for grey matter:

• speak clearly and use all your speech time
• only spread if you are prepared and if you send out your doc to me and the opp
• signpost during your speech (extend, respond, and weigh)
• just call me Yul im a literal sophomore bro
• +0.5 speaks for food

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!

Background: grand saline high school 21-23

2022 uil ld state champion

2023 uil ld state semifinalist.

I will vote for the better debater

Theory>framework if reasonable

Counterplan substance will be weighed greater than or equal to framework, that being said if you run a cp make sure to run it properly

Absent framework debate i will default tangibility of impacts

Ask further questions if you want!

Parent Judge. My daughter has been debating LD for two years now so therefore I have judged quite a bit, but I do not have any experience with debating myself. Please talk at a conversational pace, If I cannot understand hear/understand you I will not be able to decide whether or not you win. Please run a traditional case.

cary academy '25

email - derek_han@caryacademy.org

ill update this paradigm later if i actually need to judge

i wont intervene ever

ill vote on anything

best for phil and theory, then k's, and worst at evaluating dense policy rounds

i dont like nailbombs

i treat T more as a theory shell than how its like in policy

speaks - good ac/nc construction, in round strat, execution, and clarity gets high speaks

stuff i like that'll get good speaks: going nc ac well, contingent standards/skep triggers, good shells, winning on an rvi

I am a former LD debater with lots of experience under my belt on the state and national level. I am open to almost all arguments, it is really about how well you convey them, persuasion is key. I wont vote anyone down for my own bias, but if you are going for technical arguments, eloquence is essential to persuading my ballot. When it comes to spreading, speed is ok, but if you are unintelligible, it will be reflected on your ballot.

Have fun and do your thing!

Mitchellheartfield@gmail.com

Debate is an intelligent game that requires understanding of a problem, research, critical thinking skills, effective communication, time management and intellectual flexibility. It is a learning experience for the debaters as well as judges.

I have an engineering background and the following experience in judging debate: PF (1 year) and LD (1 year). My preferences in speech and debate rounds are as following:

1. Evaluation criteria

· Topical and coherent

· Logically sound with quality evidence

· Interactively engaged with both judges and opponent and being polite

· No excessive jargon or technical language

· All types of arguments are important in my decision-making, roughly framework (30%), contentions (50%), impacts (20%)

2. Argumentation Style

· Clearly delivered with conversational speed in a persuasive style

· Clear logic in a simple way

3. Evidence standard

· From well-qualified sources

· Empirical studies or expert opinions

4. Cross-Examination

· Assertive but respectful

· Cross-examiner in control of the time

Before I judge a round, I normally prepare myself with some context knowledge on the topic. During the round, I take notes on key points and arguments that will eventually help me write my ballot and comments afterwards. It will be great if you can manage your time and opponent’s time with me.

As I mentioned, debate is an intelligent game, and it is a learning experience not only to you as debaters, but for me as a judge as well. Thank you for your participation and giving me the opportunity to learn from you. Good luck in your round, have fun and learn!

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to judging, but spreading, kritiks, and counter plans probably will almost never work in your favor (won't necessarily hurt you, just won't help!) - I prefer less progressive circuits/debates. Also - speak at a normal pace. I'm way more interested in being able to follow your constructive/ rebuttals than you getting in a ton of information that your opponent can't address.

It feels weird to list my debate experience here, but I did LD, PF, and Oratory in high school, went to GMU, Blue Key, Bronx, NCFLs (over and over), etc. etc. you get this gist - pretty non-progressive circuits, but I'm pretty acquainted with everything.

Also - you never need to tell me what to do. I've gotten some pretty forward directives when judging before. I'm flowing the round, so just weigh, extend, etc. Also don't personally attack your opponent!! Be kind.

TLDR

Trad LD judge, ok with speed but be careful when spreading. Congress is about clash (reference your representatives) and presentation. Be nice.

Background/General

Email: pa.jonglertham@gmail.com

Currently a college sophomore, graduated from Hastings High. I have mainly done LD and Congress throughout high school, Nats in World Schools. Debate should be accessible to everyone - making personal attacks to win a high school debate round is not going to end well for you.

LD

I’m most familiar with trad LD, and I’ll try to only vote on what's been presented in the round, though my background in Ks/theory/deviations from trad cases isn't very strong. A competitor that runs those kinds of cases is going to have to be able to lay it out well - explain it to me like I’m five. I will evaluate the round based on v/c debate first, then weigh voters and contention level arguments underneath. Arguments MUST have evidence and analysis links. If it's not provided or painfully weak I will not vote on it.

Speed - I can flow at a brisk pace, but not a fan of spreading. I will miss something for sure.

Congress

I appreciate speeches that have a lot of effort put into them, but are delivered effortlessly. Speeches should always bring something new to the table, or question what has already been said. Reference your fellow representative. I love clash, but also don't just say something for the sake of making an argument. Make sure your arguments are logically sound.

hi! my name is rebecca (she/her) + i debate at cary academy mainly in LD but i've done a bit of PF, HSE, and WSD too.

email: beccaliu1212@gmail.com

dont over-adapt to me; just do what ur comfortable with but im the best at evaluating a trad, flow, nsda-style round. you can ask me any questions before the round.

be kind, good luck, and have fun!

I am a parent judge and have been participating in local and national high school LD debates since 2018. I prefer sound evidence, compelling arguments and solid voter issues. I enjoy LD debates and hope we all have fun!

Hi I'm Rehan/Rey from Cary Academy. I'm a second year LDer and super excited to judge!! This feels mean but like I feel strongly about things, I swear I'm nice. If you have any questions feel free to let me know before or after the round!!

Email: Rehan_Mahmood@caryacademy.org (add me to email chains, I prefer speech drop though)

Prefs;

1 - KvK, KvPolicy

2 - Phil

3 - Trad, Theory

4 - Policy

5 - Tricks, unless they're funny spikes

Tech>truth but sometimes the truth is true.

For Grey Matter:

I vote on anything to be fair, just clear link chains, ev, etc. Also, impacts matter. You have to tell me why I should care.

Framework debate is essential, but like be strategic about it.

I will be super likely to vote for you if you impact calc or like tell me why it matters. ESPECIALLY if you're opponent doesn't. Easy W

The best way to win on any rebuttle is to cross apply case, it makes you look so smart and I feel like I'm listening to a genius. Also please weigh and clash, like if there's no clash then like... What are we even doing in the round.

Concede cross ex time if you're not gonna use it strategically, I am not gonna listen to a rebuttle for 3 minutes because 1) I don't flow it and 2) no judge wants to sit and listen to that

I can tell if you're reading pre-written rebuttles, like at least try to hide it or like intertwine it with the current debate.

I don't want to intervene, please tell me what I'm voting on. If an arguement is important then let me know what it is and why it matters.

I suck at flowing other peoples speeches, signpost and roadmaping is your best friend.

Speaks:

This doesn't matter to me, tech > anything.
How you speak doesn't really matter just don't be slow and monotone because I'll lose focus. Feel free to talk fast that's cool. I usually pick speaker points on like how you debated rather than how you presented because that doesn't matter nearly as much.

+1 If you make me laugh
+0.5 If we use speech drop

If you're a jerk or like racist or something I will not be afraid to take your points.
Post rounding is the easiest way to lose points, if you have questions that's fine but like don't argue with me you should've done that in the round.

Hi, I'm Simren (she/her)

Cary academy '25

add me to the email chain: @simren_mehta@caryacademy.org

send docs pls, im not super great at flowing

if anything problematic is said/done in the round, ill drop u and tank ur speaks

FOR NOVICES-----> (ignore all the stuff after the second black bold dotted line)

During round prefs:

Presentation--As a novice and just as a debater in general, Confidence is half the ballot. Be articulate, clear and have confidence when speaking.

-Cross Ex--Don't cut people off and don't interrupt people. If I see that you are being rude and overly aggressive, you'll lose speaks.

-Kindness--Be kind during round. If you are being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist or if you demonstrate any form of ad hominem, then I'll drop you.

-Ethics--Don't miscut cards, don't be abusive in any way. Debate is a game that requires fairness.

-Organization-for many of you this is your first tournament, so I don't expect too much but PLEASE try to signpost and be as clear as possible in how you're organizing your speeches and rebuttals. This is rly important because it makes sure that I have all of your arguments written down on my flow. roadmaps r also really helpful.

Novices prefs continued:

-I'll mostly extend stuff for you if you forget to, try to concede as little as possible.

- Please don't lie or bs in the 2ar, ik it may work for parents but I hate it and will dock your speaks.

-It's ok if you make a mistake during your speeches, I won't vote you solely off of it. (I was there as a novice and I still make plenty of mistakes). Based on the presumption that this is your first year of debate, don't stress too much and do your best!

Other things:

Do your best and Good Luck

Message me with any questions before or after the round and I'm more than happy to give feedback after the round!

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

TL;DR I'll evaluate any arg with a warrant and implication (i.e. eval, 30 spks, friv theory), so do wtvr

Quick Prefs:

Tech>Truth

Clarity>speed

theory-1

K-3

T-2 (depends)

Policy-1/2

Phil-2

Tricks-2 (depends)

Trad-1/2

Other things:

Do your best and Good Luck

Message me with any questions before or after the round and I'm happy to give feedback after the round!

Hi, I'm Laura (she/her)

I am a parent judge.

I am fine with faster than conversational speed, but make sure I can flow.

Feel free to include me on the email chain: lmeyermd@gmail.com

I will vote off the flow and won't intervene. I am best at evaluating more traditional or slower policy style rounds, and open to more basic kiritiks and philosophy. Whatever you read, make sure you are explaining your links and giving good judge instruction.

I am a parent of a debater and I participated in Lincoln Douglas Debate in High School. Although the resolutions are very different, the underlying premise in value debate is the same and above all else it is important to so reasoning in either establishing a case or refuting. We NEVER spoke quickly in our time - but that has changed and that is understandable, however I would prefer a reasonable to brisk pace. I do not appreciate 'spreading' as this takes away from the communication aspect of this style in my opinion. Please be thoughtful in your words, establish a repoire with those around you, Please be respectful and tolerant. Like good cooking, some thoughts need to simmer. I want to see arguments for definitions and value criterion linked to reason, evidence, example and carried through the round. This is the base of the pyramid for me. Evidence is applicable when placed in a solid / sound construct. Relax and enjoy your debates as much as I will enjoy hearing your ideas.

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

I am a parent judge and have been judging PF and LD debates since 2020.

You can consider me a lay/traditional judge for the most part. I will allow philosophy but only if the arguments are clearly articulated. No theory, tricks, prog or spreading at all.

I base my decision primarily on what transpires on the debate floor rather than background information and written cases. You may share references to verify the authenticity of your quotes if challenged by your opponent.

I understand the need to utilize the limited time available to render your arguments effectively. However, please balance that against the clarity of your communication. Unintelligible arguments will be largely unsuccessful.

I will typically allow you to finish your thought if time runs out, but within reason. I will extend the same courtesy to your opponent.

I will monitor your break allotment but expect you to do as well. I may gently remind you if you seem to be running significantly over your intended break time but it is ultimately your responsibility to manage.

The clarity and comprehensiveness of your case and overall framework is obviously important, but admittedly also the most prepared part of of the debate. Your ability to counter your opponent in cross examination and rebuttals, while keeping sight of your own framework, is often what determines the winning side.

I will entertain any arguments which are sound and logically presented, though internal consistency is essential. Likewise, I enjoy watching debaters of all styles and attitudes. An aggressive approach is great if it displays your passion for debate as long as you don’t cross the line into disrespect, while a composed demeanor can often be just as impressive. Think on your feet, stand your ground, be thoughtful, engaged, rational, coherent and organized…and enjoy the experience!

I am a parent judge and have judged LD novice and varsity since 2019. I appreciate well formed arguments, encourage you to weigh and take care not to drop arguments put forth by your opponent. I do not like spreading or fatalist arguments. I appreciate common sense and arguments that have a logical progression. Students who take an aggressive tone with their opponent are not gaining any speaker points with me. Be respectful and convincing!

Background

I'm a 3 time NSDA/NCFL qualifier and now coach LD. I like this stuff - fun, isn't it?

General Preferences

If you won this round, you probably 1. gave me a coherent lens through which I can gauge what is important and 2. weaved a story of the round using that lens. LD is about creative weighing, much like how we interact with complicated ideas in the real world - we don't just do an in-depth cost-benefit analysis each time we make a decision, we apply multiple standards and evaluative measures to reach a conclusion (often totally subconsciously).

Basically - I should be doing as little work as possible. I don't want to intervene or even really think when judging an LD round. If you make the story clear to me, I'll vote for you.

Speed

I can handle any speed, but nobody can handle you being incoherent - I'll give you a good ol' fashioned "clear" if you're attempting to go faster than you're capable of going. Good rule of thumb: if you feel like it's necessary that I read along to understand you, it's probably because you're unintelligible, not because I'm too old and slow.

Rounds being competitive really matters to me. This means that stylistic alignment between the two debaters is necessary to create good LD. Seeing as traditional LD is by far the more common and accessible style, if your opponent is only capable of traditional LD, that is the style I expect to see in the round. I will never punish a locally active debater for not being competitive against the increasingly inaccessible and abstract style found at national circuit tournaments.

Theory

Point out the abuse (assuming it's real) and move on. Do not make it the crux of the round. Win on substance.

I will never vote for time skew theory or anything that accuses your opponent of some form of prejudice (unless they've openly and intentionally said something prejudiced).

Kritiks

I'm actually stealing this directly from one of my all-time favorite NC LDer's paradigms because it was so perfectly written - thanks to Derek Brown of Durham Academy.

"Kritiks, like theory or topicality, are a way of questioning the pre-fiat implications of your opponents' position. As a result, Kritiks must link to a practice your opponent performed, and there must exist a relatively predictable/reasonable way your opponent could have anticipated or predicted that this practice was bad. For example, I will not vote on an argument saying "the aff doesn't address black feminism", because it is unreasonable to expect the aff to read black feminism every round."

I will add that I generally do not enjoy Kritiks that you read every single tournament (and yes, I'll know if you do) - think Cap Ks, Colonialism, etc. - they aren't competitive and generally rely on tenuous links back to the topic. If you didn't have to write it specifically for the current resolution, don't run it. I have to listen to like...6 LD rounds every weekend. I don't want to hear the same stuff every Saturday.

Bonus

Make this fun for me. Be entertaining. Be funny.I get so excited when I see good LD - if you've got a distinct style, good coverage, and I leave the round feeling like I did very little work...I'm a happy camper.

Hi! My name is Genevieve. I'm pretty experienced in Lincoln Douglas debate, but I'm also relatively familiar with Public Forum.

Things I love: Good framework analysis, impressive cross examination (whether you're asking questions or answering them,) extending your best args and evidence, voters, and signposting. Tell me EXACTLY where you are on the flow. I want to be with you through your whole speech. If you can work the word "slay" into your speech, I will give you a very high, happy number for speaker points. Serious.

Please keep track of your own times, introduce yourself at least in the first speech, and share your prep time usage. Ks and PICs are okay, and when your opponent runs something illegal/abusive, it is your responsibility to the point that out.

Another thing... I hope you look a little like you're having fun. Be passionate. Be dramatic. That's what makes it entertaining. But please, for the love of god, do not be obnoxious or act like you (at the ripe age of 14, 15, 16, etc,) understand the pain and suffering of everybody in the world and use it as leverage. :)

Thank you so much! I'm very excited to watch your round.

Lots of love <3

You should be polite, but you should also know that being obsequious will not gain you extra points.

Please don’t use debate-world jargon. The people judging are not debate team members, so using words that mean something totally different in their world (the real world) is not effective.

Don’t be overly pedantic. If your argument is premised on a word game (e.g. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") it just seems silly.

Hyperbole (e.g. "Half the human population will die if you don't vote for AFF!") can be viewed as insulting to a judge’s intelligence.

As a judge I can't see your cards, so getting into an argument with your opponent about cards is kind of meaningless to me.

The best debates are about articulating ideas and presenting evidence to back up those ideas. Focus on persuading your audience—in this case, the judge—not each other.

Make it a debate that would impress Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

I am a layjudge. Do your best to persuade me!

I really enjoy hearing thoughtful arguments from young people. The talent on display in these tournaments gives me hope for our future!

1) Manage your time well

2) Be prepared with material for evidence

3) Respect your opponent

4) Effective communication rather than speed is key

5) Use logical reasoning to strengthen your points

I have been judging LD debates since October 2021 as a parent judge. While English is my second language, I have been in the country for more than 20years and am a professor in the field of marketing. Therefore, I don't expect you to purposefully slowdown just for me.

Some basic principles I follow for the judging:

1) Logic and impact come as the most important factor for winning the debate;

2) Techniques matter: please speak at a reasonable speed to clearly communicate your evidence and arguments in an organized manner;

2) Professionalism is the bottom line: be respectful when responding to the opponent's questions or arguments;

3) Enthusiasm and energy will be always appreciated.

This is my third year as a parent speech and debate judge. I have been judging public forum during this time. As a judge I need to be convinced that the resolution (con or pro) needs to be adopted.

In addition these are some additional considerations:

1) Manage your time well
2) No new arguments in the final focus
3) Be prepared with material for evidence - do not search for evidence during the debate.
4) Effective communication, logical reasoning and leverage relevant evidence to strengthen your argument

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging LD. Please try to keep things simple and straightforward, and don't assume I understand complex theories. A well established framework and structured contentions supporting it will be awarded. I value concise, well organized and articulated arguments over speed and quantity of evidence. Please don't spread. Logic and depth in analysis is most important in winning my vote. Keep good timing and use all of your speech time. I don't flow, but I usually take good notes. Please be respectful to your opponent throughout the round. I view overly aggressive tone to be a weakness. Good luck!