to figure out from context). Fine with K's. Tech over truth. Don't make your off-time roadmap much longer than "our case then their case" (i.e. "I'm going to weigh our first contention against their second and then..." is too long). Mostly did Congress and Parli in high school (with some LD, briefly), some British Parliamentary in university (don't ask), and I coached Public Forum for a few years. Academic background in Economics.

Hi there, I am a parent judge, so new to this, but I have participated in debate competition when I was your age. So I have a fair idea about how to structure arguments, and I weigh my decision based on a few factors:

1. Persuade me through the use of facts - preparation is key!
2. Be thoughtful and respectful when building your contentions, crossfire questions and counter arguments.
3. Be clear. I can deal with speed, but I value quality over quantity.

Today's topic is very interesting for me, and I have no incoming bias one way or another, so how you fare on the above 3 points will go a long way in determining the outcome.

Good luck!

Vishal

Hi everyone!

I'm Dharma, I am a high school debater and a flow judge.

(For MS TOC - I have debated this Japan Resolution and am familiar with most common contentions)

GENERAL:

- You're welcome to speak fast (no spreading!), I will flow all that I am able to comprehend

- Be cordial, being rude does not get your point across

- Please give concise off-time road maps if you do

- Time your speeches! (I will as well, if you go past 15 seconds over I will stop you)

SPEECHES:

- 2nd Rebuttal should always have frontlines :)

- No new evidence in second summary and final focus (as per the rules of PF debate)

SPEAKS:

- I'll judge speaker points based on style, tone, and overall quality of speaking.

- I want to see collaboration between you and your partner!

• Good Luck!!!

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

1. I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
2. I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant ideological norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

I debated PF for three years in high school as VDA MS. IIRC, had four career TOC bids, broke first at NSDA Nationals, and champed some small to mid-size tournaments before. I also did a bit of CNDF, BP, and Worlds. I'm currently a sophomore at the University of Toronto so I'm probably not too much older than a lot of you. Add me to the email chain rinasong699@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth (to a reasonable extent, ex. I won't buy racism good). The more frivolous the argument, the lower my threshold for responses.

Assertive is good :) Aggressive is no good :(

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you think you're going to go super fast then send a speech doc. Also, don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Enunciate.

Time yourselves. I don't want to have to intervene during a round. I will be timing, however, and if you go over time I'm probably not going to cut you off (unless it’s egregious) but I WILL stop flowing.

In-Round:

Front Half:

A few well warranted arguments are a lot better than a bunch of blippy ones. I'll take a well warranted response with no evidence over a blippy warantless piece of evidence any day.

Don't disad dump in second rebuttal.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded (so yes, you need to frontline in second rebuttal).

Back Half:

Please signpost. Please. Also, off-time road maps are cool but doing an off-time road map is not a replacement for signposting.

Weigh.

Don't go for too much.

Anything you want to win on in FF must also be in summary. That includes responses, frontlines, and preferably weighing (absolutely no new weighing in second FF).

Cross:

I will be paying attention but I won't be flowing cross, so if any concessions are made, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

If you're rude it will affect your speaks. Be nice.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not too familiar with theory/K’s/etc. When I did debate in high school, my partner basically wrote all my responses to any progressive arguments for me lol so I think that tells you all you need to know. Run at your own risk.

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask!

follow @sirhowell.affirms and like your favorite post for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

<3 ATL

Call me "jsp" or "Josh"

joshuasp.debate@gmail.com

Recent Coaching/Debating Affiliations:

Coaching: Ivy Bridge Academy (PF), Thomas Kelly College Prep (Policy)

Debating: Western Kentucky University (2024-present), Georgia State University (2021-2024), Sequoyah High School (2017-2021)

Artificial Intelligence Rule: I will automatically vote against you if you are caught using AI or chat gpt as speech material in round (Do not quote bard, bing, etc.). Debate is an activity for skill building, a win does not change your life but the skills you gain do change you. This is hard to enforce, but email chains are more important to me because of this. If it is suspected I will get tabroom involved and have them request to check search history. Only exeption is performative reasons to use it.

Bottom line: I am a 3rd year out debater doing policy, I did 4 years of LD in high school and I have been coaching PF at Ivy Bridge Academy. I can follow jargon from across those 3 events. Whatever you are doing will likely not be new to me in all honesty. Some people call me a tabula rasa judge even though I think the phrase tabula rasa is a conservative debate dogwhistle (I spend a lot of my time thinking about why we do what we do in debate, I think this makes me decent at judging method debates).

---

Quick Prefs (CX):

I am 50/50 for framework, flow on paper and don't look at the doc, I am super flex, condo is good but I will vote on theory if its debated well. Plans are cool, no plan is cool. Just like... make good arguments. If you are confiden

Quick Prefs: (LD)

1- K, Plan, DA's

2 - Theory, Pomo

3 - Phil/CP's

4- Tricks

Strike- Out of round violations, frivolous arguments

---

Translation for PF Debaters: this means I am a "tech judge". Speed is fine and prog is cool. Just don't be a jerk, be a sensible person.

---

I have given myself 5 things to say about how I evaluate debates, no more, no less:

1. I need pen time, i flow on paper and by ear

2. I will not vote for arguments that had no warrant/signaling. Such as ur fiat K's that ngl was not even in the block

3. It must have been in your final speech for me to vote for you on it (including extending case vs T)

4. I evaluate impact level first usually unless told otherwise (whether its education or nuke war, etc)

5. My ballot will likely be determined off who i have to do the least work for, i do not usually vote on presumption

---

Evidence shenanigans:

this is the only stuff that will change how I vote directly, everything else is flexible.

Put me on the email chain, i do like to read evidence because no one compares the evidence themselves. I prefer ev to be send before speeches and in cut cards. Your speaks are capped below 29.5 if there is no doc and below 28 if when you send evidence there is not evidence in cut card format. Paraphrasing is fine if you have cut cards to go along with it AND you send them out BEFORE. I make exceptions to this if you are part of a small program which has no way knowing how to cut cards and this is in novice.

If you send your case as a google doc, copying perms needs to be on. This is because I need to create a stable copy of your evidence, anything that you can edit without sending a new doc risks being problematic (ie changing highlighting mid round or adding ev and claiming to have read it). Strike me if how I deal with ev ethics is a problem.

---

More Ranting

Every form of debate is full of brain rot and I genuinely care about voting for people who are capable of thinking of why they do the norms they partake, not only does it make you a better debater but also a better person. Idc what it is or how it got there, just get to the finish line. Any arg is a voting issue if made to be that way. I only vote on complete arguments. Stock args are very strategic in front of me because I am not better for random arguments but for good arguments you can defend well. The frontlines and weighing wins you the round, not the constructive.

---

Speaker Points

Be clear, pen time gets speaker points.

Cross-examination/Crossfire heavily influences speaks. Do you use it

Strategic collapses that make my life easier are appreciated

Clear signalling/signposting helps

My name is Terry, and I have experience in PF Debate from High School.

I don't mind the speed, but please make sure you articulate clearly. (I still prefer the quality of content > quantity)

Make sure you have direct and clear evidence to back up your arguments (I might ask you to check your cards throughout the round)

Always looking for good flowing and sign-posting (Makes it easy and clear to follow)

Lastly, treat everyone in the room with respect and have fun!

I've done debate for a while, but I'm not as good at judging.

I'm sometimes quick to judge, so you should bring up your best points first.

I understand how hard it can be to debate at times, so I'm usually forgiving of some common errors.

hi, i'm dessie (she/her)! i'm a senior going into my third year debating under bergen ys on the pf natcirc. add me to the chain and always feel free to ask questions:dessieyangggg@gmail.com

you will not get my ballot if you are exclusionary in any way. don't make arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic etc. doing so is an auto L.

‎

general things:

signpost please!

send speech docs before round!

please frontline the arguments you are going for, don't just extend through ink. every argument that you want on my ballot needs to be extended in both summary and ff (you have to extend the warrant, link, and impact for me to vote off of it).

please collapse, don't try to go for 3 arguments in the backhalf, quality > quantity

if you say something new in final focus that was not brought up in any other of your previous speeches before, i will not evaluate it, especially if it's in 2nd ff.

i don't flow cross, so anything important needs to be in the next speech. i actually find cross fun sometimes, but it becomes a pain when cross is rude and just filled with yelling. please do not constantly and aggressively interrupt your opponents, because it does not make you seem cool or "better," it just makes you look like a jerk. it's fine to ask politely to respond or move on.

i do not care that much about evidence ethics but please make sure you have your cards cut and ready if your opponent asks for them. if you can't produce a piece of evidence, the claim becomes an analytic. i will not call for evidence unless i am asked to or the debate actually comes down to evidence quality. but even then good warrants and smart analytics are better than unwarranted chunks of cards anyways

‎‎

progressive --

theory-

1) i do not believe that disclosure is a must in debate and I'm happy to vote for a team that does not disclose, but if you're not disclosing you should still have a decent counter-interp to defend yourself.

2) i do believe that debaters shouldn't paraphrase. If you don't want paraphrasing theory ran on you, the easiest way to prevent it is by just reading DIRECTLY cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round.

ks-

i don't know exactly how to evaluate ks in a round, I just know the basics of how they work, so i will probably not enjoy trying to figure it out on the spot.

‎‎

framing/role of the ballot --

do NOT read framing or ROTB if none of your arguments fit under your framing/ROTB

framing/ROTB needs to be extended in summary and ff with warranting. you can't just say "extend our role of the ballot on prioritizing victims of imperialism" and just move on with your speech

moral obligation arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do whatever you're arguing for

‎ ‎‎

speaks --

+1 speaker point if you do a turn every time you read a turn (has to be in both of your speeches though)

just be nice and you'll get high speaks

‎‎ ‎‎

much love to my partner bela!! and shoutout to my goats bruce and matt they're the best

I will evaluate your round how impactful your arguments are. I need you to be straightforward and direct on your points. Organizing your flowing is more helpful for my evaluation than speaking fast. Good luck to you.

Parent judge.

I care more about the clarity and organization of your arguments and want to see how impactful they are through the flow. I prefer your arguments to be straightforward to reflect your points. Use your body languages appropriately will definitely be a plus. Don't be nervous and just enjoy your debate!

I have been judging public forum debate for over a year but I am still a lay judge and I expect you know how lay judges make their decisions. If I happen to be the judge assigned to your round, I ask the debaters to speak SLOWLY and CLEARLY, simply because: the more I understand you, the more I am convinced by you, and therefore, the more likely I would vote for you.

LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, I AM NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER!!!

My main focus is on evaluating the quality of arguments presented by both teams. I prioritize logical reasoning, evidence, and clear communication. I believe that a good debate should be engaging, educational, and respectful. Clarity and organization are essential. Please speak at a reasonable pace, and make sure to signpost your arguments throughout the round. I appreciate well-structured speeches that make it easy for me to follow the flow of the debate. I expect debaters to present well-reasoned, well-supported arguments backed by credible evidence. I value quality over quantity when it comes to arguments. I appreciate in-depth analysis and thoughtful engagement with your opponent's arguments. Please avoid superficially extending arguments; instead, provide a detailed explanation of why your argument stands and your opponent's argument falls.

hi y’all

audrey (they/them)

add me to the chain: audreyzhou365@gmail.com

former ld debater mostly ran and engaged with trad args and now I do apda in college. also have tried pf and policy before too but experience is more limited

I’ll listen to any arguments as long as it’s well warranted and impacted out and obviously if it’s not racist/sexiest/homophobic etc

I catch what I can but if I can’t understand you I won’t flow you

be respectful and all should be good!