Experience:

Hello everyone! My name is Marley Anthony and I attend Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA. I was a debater throughout high school, and now I judge. I have judged many debate rounds, and as a former debater, I try my hardest to be as helpful as possible. That said, I like to leave specific feedback in the comment sections so please read those carefully. I also like to leave a thorough RFD so do not overlook it. Please ask all logistical questions about my judging style before the round starts. I am open to MOST stylistic choices (i.e., speed, frameworks, formatting, etc.) I am not a parent nor a lay judge so I am more open to faster-paced speaking styles. Again, please ask me, and don't hesitate if you have any relevant questions about the round before it starts.

Conduct:

While I have rarely experienced this, I would be remiss if I didn't state that I have a no-tolerance policy for any and all (overtly) rude behavior (i.e., blatant yelling, name-calling, excessive sarcasm, etc). Debate is supposed to be a lucrative enjoyable experience to help you grow both personally and academically. As a former debater, I understand that at times rounds can get stressful, but I encourage all of you to be respectful and operate under the golden rule. I will be making slight to severe speaker point deductions to reflect the above behavior(s) if applicable to the round.

Please be respectful and considerate of everyone's time and efforts.

Tracking & Flow:

Please keep in mind that I like to flow all speeches except for crossfire, so please be mindful of your statements. If for whatever reason you misspoke, you must get creative in regards to how you get back on track. Again, I flow everything except for crosses so please be intentional with any and all speeches.

Thank you, and good luck!

I am a lay judge. I have never participated in Debates but have learnt the ropes by reading the NSDA outlines and read through the content. I am a voracious reader and follow current affairs with a lot of zeal and try to keep an open mind to both sides of the argument. I steer clear of leaning one way or the other and enjoy debates as they bring out the best solution to any social problem. I believe in deep democracy where every one should have a voice in the society.

I like crisp and clear content.

I did LD for three years, and PF for one year, as well as Extemp and OO. I can handle some speed, but when online, be aware of the limits of the internet connection.

Framework:

Even with PF I want to be told what wins the round. What policy goal is the most important, how do I weigh competing impacts against each other? Teams are most successful when you incorporate this analysis into your impact analysis.

Contentions:

Arguments that go unresponded to will be weighed on their merits. Clash will be evaluated based on the quality of evidence presented by each side, and the feasibility of your mechanisms and impacts, as demonstrated through analysis. Don't just reread cards when there is clash, reframe your arguments, provide new evidence, or tell me why your evidence is better than your opponents.

Flow:

I am not a strictly flow judge, meaning that I will not vote on an argument just because it is dropped. You still must convince me that the argument dropped has impacts that weigh above your opponent's in the round. That being said, clean debates are preferable. If I don't know where to record an argument on the flow, I will have a hard time weighing it. I will flow cross-x/cross-fire when there are explicit impacts on the round, but do not automatically assume something said in cross-fire will be weighed if it is not apparent how to weigh it in the round.

Theory:

I am not a fan of theory arguments, that being said, I will vote on them if you can successfully tell me why it is the most important element of the round and links to both your advocacy and your opponent's case.

Please attach me to any email chains you start to exchange evidence, lancebrightmire@gmail.com

Falsifying evidence or intentionally misrepresenting its source is a big red flag for me, please don't do it.

Hi! I'm Marcos, I'm a debater from Brown. Originally, I'm from Spain and have high school debate experience in that circuit, but in college, I'm on the executive board for the Brown Debate Team and debate APDA.

As a judge, I prefer clear and well-developed arguments as opposed to spreading a high number of arguments but leaving them unclear. Try to speak clear and don't go too fast. Apart from that, be sure to be equitable and respectable in your interventions, any arguments or treatment of the other team that is disrespectful or discriminatory will be penalized significantly in the final result. Apart from that, I have mostly judged APDA so I may have biases that come from that format, but will try not to. This may include valuing concepts like direct argumentation slightly over a team that depends too heavily on evidence for the arguments or drops evidence without linking it directly to an argument or rebuttal.

I'll vote based mainly on the strongest impacts, so whoever accesses those the most directly while holding up against rebuttals effectively will win the round 9 times out of 10. This means that the most important factors in a round will usually be weighing and warranting, and I love arguments that are directed towards the ballot and the consideration of impacts and links. If you do want me to judge based on other factors, say it and warrant out why I should judge that way in the argument.

Worlds School's Debate

This is the event I am most comfortable with, as I competed in this event for 4 years and spend a considerable amount of time judging/coaching WSD.

I will vote for the team that best proved their argument was true. For practical arguments, this means establishing characterizations, giving me multiple (preferably independent) mechanisms/links, and giving me clear impacts. For principle arguments, that means establishing that the principle is true and explaining to me why/how you fulfill the principle and why your opponents violate it. All arguments should be comparative (!), don't just critique your opponents world, actively/offensively tell me why your world is better. And of course, weigh your arguments (!) whether that be impact weighing, mechanism weighing, or metaweighing. Metaweighing is an easy way to get multiple paths to the ballot and score some strategy points.

It is not enough to prove to me that your world is "good" or that your opponents world is "bad", you must prove to me that your world is comparatively preferable to your opponents.

I very much prioritize content over style, as far as style goes all that matters is that you're speaking at a reasonable rate, your speech is easy to follow, and that you are not just reading off the paper but rather genuinely giving a speech. Can def score some extra points for good rhetoric/structure tho

PF/LD

I have judged PF/LD a decent amount 2 years, and will vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain and most strongly weighed impact, just debate good

If you ever have any questions or would like further feedback, you can reach out to me at diegocastilloo@icloud.com

If you get me as your judge in any event outside of these three, I am so sorry

Would prefer not spreading, but if you do then please send me a document.

Hi! I am a first-year at Brown University and debated in World Schools for Team Taiwan, British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, and briefly Lincoln Douglas.

I appreciate mechanization of arguments: a smaller impact with substantiated mechanisms as to why that impact is likely to manifest (i.e. incentive analysis, framing, etc.) is better than a great impact that is unproven. Debaters can highlight their paths to victory by weighing and explaining what role their arguments play in the round.

Name: Mary Clarke (They/Them)

Affiliation: Brown University Debating Union

Class Year: 2026

Debate Background:

I debated very informally throughout high school, so APDA has been my first actual competitive experience.

Off-Time Roadmaps:

If it makes you more comfortable to give one, absolutely feel free! However, I don’t need them and I certainly won’t judge differently whether one is given or not. I can follow along either way.

Case Preferences:

I love ethical cases and cases based on gender issues, but I’m okay with just about anything. Please avoid spec, because it goes against the whole point of debate and I probably won’t be able to understand most of your points anyway!

Prep Time:

Feel free to take it during POCs.

Flowing Speedy Speeches:

I will be more likely to miss some points if the speeches are too fast, but for the most part, I think I do pretty well with speedy speeches. However, if your opponents would prefer a slower round, please cater to that.

Tightness:

If you, as opposition, plan to run that a case is tight, please say this from the start and let government pick another case if they prefer. I don’t have a lot of experience with tight theory and it will probably not be a round that anyone enjoys. If you do use tight theory as opposition, you will win if you prove that you could not have won in the round. As government, you will win if you are able to prove that opposition had a winnable ballot that they would have feasibly known about.

Other Theory:

I’m not very familiar with most theory, so please try to keep it to a minimum unless you feel that you have to.

Points of Orders:

All points of order will be taken under consideration and I will judge after the round whether the point was used previously.

See Kegan Ferguson paradigm.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Leo and I’m a senior at Brown University. I did PF for four years in high school and have been doing APDA for 3 years in college.

Weighing is #1, if you don’t weigh (well) it will be hard for you to win the round. However, don’t just say “this argument outweighs on magnitude,” explain why it specifically outweighs your opponent’s ballots.

Warrants are also very important, if there are two conflicting pieces of evidence I will decide based on warrants.

Be nice to each other, if you’re rude you will lose speaker points.

I don’t have much experience with theory but you can still run it, just explain what you are doing clearly.

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

Greetings! You have stumbled upon my very quickly thrown-together paradigm. I'm a former high school (mainly parli) and current APDA debater. Here are the highlights of what you might be interested to know about my debate preferences:

• If you speak quickly, I'll be able to follow you, but quality over quantity always
• If you give me a framework/metric/weighing mechanism, I will listen to you & judge based on that (if there are competing frameworks, tell me why yours is better or you win under both)
• If you weigh impacts in your rebuttal (or for PF summary/final speeches), you will make me very happy
• If you don't give me models/examples/very sound logic, I probably won't buy your argument
• If you speak for longer than your grace period, I stop flowing
• The more signposts the better!

I did 3 years of NPDL Parli in Southern California; now in 2nd year of college APDA. I mostly did lay, but I am familiar with tech concepts. I dont love tech stuff but u can do whatever u want im not your mom.

A few preferences for when I am judging

-Don't go too fast, however, if you're going too fast I will just yell clear (which I would rather not have to do) and if you want me to keep flowing you should slow down. Feel free to have some speed though but just don't get into the gasping for breath range. I am bad at flowing and have a speech impediment that makes some things hard to hear; if I can't hear you I can't flow your arguments and then idk how you're supposed to win at that point. I am being repetitive here, but just don't go too fast and you'll be fine. I want to be able to hear you, so again, I will just call clear.

–You don't need to impact everything into big stick arguments. Not everything leads to nuclear war, your argument will be stronger if you keep your probability up. I default probability>magnitude but am receptive to weighing that argues otherwise. Building off this, structural violence arguments are stronger than you think they are. Make them.

–Extend your arguments. I won't do it for you and I don't like shadow extensions.

–Weigh. Weigh links. Weigh impacts. In the PMR and LOR make it clear why your arguments matter more. Don't just say you won all the points of clash because odds are you didnt.

–I want to see clash. Clash is the only method of truth testing in APDA so engage with your opponents' arguments, don't just repeat yourself.

–Again, don't be an dick. I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible if you're a bigot. Dont be racist, anti-semetic, islamophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, transphobic or any any ism or phobia that perpetuates hate. Debate is not just a game; the things you say matter.

–Also we are all people, we all get tired, we all get hungry, we all get cranky but treat everyone with respect and we will all have a much better time.

–beyond that, have fun and make the fun arguments you want to do. I will flow them and do my best to adjudicate the round as fairly as I can.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, email me at max_haimes@brown.edu

Hi! I'm Mac Hays (he/him pronouns)! I did 4 years of PF at Durham Academy. I have spent 4 years coaching PF on the local and national circuit. I have just finished debating APDA at Brown. After graduating, I will be coaching PF and Policy debate in Taiwan on a Fulbright. Debate however is most fun for you without being exclusive.

Disclaimers:

* TLDR tabula rasa, warrant, signpost, extend, weigh, ballot directive language makes me happy, metaweighing ok, framing ok (I default "pure" util otherwise), theory ok, speed ok (don't be excessive), K ok, no tricks, be nice and reasonable, have fun, ask me questions about how I judge before round if you want more clarity on any specifics. Ideally you shouldn't run theory unless you're certain your opponents can engage.

* Nats probably isn’t the place for theory/Ks unless the violation is egregious and your opponents can clearly engage. Don’t run whack stuff for a free win

* Every speech post constructive must answer all content in the speech before it. Implications: No new frontlines past 2nd rebuttal/1st summary (defense isn't sticky, but that doesn't mean that 1st summary must extend defense on contentions that 2nd rebuttal just didn't frontline), any new indicts must be read in the speech immediately after the evidence is introduced, etc. New responses to new implications = ok. New responses to old weighing = not ok.

* How I vote: I look for the strongest impact and then determine which team has the strongest link into it as a default. See my weighing section for more details. If you don't want me to do this, tell me why with warranting.

* Add me to the chain: colin_hays@brown.edu.

* The entirety of my paradigm can be considered "how I default in the absence of theoretical warrants" - that is, if you see debate differently than I do, then make arguments as to why that's how I should judge, and, if you win them, I'll go with it. (exceptions are -isms, safety violations, speech times and the like, reasonability specifics are in the doc below).

Have fun!

My paradigm got unreasonably long so I put it in a doc, read it if you want more clarity on specifics:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lFX0Wja9W_h1xC1YBrUl8XZZzRenxOGOx7LCKd9liRU/edit

important: please do not read arguments pertaining to human trafficking/sexual violence in front of me. by that, i mean don't dehighlight the cards and replace sexual violence with gendered violence. i cannot hear these arguments. read an alternate.

add me to the email chain - 19sabrina.huang@gmail.com

i debated under cps hp. currently i coach/judge for american heritage broward. i don't think i'm super picky but heres some basic stuff:

first and foremost, i prioritize the safety of debaters. that means: don't trigger people, use correct pronouns, etc.

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc. you must delete the cards you did not read and visibly mark cards that you did not complete reading.

asking qs for clarification/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u shoulda is not. just try to keep it short - i will cut you off at a certain point

dont be a jerk. it's fine to be witty, but if you're being rude your speaks will get tanked. my bar for being a jerk is pretty high tho

generally please dont yell that much, calm down it aint that deep ???? just be calm and normal please

that also means i wont evaluate any arguments rooted in bigotry. i will also not evaluate death good. be mature, and good people. also idt u can run pess if both of u arent black. i cannot believe i have to say this, but dont

to quote miguel harvey: "DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it." i don't think i can word it better.

send all cards before speeches so we reduce prep steal. i do not want evidence sharing to take up 16 minutes of a round (i have seen this happen irl) please spare me

i always presume neg on cx and almost always on pf - but if it's on balance res, i'll presume first bc first summary is hard

we can skip grand if both teams want to idrc about it tbh

if both teams want a lay round thats fine j lmk

on evidence:

i wont drop u if i notice an egregious evidence ethics violation myself but i will do smth if other team points it out/asks me to call for the card at the end of the rd. i will point it out and tank speaks if it is not against official rules usually (unless its rly bad, case by case basis) but if it is against NSDA rules i will auto drop

generally - i dont like para bc i have to comb through ALL ur ev. if you do not know what para means, ask.

try to fr tag your cards. "specifically," is not a tag. tags are full sentences

i think bracketing can be a slippery slope - id rather u read something that sounds grammatically weird out loud than bracket, bc if you bracket a lot i have to check all ur ev for misconstruction and i dont want to do that.

if you notice clipping and u want to pursue it dont just read a shell - again, it's against nsda rules and needs to be evaluated per the handbook. just stop the round. it would be helpful if you have a recording of the clipping too.

speaks

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc and i'm gonna call tab

24 = minimum baseline for explicit, egregious evidence ethics violations or u were a big jerk

27-27.5 = you did smth horrible (debate wise)

27.6-27.9 = decent amount of stuff to work on

28-28.2 = you're getting there

28.3-28.5 = avg

28.6-28.9 = nice

29-29.3 = good. you might break to elims

29.4-29.7 = i think you should be top speaker

29.8-30 = ur better than me congrats

you start at a 25 if i notice ev that is explicitly against nsda rules - this is not just creative highlighting, this is stuff like added ellipses

+.3 for OS disclo

+.1 round reports

-0.5 for improperly cut cards (no context, no citation, no highlighting, etc)

-1 para or bracketing (-2 if u have both bc addition)

-1 if u have no cards and u j send me a link

also,

defense is not sticky

frontline everything in second rebuttal. do not be blippy and say "group responses 2-5 no warrant" and then move on. ACTUALLY WARRANT EVERYTHING OUT. if you are blippy, i will be very lenient towards the other teams responses.

analytics r cool if u have warrants. no warrant isnt a warrant

i dont think theres an inherent problem with theory, but theres this trend where teams make hella responses and nobody collapses and it makes the round super messy so that makes me pissed like i dont think we have time to cover every single possible voting issue in 2 mins yk what i mean

anyways if it's frivolous i'll probably give u the stink eye. u can read friv if u reallyyyyy want but depending on how funny/boring it is ill get upset/be less upset. RVIs are silly, i prob won't vote on no RVIs. i don't think you should lose for trying to be fair.

call me interventionist but i think disclo is good and para is bad and i dont see myself voting on the opposite. sorry

i think ks are generally educational and i know how to judge them but i genuinely believe they don't belong in pf j bc the timings weird. if you read one, i won't immediately vote you down. either way aff gets to perm the k. also read an alt. and actual fw. do this well and u wont make me upset

CPs are fine on fiat resolutions (usfg should __) but idrk how this would work on an on balance res. but since these are technically not allowed per nsda rules i will also evaluate CP bad theory or whatever arg u can come up with

no tricks please i dont think i can evaluate them well and ill probs drop you bc idk how they work - run them in front of someone else

go as fast as u want as long as you enunciate. i will yell clear 3x before i stop flowing, dont make me do this

signpost. if you want to spread, you must slow down on tags/cites and then you may speed up on the body of the card. then, when you move onto another contention/card, let me know in some way. pause. say and. i dont care as long as u do smth

stop extending everything through ink, makes the debate really hard to eval and leads to intervention

no new weighing in 2ff. new 1ff weighing will make me upset but idt its the end of the world.

also, time yourselves. if u go too overtime in a speech/start new sentences i will straight up stop flowing

in general, i would rather have a slower round with more warrants than a faster paced round where everything is blippy and messy. make my job easy. do not make me sigh when i am making a decision bc i have to choose between a bunch of unwarranted weighing mechanisms extended through ink. most of you all are trying to be too techy because you think that gives you clout. in order to be techy, you need to know how to debate, otherwise a fast and unwarranted round just leaves me unimpressed, frustrated, and you will not get much out of the round. if u are techy and u do it well thats fine - there is most certainly a difference between a messy good tech round and a messy bad one.

ld:

i have very limited knowledge about this event. explain what jargon is because chances are its different from cx or pf. please please please signpost

if u have any qs ask me before the round and i will try to answer accordingly

phil: prob not

nibs: ?? no

tricks: no

speed: fine

larp: fine

k: fine

theory: fine

BE CLEAR. I WILL YELL CLEAR TWICE BEFORE I STOP FLOWING.

This is my first time judging; please speak slowly.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

For Stanford Invitational:Do not assume that I know the topic.

Email: annadebatekim@gmail.com (include on all chains + email me if I am not in room by time)

I did LD in high school but I know how the rest of the formats work. If it helps I was a K/F AFF debater and got a bid senior year

Currently attending Brown University and debating APDA.

General

Please read what you are most comfortable reading. I will most likely vote for the debater that is able to give me a straight path to the ballot. This means that a. give me the role of the ballot and b. tell me directly what matters in round.

K/K Affs ---- 1

Larp/T --- 2

Theory --- 3

Phil --- 3

Tricks --- strike

K debate

I obviously loved the K debate when I was in high school. It definitely gave me the chance to explore literature base that is often times overlooked by many people in the community. I have come to find out K v K debates are the most interesting to me but I will obviously evaluate any arguments against the K. I think there are a lot of creative arguments that can be made against Ks but teams tend to rely on generic arguments. But regardless of how important I think K debate is I will not be your “K hack”. I will not fill in the blanks for you. This means you have to give a solid overview on top, link chain, and explain why your alt/fw works. I prefer if you relate it back to the topic but if not I will listen to you but at a far higher standard.

When doing the K debate, please either choose to go for either framing or the alt. I have found that debaters trying to do both will end up under covering both of them. For framework in particular, give me a reason why education outweighs fairness and you will find yourself in a far better position to win the round.

Topicality

Try to be creative in your answers and standards. I am kind of tired of hearing the same generic fairness and education arguments. Explain to me why your specific case matters and what my role is to further either fairness and education. I think deliberation and spill over are underutilized as impacts on the T/FW page.

Policy/LARP debate

This section accounts for any type of DAs/CPs. If none of the sides give me a way to weigh your impacts I will default to util. Please weigh your impacts at the end or give me a clear link chain. If I don’t understand how x country doing y policy will lead to extinction you will not get my ballot. This means I will default neg on presumption. The AFF needs to present me with a reason why 1% risk outweighs everything else in this round.

I honestly don’t have anything else to say about this type of debate other than if you are planning to run PICs be warned that I lean more in favor of PIC bad theory.

Theory

The only “controversial take” I can think of is that if it is obvious your opponent does not know what the wiki is and you run disclosure on them your speaks will be 27 even if you win. In short don’t be mean to novices and don’t run frivolous things. I will unfortunately evaluate them but your speaks are going to reflect my unhappy state.

Phil

Didn’t see it a lot at tournaments and will appreciate you for running things. I would just be careful in running niched or jargony things because you will lose me. Otherwise have fun - a lot of the takes on the K section will apply here as well.

Tricks

No. Just no. Please don’t.

Other:

Be nice to your opponents (especially if they are a novice).

Tech > Truth

Competing interps > Reasonability

Fairness vs Education who really knows what’s better depends on the round

No RVIs

Will stake the round on ev ethics (Also if I or the opponent notices you contacting coaches and teammates during round your speaks will be severely impacted)

Know your case. Prove to me you know it in CX and I’ll boost your speaks.

Try not to read the same generic stuff that your coaches wrote for you and embrace just going for what you know.

Will stop the round if anyone is being raciest/homophobic/sexist etc. and you will receive a L15 and you will be reported to the tournament director

My background lies more in impromptu styles and public speaking+presentations. I care a lot about style and accessibility of your points, ie. do you have the ability and understanding to make your points understandable to the general public?

Some specific points:

• I will not consider crossfire in flow, so if there is something you wish to use, please mention it in one of your speeches. However, I will consider crossfire for speaker points.
• Please signpost and be explicit. The more clear your links, impacts, and weighing are the better I'll be able to follow and understand your points. I will place less weight on any conclusions I have to infer.
• Do weigh directly - I'd prefer not to have to infer what you're trying to imply. Tell me what impacts/links you're comparing and why exactly you outweigh.
• I value clarity and logical flow - please be sure you're explaining the logic of your points. Make it clear how your point flows from your link to your impact. I will likely not have the same background knowledge so more clarity and flow will help me understand your points.
• Feel free to bring up fun/odd arguments - as long as these points are well-explained and justified (see the above point).
• Please avoid theory arguments. I do not have a full understanding of theory and am not confident I will fairly judge related content.

Best of luck in your rounds!

I am a new and relatively inexperienced judge.

My name is Ben and I'm a first-year student at Brown. I debated 4 years of high school public forum on the national circuit. I was ok. I also judged in the New York Parliamentary Debate League. Now I do American Parliamentary Debate at Brown. I consider myself a flow judge, meaning that the chances are >50% that I listen to the round. I have been to too many tournaments in my time (in the loosest sense possible—I debated on zoom from my bedroom), so I have experience with most of what you want to run (I elaborate on this a little later in my theory and K's section).

add me to ur email chain, plz and thank you. Also, feel free to ask questions about my decision/ask for individual feedback after the round and, honestly, feel free to tell me my decision sucked/berate me. I'm in favor of some judge accountability. Email addy below. Or dm me on ig @benjlevy if u feel like that's a slightly more humane way of contacting me after the round.

benjamin_j_levy@brown.edu

Long Form Paradigm

General Stuff

I try to give good speaks if I like you. Tell me prior to the round if it's a bubble round and I'll give better speaks. Here's how you get me to like you (everything is evaluated on a case-by-case basis):

Do:

Be nice

Be funny

Use pop culture references or anything else to prove you're a human person

Bring me food

Don't:

Be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Use ad hominem attacks

Be a d*ck

Be annoying

Parli

Speed is ok. Don't go policy fast.

I won't yell at you when your speech time is up. I'll just stop flowing

If you POI reasonably I expect you to take POIs reasonably

Roadmap, offtime if you'd like (it helps us all). I really only care where you start on the flow so long as you signpost along the way.

I'm like 99% non-interventionist when it comes to new material/POOs. Things go on my flow unless there's a POO. I usually won't evaluate a POO on the spot unless it's obvious either way.

Misc PF

Speed is cool. Spreading is not. If you mumble and/or it's remote debate I won't be able to understand you.

Roadmap. I care only about where you're gonna start your speech. Tell me off time.

Good vibes will actually increase your chances of winning the round

Tech > Truth, Warrants > Cards

I flow numbers but don't flow card names or years unless the cards get mentioned again in the round. Note, however, that I will value a well-sourced case on the margins. I talk about why I think about cards the way I do in my extended paradigm. In short, PF card ethics tend to be really bad and often reduce the quality of the debate.

I know the jargon but don't like the jargon (and believe that using jargon often makes people gloss over important logic/warranting. That is, it hurts their chances of winning)

Talk about cross in rebuttals. It exists for a reason (and as much as Grand Cross may be useless, you'll have some horrible stories to tell later in life so we're not gonna skip it). I'll only flow really clear things from cross. If it's important or needs explaining, you should probably extend it.

Defense isn't very sticky. That is, summary speeches should summarize (read: extend) dropped defense.

Don't say that they dropped every single one of your arguments. They didn't.

No need to reinvent the wheel in every speech, but don't just say "flow the second link on our C2 through." Strike a reasonable balance. I'd also add that very few people signpost well enough (and I don't flow well enough) for me to know what you're talking about.

No new big arguments in summary unless they respond to something new in rebuttal. I'm pretty case-by-case on new material. Pretty lenient in first summary, a lot less lenient in second summary. It really ticks me off when people say "don't let them respond to that" in first summary.

I'll time your speeches and stop flowing when your time is up. I'm way too lazy to keep track of your prep.

Weighing (my attempt at a tutorial)

Pointing out that the number in your impact card is slightly bigger than the number your opponent gives is rarely enough. It's barely weighing and generally insignificant given how bad every predictive impact card is. I talk about cards, how I think about them, and my expectations for their discussion a lot more in my extended paradigm.

I think weighing is important because more often than not both teams have at least some offense left at the end of the round. The trick with weighing is to think of the "scope magnitude probability timeframe" stuff they teach you to say akin to how you think about mathematical operations. Don't just say "we win on scope." That's like saying "I solved the problem with division." You'd fail your math class if that's all you wrote. Don't overcomplicate it and be honest about what arguments you and your opponent are winning on the flow and compare the impacts. Sometimes people will tell you to meet the other team at their best. That feels like too high a burden most of the time in PF, so I'd say you should give them the benefit of the doubt on all their impacts and meet them there.

Obviously, you want to win on more than one of these weighing mechanisms. It would be great for your chances if your impacts could be massive, guaranteed, would happen tomorrow, last till the end of time, and be entirely irreversible. But that's almost never possible, so you prioritize the different weighing mechanisms, arguing why victory based on one mechanism is more important than another.

A good, simple example of weighing is saying something like: "Even though we all will literally die in the event of an asteroid impact, the probability of an asteroid impact is just so low that you should accept the risk to substantially lower the much higher risk of small scale earthly geopolitical conflict (I'd add that one of my high school teammates actually ran (and won on) asteroids on the nuclear no first use topic)." I/most flow judges don't take this as a concession of their impact, but it still often helps (especially with a lay) to begin your weighing with "even if we take their impacts to be true."

Also of note is that in PF, debaters will often assert that something (e.g. an arms race) will cause some event (e.g. nuclear war) to happen when, in reality, that thing will only increase the chance that nuclear war will happen. It's good to acknowledge when we're dealing not with certainties but with probabilities.

I don't like intervening but I often have to insert my own logic to cast my ballot when both teams have offense.

Theory, K's, and other stuff

Novice and JV teams should stick to the fundamentals. I don't like when theory and K's get run against much less experienced teams/teams obviously unequipped to deal with it. See the extended paradigm for nuance here/want to know what I have experience with.

Hi, I’m Dylan (he/any). I competed in PF at James River(‘22) mainly on the VHSL circuit and a few online natcirc tournaments. I was a mediocre debater but I love this activity and my coach (Castelo) is awesome. My email is mcentyredylan89@gmail.com. Reach out if you have any questions or if there’s anything I can do to make the round more accessible.

General

- I evaluate rounds from an offense-defense paradigm and you only need one piece of offense to win. Rounds come down to either A) one piece of offense and who has the best link in or B) two pieces of offense and which outweighs. The difference between these rounds is that round A comes down to link weighing and round B comes down to impact weighing. Either way, all rounds come down to weighing. Saying “we outweigh on magnitude” is not real weighing. Please do the comparative analysis and tell me why your world is preferable over your opponents.

- Judge instruction is the best way to ensure a decent decision. I’ve made bad decisions before and don’t want to again. I will think my decision through and do my best not to intervene because y’all deserve it and I don’t want to think about this round for months.

- All arguments need to be warranted and implicated. A response may be good but it won't matter if you don't tell me what it means for the round and my decision.

Specifics

- Extensions don't need to be super in depth, but you should be extending each part of the argument you collapse on even if it’s functionally conceded.

- There shouldn’t be any brand new analysis in the final speeches.

- If you want an argument to be evaluated then you should say it in each speech with the obvious exception of restating case arguments in rebuttal

Speed?

- I flow by ear and you should not trust me to flow well off a doc. I can keep up with ~275 wpm but not with real spreading

Speaker points

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be somewhat generous. I start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Kritiks

- If you read a K, I need to know who does the alt, what doing the alt actually entails in literal terms, and how the alternative solves the harms outlined in the K.

- Now, my opinion on whether or not Ks work well in PF does not matter at all but I’ll add this..if the rules of the event do not let you specify who does the alt and what doing the alt entails then I don’t think the K is the best strat. Speech times also make it difficult. I think framing and kritikal-esque arguments can work but the specifics of K debate become strange in PF. I think this is probably because the format was designed to not let K debate happen. Are kritikal arguments important? Yes, definitely, but I think they work better in LD and policy.

Theory

- Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I really don’t care if you do either as long as you have cut cards and aren’t a douche.

- If the problem could’ve been solved by contacting tab or your opponents then it’s probably not worth our time. If you contact them and they still violate the interp then go for it but you should have screenshots. You should also be able to clearly explain the in-round implications of the violation.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

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

Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

he/him

i did pf for four years

i'll be tech>truth

in general, do what you like, but do it well. i'll try and evaluate it.

i exclusively have experience in pf so if you have me for another event idk good luck ig just treat me like a parent judge

more specifically--

what i like:

frontline in second rebuttal (u must do this unless ur a novice in which case it's ok)

weigh as early as possible (if there's no weighing i'll default to who has better warranting/i just have to intervene which i don't like)

extensions!! if it's not in summ AND final focus i can't vote on it. this INCLUDES WARRANTS i am a big fan of warranting

i'm a big fan of analytics -- a good warranted analytic can be just as effective as a card (tell me why to prefer it to a card tho)

PLEASE collapse

number ur responses in rebuttal, makes it easier for me to flow

what i don't like:

abusive frameworks

theory (i j dont know how to evaluate prog, i can try but i won't be v good at it)

sticky defense is a no no (unless second rebuttal doesn't frontline at all)

when teams just keep repeating stuff and don't actually interact with each other

"this is true because X author said so" - tell me WHY the author says so, or the reasoning the arg is true

off-time roadmaps over 5 seconds (it really should just be "our case, their case, weighing", or some variation of that)

speaks:

read unique/creative cases and i'll boost ur speaks

be funny and i'll boost ur speaks

do something cool strategically and i'll boost ur speaks

be overly annoying in cross and i'll drop ur speaks

be annoying/slow about evidence exchanges and i'll drop ur speaks

add me to the email chain - zubinoommen@gmail.com

just ask me if u have any other questions before the round. email me if you have questions after the round - zubinoommen@gmail.com

If you speak fast I’ll be very mad
So don’t be bad
Or else you won’t be rad
And I'll get sad

Don’t run theory
Or else I’ll get teary
and I won’t be cheery
And the round will be very dreary

I’m lay
So don’t be flay
And let’s have a good day
In may
If you are lay
I’ll believe what you say
and your arguments won’t decay
when you stay
with the lay

If you have good refs I’ll be glad
But if you have bad contentions I’ll be mad
At you lad
And speaker points I won’t add

Please don’t spread
Or else I’ll hit you with my bread
And you’ll be sick in bed

So don’t be a tin
And have a lot of din
And you will get the win

or in other words

Hello!

I'm a lay judge and I'm a new judge, so please be concise and make your arguments very clear and understandable

No spreading or theory, I will not understand it

Please explain your arguments and refutations clearly: I will vote on what makes sense to me based on what I hear in the debate

*** PF ****

A good chunk of what I note below for how I adjudicate policy rounds applies to PF rounds, so read that if you want a general understanding of how I view debate, but there are a couple PF-specific things I should emphasize.

1. don't spread analytics or generally be unclear. this sucks in policy, but it sucks extra in PF because arguments are less dependent on evidence.
2. final focus speeches should not just be line by line, but rather picking the specific parts of the line by line that you think matter the most and telling me why
3. I have a high risk/reward bar for friv theory, tricks, Ks, etc. Do it well, and I'm very down. Do it poorly and I'm very not.

Top Level

-I debated policy at Georgetown Day School for 4 years and am now debating at Brown University. In HS, I had 8 bids to the TOC.

-Unless your argument is in favor of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.), I’m down to vote for it. Tech>Truth for sure.

-Examples are awesome, and you should use them whenever possible. A few well-explained ones are usually better than a bunch of small ones. These can be used as historical contextualizations of why something will fail/succeed, or turn out well/poorly, or as demonstrations of your praxis.

-In debate, I spent more time reading kritikal args (see below), but I'm more than hyped to judge a policy throwdown.

-I read evidence when asked to or when a team makes a big deal out of a card in the last rebuttals. Quality evidence makes for good later speeches, especially when you can pull direct quotes from your ev that are really applicable. Just remember, that debaters, not cards, win rounds, so you can absolutely spin a bad card into a phenomenal argument.

-If you have any questions, just ask before the round!

Case

-Explain what your aff (policy or K) does in crossex, especially on the K side I need concrete solvency examples, and on the policy side, I need to know exactly what policy change the aff makes.

-For the neg, case debate is great, particularly solvency takeouts, and recuttings of the affirmative team’s own evidence (hint: these recuttings are not nearly as hard to find as they should be).

Disads

The two most important things to win here are a credible internal link story and impact comparison. Too often, neg teams get away with a ridiculous internal link chain, that the affirmative should absolutely expose (affs also tend to have these, neg teams should expose these as well). The 2nc/1nr and 2nr should explain step-by-step how the aff causes your impacts. Impact comparison means not just explaining what your impacts are, but why I should prioritize them over the aff’s. For example, I don’t just want to know why the aff causes nuclear war, I want to know why that matters more than/happens more quickly than/is more probable than, the aff’s impact scenario(s).

Counterplans

Establishing exactly what parts of the aff you do and do not claim to solve (and why) is key here. The net benefits to your counterplan should be explained in the context of the disad (or if you’re not going for a disad as an independent off-case position, why mutual exclusivity is clear, and why your impacts outweigh). Also, the theory in these debates tends to get extremely muddled. If this happens it will make me sad.

T (vs plan affs)

In these debates, both sides generally agree with the theoretical impacts the neg is going for (i.e. that fairness/education etc.) are good in the abstract, so the nuance comes down to whose interpretation provides them better and/or is more resolutionally based. That means that knowing what debates look like under your model is paramount. Topical Versions of the Aff, especially ones with cards, are cool, so are arguments (on both sides) about how your model of debate produces ethical subjectivities, better advocates etc.

Theory

Slowing down and getting off your blocks is crucial here, especially since I feel strongly that jargon is not a good replacement for nuanced warrants. That said, if you can clearly explain why something the other team did is/should be illegitimate, I’m more than happy to vote for it. Also, please specifically explain why whatever they did is a reason to reject the team rather than just the argument, if you’re going for it that way.

Kritiks

These are the majority of the arguments I read in debate (aff and neg). This is both good and bad for you if you read Ks. This is good for you, because I’m probably at least relatively familiar with your arguments (particularly Afro-pessimism, coloniality, variants of the cap K, and high theory like Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Psychoanalysis). It also means that your link contextualizations can be more creative than a hardcore policy judge might prefer (note that “creative” does not mean link to the status quo, but rather that you can, if you win it in the round,link into the aff’s discourse or political telos). This is bad for you if you read Ks because I know how these arguments can be poorly executed, which means that using a bunch of jargon without explanation and not doing line by line will generally not turn out well. Fun K Tricks are fun.

K affs vs Framework

I had these debates. A lot. As a result, I’m probably pretty good for both teams here, for the aff because I've debated on your side a ton so I can definitely see your argument, and for the neg, because I know that a lot of K affs are ridiculous and completely unconnected to the topic area (which is distinct from using the USfg). For the aff, a counterinterp that provides a real and better model of debate + a couple impact turns to their standards are best. For the neg, I’m really cool with any standards you wanna go for, and TVAs are good as long as they actually solve some of the aff (as opposed to, “Look! We have something that is tangentially related to their lit base!”) Also, showing how the aff’s model produces terrible debates is going to make it harder for them to win on impact turns alone. The only argument I don’t like here is that being topical is a “rule.” In contrast to things like violating speech times, clipping, etc (which will result in an automatic loss), almost all judges will agree that you should not inherentlyreject affs that are not topical (i.e. vote neg after the 1ac) and I’m not sure how something is a "rule" if teams get rewarded for breaking it all the time. I, however, am open to voting for framework as a good norm.

**Final Note: I'll boost your speaks a bit if you make a good (emphasis good) reference to The Dark Knight or The Matrix.

Hi! My name is Carson Roemer and I'm currently a junior at the George Washington University studying Business Analytics.

I don't have much experience judging public forum, but I understand the general framework of the event. I am not a traditional flow judge but I will be writing down extensive notes that will help me make my decision.

I am comfortable with understanding fast speech, but please do not try to spread.

Please try to make arguments as clear as possible and be nice/respectful to each other!

I am parent/lay judge. I have experience as a lawyer. Here are some of the qualities I value

• please try to speak clearly, and not so fast that I can't understand. I prefer slow and understandable over a fast blur.
• I prefer the quality of an argument over the quantity of arguments and information. One crystalline point made sharply and with backup information is more compelling to me than many points mashed together with little backup.
• Think about the coherence of your arguments and rebuttals.
• I tend to prefer debaters whom I can tell really understand their arguments and points, rather than speakers who seem like they are just reading quickly off a sheet, or reciting things they've memorized.
• Some debaters seem to make arguments that they hope will appeal to what they think are a judge's personal political or social views, even though those arguments are weak or a stretch. I will penalize for those weak arguments.
• You can be firm, but also try to be nice! No need to shout, and no need to express scorn or subtle sarcasm in knocking down your opponent's points.
• My email is ethanschwartz@hotmail.com please add me to the email chain. This is not an excuse for you to speak fast, if you send case docs I will not look at them, I take notes on what I hear and if I can't understand you it won't be in my notes. However, I would like to see evidence called for by the other team and additionally I may call for evidence after the round myself and would like it to be sent to this email if I do.
• Finally, try to keep time yourself if you can.
• Have fun!

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

I haven't judged debate in around 1 and a half years. However, I worked for 2 years as the GA for Western Kentucky. Coached at Ridge High school for 3 years primarily focusing on PF, but also helping with policy, Parli, and LD. I also competed for Western Kentucky University for 4 years doing LD. So I am experienced with debate, but keep in mind I may be rusty, so please focus on solid impact calc. and keeping the round clear/clean.

-------General Thoughts---------

I like speed! I think fast debates advance the bounds of possible argumentation within the debate space. Although, I do think people should avoid spreading if it is going to propogate structrual disadvantages or your opponents have asked you not to & would hear out speed bad in those instances. Additionally, I do need pen time. I think there should be pauses between arguments delivered at max speed and without them I may miss something

I like debate to be focused on topical advocacy. This means I prefer when debaters do research related to the topic at hand and my ballot in some way affirms. This doesn't mean I am not willing to vote for resistance strategies on the AFF/Neg but that I like to see research connected to the topic within those strategies. Not purely generic arguments. This also applies to theory. While I like T debates. I am fairly unpersuaded by theory argument completly seperated from the topic-- although I have voted for them before.

I am a flow judge but not fully tab. I dont think the role of the judge is to vote for unwarranted arguments. This means 1 sentence analytics (especially spikes or 'tricks') have little value to me and even if conceded are unlikely to be voted on. However, if evidence is conceded I am almost 100% going to vote on it. Basically, ev = fully tab. Blips = not fully tab.

------NFA LD--------

When I did NFA i ran primarily policy arguments, so as a judge I am best evaluating policy arguments. However, this doesnt mean I don't want people to run K's if thats your thing-- you just need to 'tuck me in' more in those debates or I may make a mistake.

As a judge I feel like the most important thing to me is that your reading arguments that are well researched and you can easily explain neuonced details of the arguments. This means reading arguments that you dont understand well with me in the back is not a good decision-- I wont want to vote for it. Also please cut new evidence, evidence quality is very important to me.

GO FAST!! I love spreading. I think debate is a highly competitive activity build upon using skills and tactics to overwhelm your opponent and make them lose.

Generally I would say, I'm cool with just about any argument if the round isn't close. But when rounds are close and competitive there are a few important things to note

For Theory-- I default to competing interps. I want theory positons to have direct in round implications as they relate to the affirmatives plan-text. This means I really hate 'trolley' theory. for example high school LD rounds about robot theory would be a non-starter for me; or if you read 'go to the beach thoery' i will stop flowing the position and you just wasted your time. Essentially I think T, Spec args, or CP theory-- but don't like random interps that aren't clearly derived from debate norms.

For the K-- I'm pretty comfortable with evaluating the K, however if its a more obscure K then i would prefer you to go slower during the collapse or contextualize it so i know what im voting for. I'm really into philosophy from a person level, especially Marxism and psychoanalysis-- so the odds are fairly high I'm relatively familiar with the literature. However, this doesn't mean I'm the most informed about kritique tricks and strategies you may carry out with your specific K (since I didn't read the K in many rounds), so just be sure not to assume too much from me from a knowledge standpoint.

Non-T AFFs: I'm willing to listen to the debate, and in a round thats a crush I would consider myself a fair judge. However, I definitely lean toward prefering that AFFs are resolutional. I have no issue with non-T affs from an ideological standpoint, but I do really have an issue with non-resolutional arguments because of the sheer impossibility of predicting them. So while I'm not going to hack in these rounds, I do think as a competitor you want to prefer resolutionality when possible

My favorite rounds are a really good policy debate. DA + CP's are great for me. Contrary to the K, it's going to be almost impossible for you to loose me on policy tricks or strategy. I love it when people set NC's up to cleaverly get their opponent for example T to force DA links or other creative policy strategies (doing these things, or generally impressing me with the policy strat is a great way to boost speaks.)

------High School LD------

^Read above 1st^

-Other things-

This is only my first year coaching HS LD, so LD specific tricks (in progressive rounds) are a little risky for me. Essentially, if you wouldn't ever see it in a policy round (RVI's, Spikes, NIBs, friv. theory, actions theory style phil) then it might not be the best argument to run for me. But that isn't to say I would never vote for that stuff

On theory:

-I don't like RVI's on T. I think the neg gets to test T at least once. However, on other theory args RVI's are cool.

-I don't like when the 1ar completely collapses to theory. This doesn't mean I won't vote for it. However, it isn't a good way to get high speaks

-I don't love disclosure debates. I think people get to break new affs. If people never disclose I will fairly evaluate the arg.

-Nothing truely frivilous please

-I don't like spikes/ one sentence theory args. Theory needs warrants too

-I am used to college LD where the AR is 6 minutes. As a result, I generally do think the aff has it a little worse-- do with that what you will

On Phil:

All phil debates aren't my favorite/ I am not the most familiar with them so tread lightly. However I will hear out the arg and totally try my best to evaluate it. I got a degree in phil so I am likely familiar with the authors, but not the specific debate applications/ tricks

------High School PF-----

Weighing is one of the most important things for me in PF because i find rounds often get muddled and lack an easy place to vote so i want to be told exactly what issues are the most important and where to vote. This means there needs to be a clear collapse in summery with that argument well impacted out in final focus.

Clash is also extremely important to me in PF. This means a few things. The second speaking team must cover the ink that was just put on their case in the first rebuttal as it makes the round easier to follow and fosters more clash if you choose not to and then the first summary makes extensions I'm not going to be very receptive to your new responses in second summary. Additionally please avoid only responding to taglines, if you don't give a warrant for your response, or concede their warrant the argument is functionally conceded.

Please give me a clear road map because I'm flowing and hate it especially in summaries when they don't make sense or aren't easy to flow due to lack of a road map. This doesn't mean you can't get creative in your order just have one and make it clear.

Beyond this I'm willing to vote on just about anything as long as it isn't blatantly offensive. I also really like when debaters try new things so step outside of the box, so especially in PF don't be afraid to try arguments that may not generally be the norm.

I debated at PolyPrep. My team code was Poly Prep TS.

Email Chain: gdtiesi@gmail.com

I hate when judges are way too picky about how kids debate so literally just do what you want. I'll adapt to you and anything you wanna do. I'm open to any args just if you're are running some crazy stuff, warrant well and make it digestible to my dumb pf brain. Also I don't care about the speaking part of the round but if I can't understand you I'll be a way worse judge.

Frontline is 2nd rebuttal, 2nd sum is too late imo

Also obviously nothing offensive, I'll instantly drop you if you endorse any sort of hate speech.

Disclosure theory: I will evaluate Disclosure like any other theory argument and will be as impartial as I can be. With that being said, you need to understand that I am probably the most anti-disclo debater on the circuit. Anyone that knows me well knows that. I truly do believe it's a bad norm and bad for debate. If you want, convince me! If you want to run it, and you are confident, I urge you to do it!

Speech docs:I don't like when teams use speech docs to get their point across. If I can't understand your speech I'm not reading your doc. If I don't get something on my flow, that is your fault.

Good Luck and have fun!

Shout out to my boo thang Jonah Sah #thepartnership

If you need more details, I will be mostly (some of her takes are... questionable) aligned with Sophia Lam.

I'm Chris, a current senior at Brown University. In high school I did Congress, I was pretty good at it - not amazing, but good - and dabbled in extemp. I went to NSDA Nats and NCFLs once for Congress and NSDA twice for World School. Currently, I compete and judge every weekend in American Parliamentary Debate and on occasion in British Parli. I tend to flow a lot so you'll see the top of my head more than my eyes and I'm generally good at picking up on the nuances of the round regardless of eye contact.

I'm terrible at theory so either A) don't run it, but B) if you do, explain it to me like I'm your boomer parent. I'm not a tech v. truth absolutor but I also try my best to be non-interventionist. That said, I major in political science and have spent enough time in international relations and history classes to know a fish when I smell one. If you really want an argument to stick for me please either flag it repeatedly or frame it with pop culture references (I'm a big Star Wars junkie), especially if it's complicated/layered.

Generally, I won't give far below average speaks to losing teams unless I hear something blatantly false, abusive, or inequitable and I give no consideration to bubble rounds or speaker awards. You ultimately get what I think you deserve.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Hi! I'm Yuling (she/her). I graduated from UCLA with an econ dgree, I have 10 years of PF debating/coaching experience (yeah my life is that boring).

wangyuling1999@gmail.com for email chain/questions before or after round.

On top of my paradigm: I'm judging in a different timezone i.e. if you are doing a US tournament that means I may be judging at 2/3 am; that means I probably won't be able to handle spreading that well.

Bottom Line: be nice/don't be discriminatory in round.

Preferences:

Narrative Debate shapes my view of debate. Give me a cohesive storyline on why your side's view on the topic is more correct/important really helps me a lot in the decision making process.

Weighing matters, need extension and comparisons in the second half of the round.

Arguments need to be responded in the next speech - i.e. frontline in the second rebuttal.

Speed:
I am able to handle first constructive here (actually a bit faster than this is fine) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxiQYogqyIs&t=38s

but not really https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnDL_bIDEqg

Eventually I'll vote on a team that clearly tells me where should I vote on, how did you win there, and why should I vote there.

Theory/Ks: It's still new to me / the circuit I coach in. I'll try my best to flow and understand, and I also appreciate a chance to get educated on progressive debate, but the reminder is I'm probably not qualified enough to decide this type of round.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

hi, i'm irene!! i did pf at sidwell for a few years. if you need help after the round or really anything, my email is irenezhao29@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain)

i am begging you to fully extend your offense (uniqueness, link, impact), then comparatively weigh it against your opponents' arguments. also, collapse: you only need 1 piece of good offense to win a round.

the current trend on the circuit of reading 6 billion contentions and dumping seven million incomprehensible responses in the front half and then pretending to "clarify it all" in the backhalf is really upsetting to me. i would much rather you have a narrative from the getgo and flesh it out throughout the round. i will not vote on blippy turns. turns, like all offense, need warranting and FULL EXTENSIONS (uniqueness, link, impact + weighing).

other stuff

a) nothing is sticky, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

b) read trigger warnings/be tactful - please be nice!!!

c) not the best judge for prog stuff -- of course, willing to vote on any well-warranted, well-explained argument -- i just have very little jargon/bg knowledge. i tend to really dislike jargon-heavy theory debates + k debates where people are clearly just reading off backfiles.

d) there's nothing wrong with slow debate! i despise flowing off docs. LIKE ACTUALLY FLOWING OFF DOCS MAKES ME SAD