[BowieHS'23] PF, DX, & WSD; [GWU'27]

[Email] cristian.abarca@gwu.edu

Public Forum Debate:

TLDR: Flow judge, good with speed, tech over truth, I want to be on the email chain, not interventional, don't be abusive.

Similar Outlooks: My view on debate is very similar to those of my former teammates Grant Barden and Fionella Caputo. I discuss many of the same perspectives, outlooks, and issues here as they do in their paradigms.

A Couple of Specifics:

Cases. I'm open to pretty much anything here. I might give +1 speaks if you run something creative, or otherwise not stock. After all, debate loses its productivity if competitors have the exact same round again and again. If you're spreading you MUST send a document BEFORE the speech.

Impact Warranting & Terminalization. I would think this is obvious....ALL IMPACTS MUST BE WARRANTED & TERMINALIZED. Too many debaters are failing to do this, particularly with extremely common impacts. (I.e., "Nuke War → Extinction" needs a warrant and terminalized impact [e.g., death], it is not presumed.) Examine opponents' arguments for lack of warranting and terminalization, there's a high chance it's there.

Summary & Final Focus. What's in the final needs to be in the summary, the first gets a little latitude. If you make abusive new arguments or false claims (like your opponents dropping something they didn't) I dock speaks. Also, collapse and weigh.

Framework. Defaults to cost-benefit, but anything's fine. Frameworks must be warranted. Be careful with stuff anyone can tie into, like structural violence, that your opponents will probably just concede, and you've wasted time. I love hyper-specific frameworks built for a particular case. If you want to contest a framework, please do so as soon as possible. (Not mandatory, but it makes the round easier to understand, and thus more likely I'll understand why I need to vote for you.)

Extensions. These must be present but don't need to be especially in-depth. Make sure to include uniqueness, links, and impacts. If you are going for a turn: YOU MUST EXTEND YOUR OPPONENTS' LINK CHAIN. If you don't, I can't vote on the turn. If your opponents don't extend, make sure to bring it up in a speech, it makes it much easier to evaluate as part of the round (DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM THIS).

Frontlining. The second rebuttal must frontline. Defense isn't sticky.

Calling for Evidence. Despite my desire to be included on an email chain, I will only review evidence for abuses if specifically asked to by a particular team. Only read the evidence you have on hand, it shouldn't take forever and a day to retrieve, if it does, I dock speaks quickly. A hyperlink you found on Duck Duck Go mid-round isn't evidence. If you want to find something mid-round to read, you must also properly full-format cut it mid-round too. Also, one of those fancy hyperlinks that highlights the text when you click on it does not count.

Notes on Speech Docs. Two things here: (1) Only include what you will/plan/hope to read on your doc. Don't include evidence or rhetoric you are certain won't be read on the doc. Strategies like "what's red we don't read" just serve to confuse everyone. If you don't understand what I mean here, don't worry about this. (2) Docs should only be sent through irreversible means, they shouldn't be able to be un-sent after a round. The classic example of this is with Google Docs. Not once have I been on a shared Google Doc that wasn't immediately un-shared after the round or had the download or copy features disabled. There are also evidence ethics concerns as teams can insert new evidence into the doc after a speech and falsely claim that it was read as it was "in the speech doc."

Cross. I'm listening to cross, but I'm not flowing it. If a key point is made here, it needs to be brought up in a speech to make it into my flow. I do evaluate cross for speaker points. If you are excessively rude or stage a soliloquy that rivals those of Shakespeare to crowd out your opponents, I dock speaks fast.

Grand. I'm fine skipping grand cross, but doing so means the round goes straight to finals. Skipping grand is not an excuse to award yourselves more prep time to remedy poor choices in prep time allocations earlier in the round.

Paraphrasing. I'm not a fan of paraphrasing. While I won't directly dock you anything if you do, let's say if someone paraphrases I would be more than content to hear a theory shell calling it out.

Trigger Warnings. If you are wondering whether an argument needs a trigger warning, it probably does. These should also be anonymous, I'd suggest an anonymous Google form. If you read a harmful argument without a trigger warning, I will be very perceptive to a theory shell on the matter. (For clarification, "wipeout" and "spark" arguments need trigger warnings, you are telling everyone in the round that they should die.)

Weighing. Please do this. There are two types of legitimate weighing: timeframe and magnitude. Any other mechanism is either a derivative of these two (i.e. scope, extinction, try-or-die, pre-req) or is illegitimate. Most notably, please steer clear of using "probability" or "strength-of-link" weighing as both are low-key abusive and amount to either: (1) new un-warranted defense claims; or (2) the statement "don't vote for my opponent, I don't know why they're wrong, but they probably are." Less common, but even more ludicrous is "cherry-picked" evidence analysis. DON'T do this. ALL EVIDENCE IN DEBATE IS CHERRY-PICKED at the point a debate case is an agglomeration of evidence that forms a specific narrative. While weighing is important, don't spend too much time here. It doesn't matter how well an argument is weighed if you aren't winning the link to it.

A2: Weighing. Except in the occasional situation where it might be advantageous to concede to your opponents' weighing mechanism, you must rebut their weighing. It can be easy to overlook weighing in a busy round, yet it can prove to be fatal. Too many teams end up losing despite superior argumentation because they lost the weighing debate even though they won large portions of their offense.

Timing. It is not the judge's responsibility to time y'all. While I likely will do so for reference, y'all should time yourselves and hold each other accountable for staying on time. The only time it MIGHT be okay to go overtime is if your opponents have already done so.

Speed. I'm good with speed/spreading. When spreading, it is NOT okay to compromise on clarity. If you are not clear, I'll shout "CLEAR" two times before docking speaks. If you're pushing 300 wpm, you MUST send a doc BEFORE the speech. You must also slow down on analytics (presuming they're not on the doc), and you MUST signpost when going off the doc.

Signposting/OTRs. Please signpost and give an off-time roadmap. The only thing worse than not giving one is giving one and not following it.

Presumption. If there's no offense in the round, I'll vote for the status quo (which is usually, but not always, the negative). That is unless a team presents and wins an argument in-round that a presumption ballot must act differently. If you do this, warrants need to be in rebuttal or (first) summary, there can't be a new-in-final presumption argument because you've just now realized you don't have offense.

Post-Rounding. It's fine, ask as many questions as needed for you to properly understand my decision. Feel free to email too.

Theory. Keep theory to check back for abuse. That being said, you are the ultimate arbiter of what you consider abuse. If you're alleging abuse, you need to read the shell immediately after that abuse. Friv theory might have a place in PF, but it is certainly not to steam-roll some novices who don't understand it for a cheap win. It's clear when this is a team's goal. If reading theory, shells don't need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final. I don't expect a word-for-word extension, but its spirit or intention shouldn't fluctuate.

Disclosure Theory Specifically. I'm on the fence on whether disclosure is beneficial, I don't lean to either side, so I'm open to seeing it run. That being said, please keep the following in mind. First, see the note about the new TFA rules below, if applicable. Second, I stand vehemently against the all-too-common 'big-schools, small-schools' standard, particularly when it is run by a big school against a small school. Disclosure might be good. A big school spreading theory against a small school, telling them what's best for them while asking me to down them is ridiculous. Put simply, if you're a big school and run this standard against a small school, I'll down you. I'm more than happy to vote for disclosure, even potentially for big schools against small schools, just use other standards.

Ks. I'm willing to go here. I've used common Ks like Capitalism and Securitization. However, if you're doing something uncommon make sure you explain the literature as I am likely not familiar with it. (Like theory, don't use Ks for a cheap win, they should be part of a productive debate. Once again, if you use this to steam-roll novices......I WILL DOWN YOU.)

Tricks. I am open to these, but I have a very low bar as to what is a sufficient response against them. So, you're welcome to read "nothing's the cause of anything" but I'll consider your opponent calling your argument dumb a sufficient response.

Blippy. Don't be. This is usually a cheap excuse to not provide adequate warranting or terminalization. See above.

TKOs. (Technical Knock-Outs.) TKOs are stupid. Even if a team has eliminated all of their opponent's paths to the ballot early in the round, there is still ample time for that team to make technical errors in later speeches leading to their loss, or for the opponent to introduce independent offense or weighing (if sufficiently early in the round) to remedy the situation. I have seen both of these eventualities occur. As TKOs preclude necessary argumentation, if you go for a TKO, I WILL DOWN YOU.

IVIs. (Poor-Man's Theory.) IVIs are usually stupid, particularly evidence ethics IVIs. Shell format is nearly always superior as unstructured IVIs can be exceedingly vague, tricky to weigh, and hard to nail down in-round.

Ethical Ballots. If your opponents are being discriminatory, I'm more than happy to down your opponents off of it via one of two pathways: (1) A theory shell on the matter. (2) If it's blatantly present, beyond the argumentation a theory shell entails (i.e. racist, sexist, etc.), please bring it up in a speech. However, if it's never mentioned in the round I won't be able to vote off of it.

Economics. I'm pursuing a BS in Economics, and as such I understand economic realities. Please make sure that if you're running an econ argument, like interest rates, that you know what you're talking about and aren't stumbling around in the dark. I'm not adding this disclaimer out of being biased against poorly run econ argumentation, but rather if your econ argumentation makes no sense it's hard to look away from it unless it goes completely conceded.

On the Recent Amendment to the TFA Constitution Regarding Disclosure... as some of you may be aware, the TFA has recently adopted an amendment to the TFA Constitution that reads: "Tournament directors may stipulate that judges at their tournament may not base their decision on [the] disclosure of cases or the lack thereof." Given this, if you intend to run disclosure theory, please first ensure that the tournament, if operating under the TFA, hasn't stipulated that judges are unable to vote on it. If this is the case, regardless of whether you win disclosure on the flow, I will be unable to vote for you.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

I very rarely competed in LD debate, thus limiting my exposure to the format's standard practices. However, given my participation in rather progressive PF, I should be fine evaluating the majority if not all of LD argumentation. Relevant commentary above on debate in general applies, that being said I won't constrain progressive argumentation in LD the way that I do in PF (as detailed above). Please make sure everything is neatly on the doc, or otherwise clearly signposted in the speech as not being on the doc. Lastly, don't assume I know/am familiar with the literature, particularly on less common subjects. Please don't hesitate to ask any clarifying questions.

World Schools' Debate:

I don't think there is too much to be said here. When it comes to how I will decide on the round, I will decide before assigning points. While style is important, I won't vote purely for it. Line-by-line analysis is not necessary and can be replaced with "worlds-comparison." All new arguments need to be included in the 1 or the 2. As for POIs, the 1-3 should be taking at least 2 POIs, but I'd recommend three. On the one hand, please don't be spamming POIs, but also if you are speaking at least gesture if you plan to (or not) take a POI so someone isn't just left standing there. Lastly, don't be abusive, or try to crowd your opponents out of the debate, I will mark you down for it. If there's anything I didn't address here, please feel free to ask about it before the round starts.

I have coached debate for 20 years. I have coached multiple state champions and National qualifiers. I like to see strong clash in the round and prefer the traditional style of should/would argumentation in LD. I don't like to see policy plans and K in LD. I don't mind them in CX, but do not like to see generic argumentation that you pull out round after round. That being said, I will adapt to you - your job is to make sure you define the framework of the round. Don't assume I have read your advocacy authors. Spell it out.

Slow down if you want me to flow it. There is a big difference between hearing and being able to process the information that is being presented.

Semantics are important. Rhetoric is important. A strong speaker with solid word choice is always going to score better than a spewing gasper. Analysis presented well, weighs as much as evidence that is not supported with argumentation.

I LOVE CONGRESS! and speaking events, and actors, and readers, and the forensic community. Don't be a jerk and we'll get along just swell.

I'm a parent judge and if you want to impress me then speak slowly, make logical arguments and please do not make up statements and data that can either be checked easily or simple common sense can tell that it is made up.

junior pf debater at seven lakes (the 1 in seven lakes AR, I copied this from my dear compañera Siri) anshika12agrawal@gmail.com

2x tfa qualifier, 1x gtoc qualifier

i judge like BRYCE PIOTROWSKI.

tech > truth, links > weighing. you NEED warrants and impacts– tell me why the argument ur telling me matters

this is how i go through the round:

i look at weighing first and whatever wins that i'll look at first. if u win weighing but ur losing the link, u don't win the argument and i look at the other argument. if there is no weighing, i presume the best extended and argued arg.

don't do isms

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, i enjoy fast debates but you still have towarranteverything

i rly do not like paraphrasing, pls readcut cardsand have good evi ethics

progressive args

i like prog args

for k's, i understand nontopical ks a bit more and am only familiar w/ topical set col, sec, and cap

if you run framework, use it to actually frame the round!

paraphrasing is bad, disclo is good, trigger warnings are bad, round reports are meh

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy.

Welcome! This will be my first-time judging, please be respectful and speak with clarity. Debate is not my area of expertise, so please use simple verbiage and elaborate your topic in simple terms. Thank you!

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win. Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

Hi! I’m a speech judge, this is my second year in Speech! Have Fun!

LC Anderson22

UT26

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of an ld/cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round

• for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

ie: do what you need to do, all topics can be super interesting, but make sure to always be aware of your surroundings and give proper trigger warnings

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

I am a parent judge. Please be enthusiastic and put passion into your speeches the entire time. Eye contact is key and be expressive with your face. Lastly, remember to have good usage of hand gestures.

I am a lay judge, do not speak fast, no jargon. Using good rhetoric will help you.

hi! my name is nitya and i am currently a senior at seven lakes high school! i have been competing on the circuit for the last four years primarily in world schools debate, platform speaking (info/oo), and extemp (mostly foreign/international but i'm also very familiar with domestic/us). i have specific things i am looking for/judging on for different events, so i will list those below.

platform (oo/info): generally, i want a very clear structure and organization for your speeches. for info: history, current-day, and implications (this is more flexible, but the points shouldn't bleed and there should be a clear thesis for your speech). for oo, there needs to be three super distinct sections: problem, impact, and solution- i like tangible solutions. for general presentation requirements, speak with good tone, clarity, and vocal variation. good hand gestures and a speaker's triangle are always a plus. i can also tell if you're not memorized, and memorization is a big part of these events. for info specifically, your boards (if you have them) do not need to be revolutionary; however, they shouldn't detract from your speech or BE your speech- they are there to ADD to your speech. i will not give you a high rank just because your boards are nice, you have to sell it with your speech too. i also like vehicles.

worlds: clear arguments- this is a big one, don't let the debate get too muddy or too theoretical. the event is pretty evenly split on style and content; however, if style is pretty evenly matched, i'm voting on arguments. default to i'm voting on arguments. be aware of wording- in worlds "this house believes/supports/regrets" are NOT action items- i CANNOT vote on solvability is is more theoretical. with "this house would/should" has solvability because the house is actually acting. this is a pet peeve of mine, so do be aware. although there is no evidence in the form of cards/citations in worlds, you NEED to have examples (i know this is harder for impromptu, but solely theoretical examples is not strong/won't be compelling). overall, be clear, be strong in style, and be winning on the flow.

extemp: i'm not a stickler for citations, have them, cite them correctly, but don't let them be your whole speech. i love a good umbrella answer when done correctly, it deepens analysis and it's good. you can be cadence-y that's fine, but still have vocal variation. hand gestures and speaker's triangle are a must. characterize the situation always, never assume i will know exactly what you're talking about. humor is always good, but not necessary.

impromptu: all stylistic stuff from extemp applies here too. use examples, real-world and personal are good.

pf/ld: treat me as lay, be convincing.

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

My name is Mark Bishop. Formerly Clear Lake MB / CleLak MB

MarkABishopjr@gmail.com

^ email for questions and the doc. I will reply to emails pre-round.

Clear Lake HS '23. I did LD for two years and I do not do debate in college.

TAMU '27. Gig 'em!

Side note: I am overly expressive and sometimes look like I'm having mood swings in round... sorry. Please try not to read into my body language.

DEBATE

Debate on the circuit is a game.

I'm not the best or the worst at flowing. Solid 8/10 when it's not late at night or super early in the morning...

Sending a doc (when you have one) for analytics/rebuttalsis strongly preferred. Hell, I'll bump your speaks a bit if you do!

Short:

1 - K (All, from non-t k aff to idpol to cap or psycho)

1 - Trad (Every judge can judge trad, it's just a little boring.)

1 - T/Th (Comfortable, did it a bit, fan of judging it)

2 - LARP (I LARP'd mostly for the first half of my debate career... then debated Ks...)

2 - Kant/Korsgaard/etc. and Butler (been judging it a lot, kind of a fan)

2 - POMO (I just... get it.)

2/3 - Tricks (I have a good amount of experience with 'em. They're objectively dumb, but I don't really care.)

4/5 - Other Phil (Deleuze, Derrida, Locke, whomever. I have little experience with these).

Background:

For all intents and purposes, as a competitor I ran almost explicitly the Kritik my Senior year, with a sprinkle of tricks, Th, and LARP. I'm well versed in all queer literature, and familiar with most authors for all pessimism K's (ask me).

I learned how to but barely used phil, and when I did, it was Kant. I always thought phil was... weird.

For my non-senior year, I just LARPed and ran some tricks and theory.

I also used to think the coolest thing ever was walking into a round with background music. Walking in all dressed up playing some song w/ a hard bassline or Star Wars would be cringe asf but also dope.

For the trad debaters in the house...

For LD, any arguments made after the 1AR, if new, will not be evaluated.

For PF, any completely new arguments made after both sides give their rebuttal will not be evaluated.

For CX, any new arguments made after the 1AR will not be evaluated.

Speaks:

I would say I start at 28.5 but I don't. I probably start at 29.0 and add or doc. I will not doc points for speaking impediments, lisps, etc. The only reason I will doc speaks is making bad decisions in round. I believe no judge has any authority to say what the "right path to the ballot" is, however, I do believe it's pretty obvious when you make the total wrong decision. 30s basically go out to anyone who humors me and/or debates skillfully. I am more generous with speaks at locals.

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

SPEECH

I'm pretty familiar with all events, but I mostly did DX when I competed in speech events.

The best way to win in front of me is to either move me or make me laugh.

To elaborate, I once judged a prose about a dog having to be put down and I cried a little (I love doggos). Anyways, that student got the 1 w/full speaks.

I am fine with a healthy pace, but don't like a full on scream-and-gasp, stomping spread; I like to be able to actually process what you say. Be sure to emphasize key points and signpost. (If I don't flow it, it is unlikely that I will vote off of it). I like to hear authors' credentials and heavily frown upon power-tagging and heavy paraphrasing. Don't tell me, "I have a card that says..." unless you actually read the card and citation. I want to hear actual application of evidence/analysis through the round (not just shells/blocks), so explain to me how you actually interact with the opposing side or I will get frustrated as judge. Weigh impacts and pull them through framework; I overwhelmingly vote on offense that supports framework. Rudeness and condescension will do you no favors for speaks. Note (for what it's worth): I am a former policy debater and interper from a traditional circuit (competed in high school and college) and have been coaching LD, PF, Congress, and speech events across multiple circuits for years and judge all events. Please avoid confusing traditional with lay, as I'm fine with debate jargon, etc. Feel free to ask me any clarification questions before the round.

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms from the WSD mandatory judge training.

ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN ---> sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com and miguelcarvajaldc@msn.com

context: As a new parent judge, I'm still learning multiple aspects of Speech and Debate. Consider me extremelylay.

YOU must be respectful of others in your room, don't be nervous, stand confidently and give your speech to the best of your ability; it can get nerve-racking at the front of the room. Just know I'm judging you for all the good things you do, not the wrong things

Speed- I'm not too fond of speed. Nothing faster than 165wpm at most. A conversational pace is preferred.

Kritik/Theory/Disads/Add-ons/Framework- I don't debate, nor have I ever done debate. I won't be able to evaluate these arguments, soDON'Tmake them.

How to get my vote- Tell me WHY I should vote for you. Please don't assume that I will grasp any argument made; I won't, so explain them; I evaluate everything from primary content to cross-fire to presentation. I enjoy it when the debater is persuasive and can stay calm and collected. Of course, debate to the best of your ability, stand confidently and do your best.

Cross Fire-Be kind to each other; I will be accounting for crossfire during my ballot.

Speaker Points-I will give points if you follow the other aspects mentioned. I don't want a rude or condescending tone, BE RESPECTFUL to everyone in the round, whether that's a spectator or your opponent. Don't say anything racist, sexist, ableist, or homophobic I will down you and give you the worst speaker points I can give. Debate well and be confident. Explain everything, and you will get better points.

If you have any questions that aren't answered, please let me know!

have fun and learn

(she/they)

Who am I?
I am a social studies teacher the assistant debate coach. I mainly judge public forum and believe it is a positive space for open and healthy rhetoric. I hope you agree with my view that public forum is an event for the common person.

I am hard of hearing

I will be using a transcription aid on my phone to follow the round. It is not recording the speech and the transcript is deleted after 24 hours. Please, speak loudly and clearly for me and the transcription.

How I evaluate debate.

Treat me like a lay person who can flow. Use email chains, cut cards rather than paraphrasing, and avoid the use of debate jargon. I want to see clear defense, impacts, and links. I am a social studies teacher, so focus on your ability to use evidence and real-world understanding. I will vote on understanding of the issue, evidence, and explanation.

### Speeches

If you don't talk about it in summary, I'm not evaluating it in final focus.

### Cross

Don't use crossfire as an opportunity to bicker. I don’t pay attention to cross. In my opinion, cross is meant to examine your opponent’s case and clarify any questions. Seeing people using cross just to dunk on the opponent is not useful.

### Spreading

I am new to debate and English is not my first language so I cannot judge spreading - nor do I believe it has a place in *public* forum. I need to understand your argument and your ability to adapt to your audience will be judged.

### Theory

If your opponent does any of the Big Oofs and you read theory about it, I'm inclined to think you're in the right.

I don't want to listen to K debate - I will be honest and admit I do not know enough about debate to evaluate them fairly (except for the aforementioned exception)

Big Oofs

These are things that will make a W or high speaks an uphill battle. If you read theory against any of these (when applicable), I’m inclined to side with you. Avoid at all costs.

1. Misuse Evidence. Know the evidence and cut rather than paraphrase. Use evidence that is relevant, timely, trustworthy, and accurate. Use SpeechDoc or an email chain to keep each other accountable and save time.
2. Be late to round. Especially for Flight 2. I understand the first round of the day, but please try your best to be in your room on time. Punctuality is a skill and impressions are important.
3. Taking too long to ‘get ready’ or holding up the round. Have cards cut, flows setup, and laptops ready to go before the round. Especially if you’re going to be late.
4. Not timing yourself. Self-explanatory.
5. Not using trigger warnings. Debate is better when it’s accessible. Introducing any possibly triggering topics or references without consent is inaccessible.
6. Doing any of the 2023 no-no’s. Homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. is a one-way free ticket to a 25 speak and an L for the round.

The Respect Amendment

This section was added for minor offensives that rub me the wrong way. No, I will not vote on these. I might dock speaks for not following these - depending on severity.

I want to forward a respectful, fair, and accessible environment for debate. The Big Oofs are a good place to start. But I hope that every debater would…

1. **Respect their partner.** Trust that they know what they’re doing.
2. **Respect their opponent.** Don’t belittle them or talk down to them. Aim to understand and give critiques on their argument, not to one-up them on something small.
3. **Respect the judge.** All judges make mistakes and lousy calls - especially me. We can respectfully disagree, and that’s okay. However, not a single judge has changed their mind because you were a bad sportsperson.

Hello!

I'm a first time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, avoid debate jargon, please warrant and explain everything well.

Have fun debating!

I'm a parent lay judge, please speak slowly and clearly. I like logical and clear arguments to follow. Please add me to the email chain at aandychen09@gmail.com

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

I am relatively new to judging.

PF: Please read slower than you would for a normal judge and prioritize weighing. I encourage you to drop arguments going into summary if you have one that is better than another. If you spread, I will give up trying to hear you. Running theory is ill-advised. I'm a parent judge.

Speech: I am a parent judge, so of course I am not going to be in the loop on all the technical aspects of your event. If you are the first speaker (or any speaker) in the room, you should probably tell me how timing will work as I do not know how you want it.

I prefer on-topic debate.

Not a fan of philosophical arguments, but will keep my opinions from influencing decisions. If said arguments are well structured and not just used as a last minute argument due to lack of preparation.

Not a fan of spreading, however, I am for letting participants to use their judgement to present their best case.

I'm ok with participants using speech jargon.

My decisions are made based on overall performance and content.

I am a parent judge and I ask for you to speak slow and clearly. I would appreciate that you evaluate and explain why your point overpowers your opponents.

Would like to see how you justify your points and counter your opponent's arguments. The emphasis is on debating skills and logical reasoning. Try to have a clear narrative and provide references / evidences in your speech, wherever required. Please do Not spread.

Have fun! :-)

third year debater

pf :)

LD/PF

• spreading is fine as long as you send a doc (td.trishadas30@gmail.com)
• tech>truth but your warrants need to be well explained
• weigh throughout the round; i won't do the work for you
• i don't care about cross but don't be mean please
• speaks will start at 28 and move up or down based on performance
• mention taylor swift and i will be happy

have fun!! :))

i regularly compete in WSD, FX, OO, and DI

kinda familiar with judging PF and LD (i'm a lay judge though please speak at an understandable speed)

fake it till you win

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

Add (for PF email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach there. Most of my competitive results are viewable here.

I view debate as a uniquely valuable intellectual game that centers communication, research, and critical thinking. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.

I like to reward creativity and hard work.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates. I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

former PF at slakes; pronouns - she/her

duong.kalina4@gmail.com

if you have any questions please feel free to ask prior or after the round. Not a fan of super excessive post-rounding.

- tech>truth but warrant it

- fine with speed but you have to speak clearly (clarity's important!)

- I enjoy a snarky or funny cross as long as it furthers the debate- you can make jabs at each other's arguments but no isms (racism, xenophobia, misogyny, etc) or overt rudeness.

- extend please; Warrant your arguments. Weighing is important. Defense isn't sticky. Draw a clear path to the ballot for me.

- ev ethics are important.

- I lack experience debating and judging prog args but if you can explain it well enough go ahead and run it.

I value debate that is germane to the topic. Loosely connected theory shells or using "trick" debate strategies hold less value than those in which are directly relevant to the topic. I am looking for well researched and well delivered debate.

Spreading is frowned upon. In my opinion spreading ruins the spirit of debate. If I cannot understand the words coming out of your mouth you are not debating, you are mumbling. Preference will be given to the debater that is speaking clearly, and making their points with fluidly.

Be respectful to me and your opponents at all times.

tech judge

be loud

have fun ill give good feedback trust

pls add tharoon.eswar@gmail.com to the email chain

tldr- add me to the email chain ashwikaganti2@gmail.com

2nd yr pfer for slhs-pj jg

tech>truth

- i evaluate the link + link weighing before anything else, if there’s no link weighing it will default to warrant weighing then probability/timeframe weighing

- going for less + explaining it well> going for everything + blippy explanations

- i will vote off the flow but good comparative weighing> dumping defense/offense without weighing and warrants

general

- framework debates are good. shaping the round with impacts makes the weighing debate always easier to vote, i'm familiar with structural violence and util- anything else explain well and i'm open to vote off of it

- spreading is fine, just send docs

- i won’t evaluate cross but i will give higher speaks if you make cross fun in a respectful way!

- extend your case in summary if you want me to vote off of it, that means uq, link, impact- the same goes for conceded offense/ turns

- speaks will start at 28- and go up or down based on strategy

T’s/K’s

- theory shells, friv theory, and K’s are cool- keep in mind the implication needs to be good for me to vote off of it- don’t just extend and expect the implication is made off the extension

- i’ve debated against Ks and Ts, the ones i am familiar with are, theory: disclo, anything else explain it well and i’m open to vote off of it, K’s: cap, fem, set col, security ~ anything else needs really good explaining

- ivi’s are cool, don’t be abusive with them

learn and have fun!

Andrew Gibson
Director of Forensics at The Woodlands College Park High School
Speech Drop Preffered




Before the round/ During the round logistics
A big thing for me is staying on time at any tournament therefore I will be starting the round when both teams are present. Please pre-flow before the round starts. I should not be waiting long periods of time to actually start the round. I am the same way with prep time during a round I believe this has becomes extremely abused in todays circuits. Do not tell me "I will take 1.5 minutes of prep and then the timer goes off and you take another 5 minutes to get to the podium. It is always running prep When a speech ends and you are taking prep simply say starting prep now and keep a running clock. Once you are at the podium ready to speak say cease prep and start your roadmap. Sharing Speeches is INCLUDED in speech time


Policy (UPDATED FOR TFA STATE)

I am a more Traditional Style of Judge. Speed doesnt bother me too much as long as you are clear and dont spread tags/analytics.

T - I love Topicality debates if they are ran correctly make sure there is clash on standards and abuse is shown. Paint the story as to why this skewed the round in any capacity.

Theory -I am good with theory debate if true abuse is shown within the round. Make sure you show the abuse that exists and what was loss by this happening

DA/CP/Case Debate - This is probably the easiest way to my ballot. Impact calculus is very important for me paint a picture as to what the affirmative plan looks like and what the world looks like either in SQ or Counterplan world.

Kritik -I am not a K judge this will be a tough way to my ballot. if you are going to run it I prefer case specfic not generic K's just to the topic not the case.

Role of ballot is big for me tell me what my ballot does and why I should use my power as judge to pull the trigger.

Any questions please feel free to ask!

When it comes to debate, please consider the delivery of your speech. Speed is a natural thing in a timed setting. I understand if you have to say your arguments at a quick pace. I'm just not comfortable with someone speaking as fast as super humanely possible. There is a line that you should consider. Quality arguments and weighing them are always stronger than listing countless cards without much weighing or explanation. Signposting is always welcome in your speeches as it helps with the flow of the debate. Consider time limits...going over grace periods could cost points. Usually don't disclose unless elimns.And most importantly...please be respectful during all events which includes speech, in between rounds and different speakers.

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

Please do not show harmful behavior(racism, sexism, etc).

Do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand.

I expect you to time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.

I will mainly have comments on my written RFD.

Have fun and good luck!

Email chain: laurenho110@gmail.com

Please send speech docs for every speech or I will dock speaker points! :)

I am a former PF debater in high school but have been out of the circuit for several years. I've judged mostly PF and have minimal experience judging LD, so at this point I would consider myself a "flay" judge. I'm more comfortable with traditional arguments and less familiar with progressive/tech arguments.

With that being said, I'm open to evaluating progressive stuff IF I can understand it. Generally, this means speak slowly, explain things as though I've never heard it before (b/c I haven't), and minimize the jargon if you can help it.

For traditional debates, I'm fine with speed as long as you're speaking coherently. I like to see weighing in both summary and final focus. Overall, I need to see very clear extension of warrants and link chains throughout the debate for me to evaluate it properly, but ultimately I will vote for the team who presents the least mitigated link chain + best weighed impacts.

I am a lay judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a parent judge with limited previous judging experience.

My preferred rate of delivery is a 2-3 out of 5. If you are unclear, I will not flow your arguments even if they are true. This helps me understand your arguments and better allow me to evaluate the round.

Substance debate and contention level debate under the resolution is most important. Framework is important as well, but you should make the best argument as I will vote for the most persuasive speaker.

It is very important to have strong evidence to back up your claims. If you make assertions without good authors/sources/credentials to support your position, that is not a strong case.

It is recommended that you include voting issues at the end of the round that crystallize your position and your speech so that I, as the judge, know what to vote on and who to vote for.

Please weigh (tf, magnitude, scope, reversibility, etc.)

I vote on the team who extends case (uq+link+impact)

has the cleanest case (little to no conceded responses on ur case)

and attacks the opponents case the best

If the round has gotten messy, there’s two opposing claims and both sides haven’t cleared up which claim I should vote on, I’ll vote on turns and weighing.

2nd year debater at Seven Lakes

always extend args and remember to have comparative weighing if you want me to consider them

tech>truth

speed is ok with me, but if no one can understand you, set up an email chain or speech drop and send a doc

no prog args (theories and Ks)

give a shout-out to “Tvisha Talwar” to make me happy

speaks start at 27

Hi! To give some background, I'm a college student with previous HS debate experience. During High School, I competed in Varsity PF and qualified for TFA State. While I will be flowing and am comfortable with common debate terminology (turns, extensions, etc), I'm not very familiar with technical LD debate (ie. theory, kritiks, etc).

I’m a first-year out from Seven Lakes where I debated on the nat circuit in PF.

Add me to the email chain: judijoyjeter@gmail.com

If you want me to vote off of an argument, make sure that it’s in either constructive or rebuttal and both summary and final focus.

• I look to link debate first and then choose which argument to prioritize based on the weighing. Meta-weighing is extremely helpful in getting the ballot.

• Weighing should be comparative and have warrants.

• Defense is not sticky

• The second rebuttal must frontline

• Please signpost!!

• Speed is fine, but clarity is super important. You want me to be able to flow your responses. Send docs if it’s going to be fast, but I will not solely flow off of the doc.

• I really care about evidence ethics— don’t paraphrase or lie about your evidence. I will be very receptive to arguments that call this out.

• If there are multiple competing claims, compare evidence (with warrants!) to break the clash.

• Be respectful during the debate and have fun!!

Hi! This is my first time judging/watching a debate so please talk clearly and slowly.

Hey y'all!

Email: connie.jongkind@gmail.com

I'm a high school policy debater for three years now. I've competed in all kinds of circuits, so do whatever makes you comfortable and maximizes the debate space.

Please note: I am partially deaf in both ears, and therefore I struggle with flowing fast paced analytics that go without pre-emption. Please ensure that your analytics are well communicated and spoken clearly. If possible, I would like to be on the email chain.

I am a lay judge, so please don't go above 220 words per minute.

junior at 7L || INFO & Extemp || sahara.k2025@gmail.com

extemp/impromptu - make sure to have 3 (2-3 is alright for impromptu) distinct points with evidence, dont rush through your words, emphasize effects/whats important! give a catchy AGD and vehicle that can be tied back to throughout/at the end of your speech.

OO/INFO - have evidence spread throughout your speech, putting your personality/humor into the speech is nice, varying tone of voice rather than droning, if a part of your speech needs emotion, put emotion! get my attention! hoping this is a topic youre interested in, so absolute formality (like some academic paper) in your speaking isnt a must. be passionate but respectful.

SLHS '25

3rd-year debater: 1x state qual in ld, broke at nationals in policy!

PFer

Please start email chains if spreading/in general, too, for evidence comparison, etc - samkdebate@gmail.com

Please ask me questions before the round!

Debate:

TLDR: pls just signpost and weigh weigh weigh! Give me a clear framing/weighing mechanism (it doesn't have to be an actual framework, just some calculus to allow me to make a decision). I hate intervening b/c it's unfair to both sides - don’t make me. The earlier you start weighing, the happier I am. Don’t worry too much and have fun debating! ᕙ(▀̿ĺ̯▀̿ ̿)ᕗ Muchos gracias.

Performance:

• Be NICE!

• Ev>presentation any day dawg - just don’t speak inaudibly or else ofc your speaks go down. I start at 28 and move up and down mostly based on strategy.

• Debate is where the logic sparkles: make the round educational and don’t impede on this. For example, experienced debaters reading 13 offs on a brand new novice is just so embarrassing to watch, and not for the novice.

• Go fast and spread if you want! Send a speech doc to my email but slow down on tags and author names or else I 100% will not catch an argument. Also, add analytics on the doc - and slow down during them.

• I default to relatively high (30) speaks unless debaters are unnecessarily harsh, rude, or mean to their opponents in the round (speaks will be dropped so be nice [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°̲̅)̲̅$̲̅]).

• Speaks can and most likely will be bumped up if you make super creative arguments or make me laugh (try to be engaging). Most cheesy dad jokes will make me giggle - but also, don't fool around. Education>entertainment. :|

• Be persuasive and explain your arguments heavily to me ESPECIALLY why I ought to vote for certain things on your side as compared to your opponent (flush out weighing please).

CX:

• It's going to be a long round you might as well be nice to your opponents.

• If spreading, send doc but also pls signpost! There are usually many, many arguments within the round - I will flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• Most of the stuff in LD is pretty relevant here - ie prog arguments.

• The latest speech to bring up new args and cards should be the 1ar/1nr unless it is the most critical aspect of the round. but logically, a new arg in the 2ar/2nr is way too abusive so if the argument is absolutely nothing related to what your side has previously mentioned, I will probably not consider it.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, but reasonability gets iffy so I lean to more counter interp (unless its friv theory, etc)

LD:

• Please signpost well or else I can't flow all possible arguments, but I will try my best to get the most crucial components of the round.

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re trying to make cx binding or poking holes in case, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sort. One more thing! Don’t be hostile - cx is not that deep. Just answer the question and move on unless you’re trying to make a point.

• Make the framework debate reasonable and I will vote for the side with the best argumentation and upholding of said framework. If no framework is read during the round and no debater specifies, I will default to Util.

• Winning framework does not win you the round: it only wins you a favorable offense-weighing mechanism.

• Please try to start weighing in your second speech. 1NC weighing is cool but don’t focus on it too much if you don’t have time. 1AR definitely has to weigh - I think it’s unfair to bring new weighing mechanisms in the 2AR that the 2N could not respond to, but I also have not watched enough LD rounds to know.

• Anything you want me to vote on must be extended into 1/2AR or 2NR, anything else I won't evaluate it and the argument will be dropped.

• No brand new arguments in 2NR and 2AR. Extension of weighing and additional implications of link ins, etc may be evaluated based on the tangency of the starting argument.

• Quality>quantity, dtd>dti, tech>truth, reasonability and counter interp are based on warrants provided.

• Tricks!! No. Depends on my leniency at that point. Also I don’t understand half of them so it’s a wasted effort lol.

• LARP and substance is my strongest form of debating as I understand it the most, just make reasonable arguments and weigh weigh weigh.

• Progressive debate:

• I'm good with generic K's (Cap, set col, imperialism) but exemplify the links and alternatives extremely thoroughly, or else I won’t understand the argument. Identity k's are extremely swag but make sure the thesis and offense are clearly outlined. If you read Baudrillard or any extremely convoluted k that I do not understand, my RFD will send you into a hyperreality so be careful :)

• Phil is something I'm not that great with evaluating, but as long as you extend parts of the syllogism and explain, I will most likely understand it! Kant and Hobbes are what I'm most familiar with. I've heard/read/witnessed some whacky phil, but as long as it makes sense, I can vote on it. (͠≖ ͜ʖ͠≖)

• Theory is great, but don't be abusive with it and call for it only when there is reasonable abuse during the round. I will vote on the T if it is logical and fair!

PF:

Cross apply most of LD but use in context of PF terms

• Default to util calculus unless fwrk is read.

• Quality>quantity (I love super innovative contentions)

• Weighing should be the brunt of your summary - most arguments should become crystalized/set up for final focus

• No substantially new arguments in both

• Spreading and progressive arguments are welcome! Just send a doc. If your opponent cannot understand it, I may or may not. Refer to the LD paradigm for more

• I do not pay attention that much to cross ex: if you’re poking holes or whatever, mention it clearly. Ex: “judge, pls note” or something of that sorts. CX is binding only if you specify it lol. Again, don’t be hostile - crossfire is not that deep.

• I personally believe that grand cross is wasteful of time, but it will most likely depend on the situation (aka: if there are questions to be asked, etc). If both sides don't have any questions - I'm cool with splitting grand into 1:30 of prep for both sides.

Anything else: Just try your best and be confident!

Speech/Interp:

I'm not an avid extemper nor am I an interper - but the events are super cool!

Have fun and be confident in your speaking! Your voice is your best weapon in today's world (sorry cringe)

Main points

• Ask me for time signals before you start. Otherwise, I default to odds down (ie 7 left, 5 left, 3 left, 1 left, grace).

• I don't have any trigger warnings but it’s a good practice to mention any for judges or spectators in the room if your speech contains graphic/sensitive topics.

• Content is as important as presentation (idk how to evaluate and give good feedback on presentation though I know the basics).

• if you forget your speech, take a breath and continue - it happens to anyone; just remember: fake it till you make it! it's about how you recover and not how perfect your speech can be

• I can't reiterate this enough: I am not a speech kid - I like arguing instead of public speaking. I just like statistics and things that quantify arguments. However, I will rank based on how unique your topic is, how well you present it, and how well your overall performance is. Don't change your speech for me just do whatever you think is the best for you!

• I have no idea what speech norms are, but don't be rude in your speech? I know debaters get a lil audacious so please don't be like them :)

• Finally - have fun! do your best. We're all here to learn - especially me! The more passionate you are about your topic, the more I will like your speech.

Interp (specifically)

• In total, I have watched around 15 pieces. Don’t expect me to know how to evaluate the round like other interp judges or lay judges may. I’ll probably rank based on entertainment/emotional appeal/impact of the speech rather than other technicalities. Up to date, I have never judged an interp round, but I have a bunch of friends that I should be learning how to judge from.

• Common note – interp fits are an extreme slay so heads up for compliments!

Extemp -

• Same idea about time signals – ask me for specific ones or else I default to odds down.

• Components that I look for and make critical in the way I rank: Intro (w/ AGD, background, question, and preview ), 3 main points, conclusion (remember to restate your question and recap your points!).

• Include as many citations as you want: I personally use at least 7 as a good measure (intro: 1, 2 per body point) use them wisely, don’t just tell me the Washington Post said that Biden’s approval rating significantly declined and then call it a day - explain it! That’s the point of extemp - give your own analysis and tie it back to your main point.

• I go more content>speaks for novices and I tend to in general - it's just easier for me to evaluate. I know it's a speaking activity and I will rank based on it - but the arguments (and the way they are phrased/explained) are just more compelling and that is how I rank speakers.

• Presentation! Speaker’s triangle is cool! Its basic but super useful - it helps me identify when you're transitioning to another point

• Project! You’re convincing me that your defense/answer to the question you chose is right and reasoning well
  
  

You've made it to the bottom! Thanks for reading; good luck and have fun!

I've done congressional debate for the past three years, I'm extremely experienced in the event and have pretty much competed at every level and tournament you can think of. I have a ton of experience in the debate space. Just remember to be kind and respectful.

Congress

Speech structure:
Honestly whatever you think fits the round the best. As long as it's organized in some way that is understandable to me idrc.

Argumentation:
Know what ur talking about. I will be flowing. I do check sources (don't cap I can usually tell)

Speaking:
Everyone speaks differently. As long as I can hear you and fluency is not an issue, you get the checkmark from me. Be confident, professional, and don't be afraid to show a little personality!

^^^ I will always rank the best speaker and the person I thought did the best from an argumentative perspective. Sometimes those are the same people, sometimes they aren't.

For POs: You start at my three and can only move up to my 2. You can move up or down based on how I think you are running the round. If you make too many mistakes I'm not opposed to giving you 9s. POing is a great and strategic way to break, but make sure you are good at it pls, otherwise it def hurts the round as a whole and can impact others' abilities to give x number of speeches.

PF/LD

Consider me a lay judge.

Speech

Be clear, speaking is more important here, even in Extemp. I'm forgiving to fluency breaks in extemp, less so in prepared events.

Speech Events: I first look for good structure within the speech. I look for attention given to the organization of claims and data. Proper citation of valid source material is essential to promote ethos of the speakers personal perspective. Additionally, smooth presentation of of all sources is a small technical detail I weigh. The tone of a speech should not be one note. There should be variation in style to drive the emotion and level of importance of the material presented.

Interp: I consider a structure where teaser, intro, piece is the standard flow of performance. The introduction must bridge the gap between the teaser and the primary presentation by unveiling the importance and merit of the literature. For me, this is key, even in HI i look for relevance and merit. To me, this is what sets interp apart from acting. This is also an important factor when considering the competitiveness of the selection. I expect the performer to have a deep understanding of the authors purpose and message. Blocking when needed must be creative. I put a heavy emphasis on the small technical details. For example, POI: binder blocking and smooth transitions between pieces in the program. The transitions should melt together, not shift abruptly. HI: popping and character differentiation are important. DI: Character depth and use of space. Duo: Coordination. characterization, and synchronization.

Debate Events: I evaluate each event differently. I tend to gravitate to what I interpret as the

purpose of the debate's intended style when evaluating the round. That is to say, I evaluate the events differently, as they each function differently and have different purposes/objectives.

I am a stickler for standing during speeches and in cross examination. This is the formal and professional part of this activity. Please do not take it for granted. The only time sitting is appropriate is during the grand cross in PF.

Policy: I evaluate all argument types when presented, so long as they are presented effectively.

LD- I lean more traditional, in that framework is an important part of LD. I am open to progressive arguments if they are presented well and properly. The structure of these arguments are important and you must signpost well.

PF: I evaluate more traditionally and put heavy emphasis on professionalism and personal character (i.e. Don’t be mean), especially in crossfire.

WSD: I stick to the governed norms you would see in most judge training sessions. Congressional Debate: I evaluate clash as well as speech structure heavily. I put weight into participation and leadership.

In general for debate, I am not a fan of spreading. It has always been a "thing" in debate. it was a "thing" when I was a student, it is still a "thing" now. Just because some"thing" is popular does not mean it is a good "thing".

If I cannot understand it or catch it, then I cannot flow it. If I cannot flow it, I cannot evaluate it.

Speech-

I am a parent judge. I judge based on who is sounding the best and who’s speech I find most interesting.

Debate-

I am a parent judge.

2nd year debater in pf

make sure to extend your arguements through every speech- if it is dropped in summary and brought back up in final focus I won't consider it.

WEIGH!!!!!

any cards you read need to be implicated.

It's fine if you speak fast, just don't spread

I pay attention to cross- I like some friendly fire, but do not be mean- it will affect your speaker points.

Speaker points start at 27

-Please go slow I can't keep up and I cant flow off docs so please go slow I need time to process and understand the complexities of the round

-I don't flow traditionally I take note of the big picture and who has presented more persuasively

Varsity Interp and Platform Speaking

• Be respectful of everyone!
• Delivery is important! Make sure to be confident (fake it till you make it)!
• PUBLIC SPEAKING: Well structured, shows personality, humors also always a great bonus!
• INTERP: Varied vocal deliver, emotion in both both voice and face, purposeful blocking (I should be able to a have a good idea of what you’re trying to convey), and reacting to your environment and the people your character(s) interact with— not just acting.
• Feel free to ask questions before or after round :)
• AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: Have fun, and make sure to enjoy yourself!

Extemporaneous:

Callsigns

Citing sources

Purposeful gestures and pacing

Audible tone and clear enunciation

Organized structure

LD:

Be Respectful

No Spreading

I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging a round. I would greatly appreciate it if you could talk slowly, reiterate your points, and time yourself. I look at how well you answer questions during cross examination for LD and crossfire for PF as I believe knowledge on the topic is important. Please add me to the email chain at saak0126@gmail.com.

Head Coach for Kempner. LD / Extemp when I was in school, but LD was very different then.

I approach every round as if I know essentially nothing about it, beyond what an average person who has normal levels of world knowledge would know on it. While I probably have researched the topic or know it from working with my students, it is your job as the debater to explain and convince me of your argument.

Be kind and have fun. While debates can get intense, they should never delve into rudeness or unprofessionalism. If your opponent is being rude to you, I've already documented it and will report it accordingly.

Spreading is highly and actively discouraged. Debating should be about logic, argument, and genuine debate. Spreading removes the ability to have an effective engaging back and forth. Jamming 100 cards into a speech and does not provide anything to anyone, nor do rebuttals where the entire time is "opponent missed this card, and this card, and this card" when neither me nor your opponent know that you even said it. You're here to debate and argue for why I should agree with you. If I do not hear it, it will not count in your favor. If you see me not typing (with exception to cross), I'm not flowing/understanding it.

Explain the why. Claims made that don't explain how or why something would happen will be weighed significantly less. Example: If you state that raising taxes will lead to nuclear war, then immediately move on to your next point without having evidence or a direct chain of events that will lead to this impact does not hold any weight at all to me and is just a baseless claim.

I disclose in out rounds, but not in prelims.

SLHS 25
I am the first speaker for SLHS CL. We have gotten 6 lifetime bids (3 golds) and have qualified twice to the TOC. Add me on the email chains: sevenlakescl@gmail.com

tech>truth.

Speed is fine until the wpm is 250+.

I cannot judge theory or K’s. It’ll be a coinflip.

Warranting, collapsing, and weighing is how you get my ballot. I particularly like debates that are more heavy on the comparative weighing.

Houston Memorial 2018 – 2022, WashU 2022-2024

Texas/nat circuit, moderate success

jase1ilas@gmail.com - send speech docs (to everyone in the round)

Did LD PF and CX. Spent most of my time in PF.

Default theory, topicality, K, case. Never really ran Ks. Read Theory/T frequently for a PFer.

Tech > Truth to the point where alot of ballots I hate filling out bc I feel unethical.

Read extensions, weigh, and voters - meta-weighing is how you win my vote on substance.

I default presume aff.

Don't flow cross.

I have high standards for evidence, read evidence ethics even if there is slight abuse. ie: if you have a card, author quals (if relevant), date accessed, publisher, url, date published etc. and your opponent doesn't. If you read evidence ethics I expect you to also read something else. I expect to see that you have cut a whole case at minimum, that meets the standards of evidence that you set.

Easiest ways to win my vote:

• read theory that has actual substance (disclosure, no paraphrasing, evidence ethics), will evaluate friv theory dependent on who your opponent is and how frivolous it is (ask in the round)
• meta weigh
• if you extend well and your opponent doesn't I'm going to vote for you 90% of the time (I will just be like this offense is the only one extended, I'll vote for it). If you extend a turn you have to extend your opponent's link chain if they don't (it doesn't have to be a great extension just good enough)
• signpost

I am a parent judge so please speak slowly and clearly.

I can only judge on the points that I can understand.

I am a traditional judge and go by the flow. I would like to see the consistency through the entire flow during debate rounds.

Please speak clearly, and do not rush! You'd rather get your point through me, not just throw out your points at me and your opponent(s).

Be polite during cross. Personally I read news everyday and I do research the debate topic for each month before I judge. I respect your opinions on each topic, your job is to explain your arguments logically and convince me!

Make sure your evidences are correct and up to date . I care both technics and truths.

Please track your time accurately. I will not track time for you during debate rounds, but I do pay attention to the time you would spend. If you spend more time as what you have said you would take, it is a cheating to me.

You are not required to send me the case doc. But if you prefer to do so,you can send it to my email: liugr@hotmail.com. I will use it during your case construction phase.

I am a parent judge who prefers traditional structures for debate.

To best win my ballot: avoid spreading, provide contextualization for more specific topics, give a clear roadmap, signpost consistently throughout the speech, and thoroughly extend your key arguments to the end. It’d be best if you could go over the main clash points and really prove why your side won.

I will not disclose at the end of the round but will provide my decision post-debate.

I competed in PF at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas on the national circuit for four years. I also dabbled a bit in LD and CX.

TL;DR: I am fine with any strategy. Speed is fine, but be clear. I will not flow off a doc. Conceded arguments are true, but only the parts that are conceded. The best arguments are both strategic from a technical perspective and compatible with the average intuition. The “truth” of an argument informs its technical weight. Arguments that are patently untrue or overly esoteric require more extensive investment in evidence, reasoning, and time. I will not vote on an argument I do not understand. Every speech after constructive must answer those before them. Read cut cards, avoid paraphrasing, and send evidence before speaking. Judge instruction and ballot directive language are paramount.

Please add davidlutx@gmail.com to the chain. Feel free to ask me any questions before or after the round. Let me know if I should save my flow. If anything in this paradigm is confusing, do not hesitate to ask for clarification. Post-round me if my decision is unclear.

Case construction is an underappreciated skill. The constructive should have concretely delineated internal link scenarios, high-quality evidence, and flexible strategic pivots. The burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. Extensions are a yes/no question but can be crucial in establishing ethos, clarity, and warrant comparison. Frontlines should be comparative. Two-word frontlines are generally insufficient, and new frontlines beyond first summary are illegitimate. I appreciate debaters who utilize the language of risk assessment, where all parts of the argument are collectively weighed, not just an impact in a vacuum. Weighing that is not comparative is meaningless. The only speech where I will reject new weighing is the second final focus. 'Try or die' framing can be remarkably convincing if done properly.

As a debater, I did a considerable amount of research on a wide variety of topics and believe that a substantial portion of the activity extends beyond the actual hour-long rounds we have. Accordingly, I probably care more about evidence than the average judge. Extending the warrants and context presented in evidence can be incredibly helpful. Indicts can be effective if done right. I will scrutinize evidence after the round if its clashing interpretations are critical to my decision, but I won't indict evidence for you. I appreciate well-formatted evidence. I also appreciate well-spun evidence, but unethically miscut or wholly power-tagged evidence is distinct from that.

I am more receptive to ‘zero risk’ than the average policy judge but less receptive than the average PF judge. 'Conceded' defense that is 'terminal' is only relevant if it was explained and presented as such. Warrant and evidence comparison is crucial in breaking clash. This also means that I appreciate debaters who prioritize quality over quantity and emphasize key issues by fleshing them out.

I am very good for internal link/impact turns. These should be coupled with long pieces of clearly delineated defense and extensive weighing in the back half. You cannot say death or patriarchy is good.

I am also great for extinction vs structural violence framework debates. In general, arguments that are unapologetically 'big-stick' or 'soft-left' are enjoyable to judge. Defending anything between those two is probably an uphill battle. Debaters who identify and answer the fundamental questions central to the framework debate are more likely to win than those who attempt to nebulously garner offense under both frameworks. Similarly, framing justifications that devolve into "structural violence causes extinction" or the converse creates messy, unresolvable debates that inevitably require intervention. In a similar vein, I think teams should be more willing to actively exclude offense through a 'form-based' rather than a 'content-based' approach.

I am fine for debates surrounding interpretations, norms, and abuse but find many of them to be exceptionally mind-numbing, unwarranted, or both. I strongly prefer debates concerning in-round abuse that occurred as opposed to hand-wavy proclamations of 'establishing better norms'. You do not need to extend dropped paradigm issues in the back half, but I would prefer a succinct reference to them. Frivolous theory is frivolous. Harder presses on reasonability and RANT can be compelling. Substance crowd-out is a nontrivial impact. An RVI refers to winning off of defense, not offense. I am incredibly receptive to voting on 'offensive counter-interpretations'.

I am familiar with most critical literature bases that are commonly read in PF. This includes critiques surrounding capitalism, biopolitics (Foucault, Agamben), security, international relations, settler colonialism, disability pessimism (Mollow), orientalism, psychoanalysis, transhumanism, fiat, and death. You are not restricted to these, but I will not vote on an argument I cannot coherently explain in my RFD. In general, you should attempt to present these arguments in an accessible, digestible manner. This means fewer buzzwords, more moderate speeds, and minimal backfile-botting.

Debaters should demonstrate a committed understanding of core literature, historical examples, and actor analysis. This event has yet to develop any semblance of norms for critical arguments, so I will be impressed by debaters who truly engage with the central claims of the critique, instead of relying on the many pedantic theoretical objections that proliferated when I debated. Regardless, you should be reading from cut cards and disclosing when reading these arguments.

That being said, the best critiques criticize the underlying commitments and assumptions of the opposing side and utilize such criticism to either moot opposing offense, compare impacts, or forward alternative advocacy. Kritiks that tunnel vision on a single line or some unwritten, circuitous insinuation of the affirmative lack both persuasive value and offense. I believe critiques are a great tool to foster engagement in an honest analysis of this activity in relation to both its competitive nature and many pedagogical termini. In a similar vein, PF needs more "should the affirmative get to weigh the case?" debates. Sweeping, categorical theorizations of international relations, identity, ontology, language, etc. require a tremendous level of warranting that is difficult in a format where the final speeches are two minutes long.

I am indifferent to the many contrived controversies concerning alternatives in PF. The moral panic surrounding rejection alternatives has never made sense to me, especially since much of the literature surrounding said alternatives uses the precise rhetoric of epistemic rejection. However, such advocacies should probably be coupled with a concrete framework-esque push that explicitly answers the big-stick nature of many affirmatives. Absent a clear statement otherwise, alternatives are unconditional. PF is the wrong place for floating PIKs, but I am sympathetic to other forms of 'K tricks' such as 'value to life' and 'extinction inevitable' if explicitly implicated when presented. Whether or not a critique should include an alternative should largely depend on your willingness to defend said alternative, the literature being cited, and the nature of the alternative's material actions (or lack thereof).

Finally, I am not the best judge for strategies that entirely deviate from the topic, engage in a wholesale rejection of debate, and/or primarily garner offense from the inclusion of a 'performance'. I do not have any personal distaste for such arguments but find many of the procedural and analytical objections against these difficult to overcome. Similar thoughts apply to advocacies that are predicated on abstractions of 'discourse' or unfalsifiable appeals to 'empathy'. I am incredibly uncomfortable voting on arguments that concern out-of-round interpersonal conflicts that could be better resolved elsewhere.

You should save your 'tricks' - single sentences that operate independently of the topic, exist in a logical vacuum, and largely depend on concession to become viable - for the other Seven Lakes judges that are probably in the pool (see the last paragraph).

Speaker points are a combination of case construction, strategy, clarity, evidence quality, efficiency, timeliness, and argument selection. You should be kind to your partner, opponents, and judge. Treat the activity and those who partake in it with respect and decency.

For any questions left unanswered by this paradigm: I learned how to debate with and from Vishal Surya, Arnav Mehta, Jason Zhao, Daniel Guo, Bryce Piotrowski, Bryce Sheffield, Tuyen Le, and Nine Abad. I share many of their opinions.

This is my second year volunteering as a parent judge and I am humbled by your talents, your dedication, and your hard work in preparing for every tournament.

Debate: - Please speak a little slower than the radio announcer reading the disclaimer of an ad. I like being able to follow your contentions while I make notes for reference as it helps me frame and judge your arguments. - I expect every contention to have well-researched and data-supported evidence. I try to stay abreast of current events and issues and will verify your points if necessary. Unsupported or erroneous arguments do not work well for me. - Please ensure that you fully understand all technical terms and terminology you use in your speech. Please do not reference terms or points you cannot explain during cross. - I also expect you to pay attention to your opponent's arguments and ask intelligent and relevant questions during cross. I also would like you to treat your opponents with respect. Being too offensive or defensive towards your opponents during cross will be counted negatively.

Speech:

Extemp/Info/Oratory: - I listen to the news daily and am quite up-to-date with current events. Please make sure your arguments for your topic and sound and well-researched. I like statistics but only ones that you can source and support. - Be passionate and persuasive on your topic - educate me and win my vote for your argument. HI/DI/Prose/Poetry/POI/Duo/Duet - I welcome and embrace every topic you choose for your speech as they all tend to be subjects that are dear to you. Since you will have a deep emotional connection to your topic, I would like you to share that with me - be dramatic, be emotional, be bold. - I like speeches that are performed with every part of your body - voice variation, facial expression, body movement, dynamics, sound effects, and a lot of emotion. I want to be immersed in your world, your passion, your story. Don't read me a story, tell me a story. Your speech should educate me, make me laugh, make me cry, or make me angry. - I enjoy seeing your creativity and firmly believe that it is the key element to a passionate and moving speech. - I am neutral to trigger warnings. I appreciate that some topics contain sensitive content but I will not be offended if you don't tell me ahead of time.

WAZZZAAAAAAAPPPPPPPP!

I'm John Lutterman, a first year out from Seven Lakes High School.

Please add me to the email chain

johntlutterman26@gmail.com

For PF

Tech>>>truth

I'll evaluate stuff that stretches the truth, but the further out it goes, the lower my burden of response is, but run what you want lolol.

Strong links win the round, but weighing tells me which link to prefer.

Meta weighing is also alpha (weighing the weighing mechanisms, like probability>magnitude)

(Please weigh comparatively PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE)

2nd rebuttal has to frontline

I have no preference for speed - speak how you feel comfortable. However, please try not to go to policy/LD spreading speed, because I want to be able to do your arguments service and catch them all. If you do end up going a lil' fast, then I'll say "clear." You'll get two of those. Additionally, please slow down on tags and authors, and include some space between your cards so it all doesn't meld together. Coherency>>>>>>>

Also, please signpost!!!!

Don’t paraphrase plsssss

For Theory

I am open to theory, however, theory can get convoluted rather quickly, so if you do go for it, make both our jobs easier and don't let it get out of hand.

I will not outright reject frivolous theory, however, the more ridiculous it is the lower my burden for response is. Friv is probably not good for the greater good of debate, but if both teams are getting silly, I'm here for silly. But don't use it to showboat against other teams - especially those who may not have a full grasp of theory yet. Examples include but aren't limited to: shoes, formal clothing, hairnets (sorry guys), Sitting down (@tharoon), technology bad, evidence bad, and author quals. Basically anything that doesn't really have an in-round abuse.

Also, I'd rather have a good debate about the reasons for why your norm should be preferred rather than the "blip-off" many teams like to have. Like, you shouldn't lose the entire round because you didn't say the words "counter" and "interp" in your summary but the ideas were present in every other speech.

When it comes to Competing interps vs reasonability, I'll side with the team that gives me the best warrants to prefer.

when it comes to RVI's I'll prefer the team who gives me warrants on which side to prefer. Also, if you're on the theory-receiving team and lose that you get RVI's, that doesn't cost you the round, but you can't win the ballot by proving their shell false.

I like clever "we meet's," but my burden for response is rather low for the really silly ones.

For Kritikal positions

I understand how a K works, and how to evaluate it, but I didn’t encounter or read too many during my time competing. I’m not the most experienced with K’s, but all should be well, but I just want to be able to give you proper feedback.

For phil

I'm pretty unfamiliar with these kinds of arguments, but if you warrant it well I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability.

For Big Questions

I'm very receptive to the "invisible dancing leprechaun" argument, and countdowns. Please refrain from using countdowns in PF, for the PF community hasn't yet embraced the "countdown technique." Ask Tyler Crivella or Bryce Piotrowski for clarification. Please.

Have fun, enjoy yourselves, and learn something new. I hope this was all helpful.

Peace out,

John Lutterman

Hello, my name is Sam.

I currently go to school at UT Austin. I did speech and debate for four years at the high school level. I mainly did Lincoln Douglas, being a two-time qualifier for TFA state and also a UIL state qualifier for 6A LD debate. I also did public forum and extemporaneous speaking.

Paradigm for LD

I mainly did traditional debate when I was active so that is what I am most familiar with. I'm not opposed to policy arguments or progressive elements in LD; feel free to run them! I ask that you not run tricks.

I have a hard time keeping up with spreading but feel free to do so if that is what you and your opponent both want to do. If you do spread, try to be very clear when reading taglines and the author for a card.

Parent judge. Don't run any crazy arguments in debate unless you know how to back them up. For speech, I go mainly off of speaking ability, but I will be listening to your content too.

Hello, my name is Falak Malik. My son participates in PF Debate so I understand the format of speeches and times. Please keep track of all times. I cannot understand any speech over 200WPM. Please keep all speeches coherent and clear, you are not as clear as you think online. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE SIGN POST AND GIVE ROAD MAPS BEFORE SPEECHES AFTER CONSTRUCTIVE!!! I am a lay judge after all. You can control crossfires with respect, otherwise disrespect = speaker points. I am okay with open crossfires as long as they do not become abusive and that one partner does not answer / give questions every cross. PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY KRITIKS OR THEORY AND KEEP IT FLAY AT MOST. I understand most arguments as long as the link chain is clear and not messy (i.e. do not link recession with nuclear war and claim Starr 15 is the best card to exist)

I do WSD but have a lot of experience in all the other debate events.

Not a huge fan of spreading but if you are going to AT LEAST make your key arguments clear to me.

I prefer when people can keep their own time but if I need to do time signals my go-to is 3 down fist at grace for speech events and then for debate events, I give 15 seconds before I ask you to wrap it up.

I do not tolerate people giggling at their opponents while spectating however if you make banter in the round that's fine just be respectful.

Please do not scream at me!! I promise my ears work fine. And no excessive knocking on tables and clapping during a speech, it's unnecessary.

Make the round easy for me, tell me why to vote for you instead of letting me decide between you and your opp.

I'll give critiques after the round if you ask but that does not mean I'll disclose the round.

parent judge for st agnes MV (pf) and st agnes EM (ld)

speech + congress just do normal stuff lol - lay events should b for lay judges :D

debate - ld + pf

• adapt your case how you would w/ a lay judge
• cross is flowed :)
• warrant EVERYTHING!!! most people don't know why student loans or smth --> nuke war (it doesn't lol) but point is like debate should b abt explaining so ur judge should like... be able to explain ur arg
• when u tell me u ow tell me why u ow - nobody gets what u mean when u say "i ow on magnitude" w.o saying WHY
• don't be evil + run theory or a K or spread or anything like that - ur setting urself up for failure
• oh and speaks start at 28

have fun!!!! ???? it's not that deep so don't treat it like it is!!!!!!!

(written by debate daughter!!! if i've hit u tell my mom thats lowk so funny)

email: rayaanmeghani13@gmail.com

PF

Tech >>> truth

For evidence comparisons: If you can't tell me why a postdate matters then it's not a response I'm evaluating. Do actual comparisons that tell me what makes your evidence better than theirs.

Prog: No theory except for Disclosure and paraphrasing or actual in-round abuse. Ks are cool but keep it low-lit like cap and stuff

Speed: Spreading is fine, be really clear, send doc.

Preferences: Weighing from 2nd rebuttal, responses shouldn't be blippy

Speaks: I'll give high speaks but good strategy and pretty speaking helps with it

Signpost!!!

Im a lay judge speak slow and give good argumentation.

I need docs to understand and articulate arguments send them to shail21_21@yahoo.com

Thanks and I hope for a good debate!

Im Andres i'm a junior at Seven Lakes. 2x TFA qualifier, 1x TOC quallifier, PFBC Student Andrescasas0705@gmail.com the email chain.send speech docs with all cut cards before speech

tech > truth, The first thing i evaluate in the debate is if you are winning the link level debate because if you don't win your argument then you don't win the weighing, if both teams are winning their arguments i then go to the weighing, if there is no weighing i default to the best extended and or biggest arg of the round.

don't be disrespectful

frontline in 2nd rebuttal, defense isn't sticky.

extend uniqueness, link, and impact. - This goes for turns as well, especially if your opponents dont extend their uq and imp for you.

go for less and explain what you go for better.

time ur own prep and speeches

u can go fast if u want, however (Quality > Quantity)

Arguments made in cross are not binding

Manage your own time i won't be timing you guys

progressive Args

I can evaluate but am not fully familiar and will not fully enjoy the round unless explained REALLLYYY well

K's im familair with are Cap, Col, Orientalism, and Fem.

speaks

i'll start at a 28.5 and go up or down based on strategy, politeness, and presentation. (may help to be funny)

overall, have fun! i'll disclose and give feedback, feel free to ask questions about my rfd

CONFIDENCE is KEY!!!

Tips and advice:

• Make things interesting!
• Be loud and clear.
• Manage your time.
• If you forget something make it up and say it with CONFIDENCE!
• BE NICE and RESPECTFUL of others' opinions.

YOU GOT THIS!!

Lay judge, it’s my first time judging debate. Speak slowly and clearly; do not spread. I don't want to be bored, so keep me entertained. Tech > truth. Please signpost.

"novice judge" and that you prefer not to "spread"

I have competed in congress my self, but I am familiar with what is classified as a strong argument in other events as well.

In Debate, I look for:

-tone variation (only congress)

-refutation/clashing with other side or other debators (addressing their concerns, explaining why your side is the better world and wins the debate especially if you give a late round)

-I like unique arguments if you are able to stand your ground and explain how that argument applies well to the debate

-confidence even if you are dealt a bad set of cards or have to argue for a hard to argue for side

-participation when possible (if you’re in congress, I expect you to ask a good amount of questions when possible unless you are forced to write a late round)

-strong arguments or strong enthusiasm in your argument

-credible and non biased sources (no Wikipedia or made up sources of course)

-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)

In Speech events, I look for:

-tone variation/emotion

-consistency in your performance

-passion

-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)

-for duo/duet, a strong cooperation and synchronization between both actors

CX PARADIGM:

DO NOT SPREAD, I am a parent judge, if you spread I will not flow. It is as simple as that. If I cannot follow your case due to you spreading, I will set down my pencil.

I am a lay judge as my son tells me. I have practical knowledge on the topic, but make things clear to me before the debate.

I will judge the round primarily based on the rebuttal and the team work of each side.

Establish Clash within the round early in the Debate.

I will judge the round as I see fit, be respectful to your opponents, THIS IS STATE.

Hello, I am a new Parent Judge for PF who understands, but is definitely not an expert at Debate. Here are my preferences:

Impact is important to me. Clear and reasonable arguments with good support will bear more weight. I will judge on clarity and argument presentation.

Being a new judge, I might not understand the nuances of PF. Please do not present Theory or expect me to vote off a Shell during my early judging rounds.

Speed is good. I will interrupt only if I think you're going too fast. If I interrupt, please slow down a bit afterwards.

I'm a note taker so I might not be looking at the speakers but I am listening and writing as you speak.

Nicky Mukerji

Please don't spread. I won't be able to keep up

I will judge you on how well you speak

I won't judge based on theories, K's, etc.

I am the head Speech and Debate coach at Awty International, and have been in the debate scene for over 8 years now, mostly doing CX or parli.

For Congress, IEs, and PF:

I did extemp all four years of high school, and congress occasionally. I judge primarily based on speaking style, but I give bonus points for well-articulated analysis that challenges my baseline knowledge of the topic. I don't like the over-enthusiastic style they're teaching at camps, and look down upon walking across the room to get to your other point. Take two or three steps, don't make me turn my head. Other than that, go wild.

If you scream at any point, and the building isn't on fire or there isn't a legitimate medical emergency happening, I'm giving you last in the room. I don't care how critical it is for your piece, if you scream, I'm putting in earbuds and not listening to the rest of the performance. I don't need you triggering my sensitivities.

Special Note for debates: I have ADHD. If you're spreading analytics that isn't off a flow or your noggin, I need a word for word doc. If I can't see what you're reading at 250+ wpm, I'm not going to catch it, and you're going to whine when you get the L because I dropped a double bind or something. If it's off the flow or extemped, you need to go 70% of your regular speed.

For debate at local non-bid prelims:

I want an educational round over a competitive round. If you spread the other team out of the room, are intentionally vague and unwilling to explain your vocab, or are generally rude and dismissive, especially against a novice team, I'm giving you an L and giving you the minimum number of speaks. My view of debate is as an educational activity first and competitive second. Local tournaments are to foster critical thinking skills and create more nuanced, educated high schoolers. Want to be uber-competitive? Cool. That's fine. Go to bid tournaments or show me that you are capable of adapting to those who either dont have the experience or opportunities you do.

For TOC bid tournaments and local non-bid outrounds:

I'm truth over tech. Run whatever you want, but be forewarned. I consider myself a policy maker first. I have a degree in PoliSci with a minor in International Studies. If you're doing analysis that draws upon faulty IR theory, I'm probably not going to vote for it. However! If you can show me you know some semblance of IR theory or can articulate to me why your scenario is real-world and/or more real-world than the opp, I tend to be far more receptive.

Reasonability is a sufficient answer on T for me given the arg makes sense. If it's late into a topic and someone reads T on a camp aff or something obvious, I'm much more receptive to reasonability. I'm also a strong believer in RVIs. Topicality/Theory is you telling me the other team broke the norms of debate. You better make sure that violation is real and isn't just a throw away strat.

Don't run disclosure on small schools. I come from a debate team that had, at most throughout all 4 years, 15 members. 4 of us did debate. It's not fun going against armies of card cutters who try and force you to divulge your only advantage. I'm still iffy on disclosure in general, and find theory debates often boil down to my own personal biases. Do with that what you will.

Here are args that I get lost on, find difficult to flow, or feel unsure about how to vote on:

theory

one-off framework (I need a doc with all your impacts and analyt. If I dont have it, I can guarantee you I won't be writing them down.)

Any kind of phil

K-Affs whose only real spill-up is a singular card that says your unique identity k-aff is key to policy making.

High-level afro-____ kritiks

Kritiks I read in HS:

Queer illegibility

Security

Cap

Fem Materialism

Disability

I have yet to vote on a K-aff this year in LD or CX. I'm simply unconvinced that running non-topical k-affs is generally good for debate.

I prefer probability over timeframe and magnitude. I prefer structural violence over extinction, but will vote for extinction if warranted and weighed properly.

Lay parent judge.

For interp and speech events, speaking is most important.

For debate, content outweighs speaking

She/her pronouns

I'm a lay judge with a good knowledge of various debate formats including (PF, LD, Congress, e.t.c.,)

I don't mind speakers using jargon, but it must be moderate since the aim of communication will be defeated otherwise.

I prefer that speakers prioritize clarity over speed so that I can be convenient judging cross-culture debaters.

Please, do well to add me to your email chain via oyedokunolamide77@gmail.com

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

William P. Clements High School (Sugar Land, TX) 2006-2007 - Student
William B. Travis High School (Richmond, TX) 2008-2010 - Captain
Trinity University (San Antonio, TX) 2010-2012 - Student
Legacy of Educational Excellence (LEE) High School (San Antonio, TX) 2011-2012 - Assistant Coach
Texas State University (San Marcos, TX) 2013-2015 - Student/Coach
Westwood High School (Austin, TX) Spring 2016 - Consultant
George Ranch High School (Richmond, TX) Spring 2019 - Assistant Coach
Challenge Early College High School (Houston, TX) 2019-2020 - Interim Coach
Westbury High School (Houston, TX) 2021-2023 - Assistant Director/Coach
Lamar High School (Houston, TX) 2024-Present - Interim Head Coach
I list these because I think institutional affiliations inevitably inform pedagogical perspectives. I make an effort learn from every coach, teammate, and student I've ever been in association with.

Speaks range from 26-30, I'll only go further down if you're really unclear.

Debate is supposed to start off Tabula Rasa, so substantiate your a priori arguments and let them clash if they can. I'm not going to tell you how to debate and how to approach getting my ballot, because you should know how to win if you bothered looking this up. Do what you're comfortable doing. Go for winning arguments and be tactical with your ballot/flow strategy. I don't count flash for prep. Both sides generally should seek to engage in the discourse of the debate in front of them, not be overtly focused on reading prewritten extensions.

Speed - If it's not understandable, I'll yell clear. Otherwise, go as fast as you want (for L/D and C-X).

Theory - use it in accordance to the event. I won't mix L/D with C-X theory, etc. and as a result will invalidate the shell itself on the ballot unless you substantiate it with the standing of the current debate. I will take theory arguments substantiated on debate format, so be weary of being something the debate isn't meant for.

Kritiks - Make sure your link story is somewhat sound or you'll be disappointed with my RFD and what I gave your opponent the benefit of the doubt for. Have an alternative that is not just a default position and allows your opponent to interact with the discourse of the kritik. I won't assume any given ground, so unwarranted claims only hurt your own link-chain and its chances of getting upped.

Non-Round Voting Issues - I instruct my students to use self-created cards targeting invitational debaters, so I will only wash your argument if you fluff it up and attempt to run a nonsensical persuasive position when you know you can't actually win the argument. I can also never be repped out to look the other way. If you don't do your work in the round, I'll vote you down now matter what school you come from or how much winning has been a given for you. That being said, who your coach is or what school you come from has no impact on my ballot, so never think you've won my ballot based on the pairing.

Been asked to clarify what things are in my realm of nonsensical persuasive positions: disclosure, speed, tricks. You set the norms of this community by debating the way you want to debate, not consuming your speech time saying how you want to debate; there's a difference between this and substantive metadebate. Having said that, I don't care for the trend to willfully lie to your judge about ethical reality unless your framing allows for it just for me to draw a blippy arrow on the flow, so you could say I'm truth over tech because I actually want to see debate happen and not you reading the same thing no matter what the topic is without finding how you link to any of the ground.

L/D
The framework debate is a cop-out for most judges; I refuse to be one of those judges, but at the very least run a standard of some sort. If you win the impact analysis as a whole, you've won the debate...it's that simple. That being said, your storyline needs to stay consistent to follow your big picture or I'm not gonna buy what's inconsistent to your on-case. You can win the line-by-line, but it won't make any sense if you don't stick to your side's burdens and presumptions. Aff, Burden of Proof; Neg, Burden of Rejoined Clash; and both sides have a discourse burden. I presume the other way when these burdens aren't upheld/fulfilled, no matter how the debate boils down even in technical terms and theory nor will I care how many voters you decide to put out there. I spent a majority of my high school career in this format, so I want things done the right way regardless of if you're traditional or progressive; I, myself, self-identified as neotraditional. I dread definition debates, please don't make it one.

C-X
I will accept almost anything except blatant abuse. Fulfill your inherent burdens. Make an attempt to set up stock issues properly; it's fine if you don't, just make sure it's implied somewhere in the constructive that you have each covered in the constructive in some manner. Have a cogent storyline on-case that keeps to consistent stance or it's going to be difficult to know what to vote off of, most of your disads will link against the on-case anyways so it's not a huge concern. It's called Cross-Examination Debate, Cross-Examination is binding including flex prep. It helps to tell me how you want things weighed and what you think is important; there's so much content to evaluate and it makes the decision easier if I knew where your direction was going. Use your impact calculus and don't make it a line-by-line wash, the debate just gets dull and boring.

PF
This was the very first format that started me on my debate journey way back in 2006, so my paradigm feels oddly traditional to most competitors. Keep your debate stuff from other formats out of it; call crossfire by its name or just say cross, it's not cross-examination. Both sides have the same burdens. No Kritiks, No Plans, public forum is not the place for progressive style; I will not accept open crosses or flex prep, I will down you for spreading. I don't want to hear a definition/T debate; if your opponent is abusing framer's intent, call them out on it and substantiate it devoid of jargon so you can make it a ballot issue. Solvency deficits don't exist in the debate, you're fishing for terminal defense if you're making a solvency argument. I prefer Logical Analysis/Reasoning over cards because I want you to make your own argument, not someone else's. If you favor line-by-line too greatly, you will be disappointed with my ballot. Crossfire activity/decorum/momentum is my most common ballot tiebreaker. Funnel your arguments down as the debate goes into later stages. Be civil but entertaining and have fun. Just stick to what Public Forum Debate was originally supposed to be and you've fit my paradigm.

Congress
My rankings typically go: speech quality first, chamber command/involvement/knowledge second, C-X frequency/quality third. These do become more fluid when decorum gets messed with too much. The higher quality the room, the lower the PO will usually rank: POs have a relatively easy time getting through my prelim chambers if they know what they're doing but a much more difficult time not straddling the break line after. In speech quality, I look at content, fluency, structure all equally. I'm a relatively lax scorer or parliamentarian, but I value inclusivity in the chamber above gamifying whomever is in the chamber; if I sense favoritism of any kind, along school lines or not, my ballots WILL reflect how egregious it was: as much as you feel like you've gotten away with it in front of other judges, you won't with me.

WS
My love for this activity wasn't cultivated through this event, but this event, as well as other parliamentary formats, were by far what I was best at on the college level. As such, I have lost count of how many times I've been in your position as well as chaired rounds. I have personally represented the United States on a handful of occasions in this format, so I actively evaluate what I want to see from American debaters skill-set-wise to give us the best opportunity to win on international stages. This format is THE definitive way to debate outside of the United States, so I expect your rhetorical representation of the American perspective to be legitimately credible and well-founded if you were to debate anywhere else in the world. As such, you should check any communication mannerisms that convey ego at the door: this is format forces us Americans to take on rhetorical positions of humility, not brashness.
I will flow just as intensely as I do for any other debate, but I'm actively looking at the line-by-line to evaluate the least of any debate. Even though I lean towards the big picture in every style, I'm a tab judge through-and-through, even in this style. Your strategy score is determined by the skill in which you apply your content and how it's tactically used on your side of the aisle. The comprehensibility of the prop model is something I evaluate using a common sense / eyeball rule: don't come in with a full-blown policy implementation and expect that to make sense when this debate interrogates more of the why of a social action than the what or how.
I like teamwork and a consistent storyline down the bench. Generally speaking, you should enter the debate with conversational yet intellectually genuine rhetoric and implement strategy in a way the average academic could understand (avoid jargon in favor of adding more backing to a warrant). Cross-Application is great because the debate turns into mush without reaching across the table for resolutional dispositon; try to avoid introducing New Matter during 3rd speaker speeches unless it has a direct application to an argument across the aisle. I will enforce Rules of Order and will let you know if I feel you missed a trigger warning / did anything problematic during round. Final/reply speeches should aim for resolutionmore than voting issues.

***Rambling on the state of high school WSD***

There is something fundamentally broken about the way our conceptions of this event get warped into an American-schools debate by forcing a reward for taking such hard-lined positions to delineate offense that loses all semblance, meaning, and nuance in a lot of debate spaces making honest attempts at implementing post-resolutional analysis at a high level. Taking something at its highest ground has lost most meaning because it's normalized to teach students to utilize the phrase in the space without real application. In my view, it's to the extent most individuals born last century have fundamentally flawed judging habits they default to if their intercultural competency hinges on simplistic guidelines like "you can't be as America-focused" or "you have to explain to me why X ontological harm exists" (when said harm is intuitive to the motion). These types of binaries are what's turning this format into something disgusting and the reason why the international debate community jests us for our interpretation of how to do this style of debate. With all that in mind, I make a concerted effort to not be an old-head and meet you on the level you want frame your ground in, because mimicry into emulating majoritarian styles of debate is why this format has failed to catch on stateside until now to begin with [since it tends to be complicit towards an insidious sort of cultural stigmatization]. The subjectivity of this event should be guided through rhetoric, not mincing default evaluative tools from other formats. I scarcely see any evaluators whose background stays in other events actually get this right. My recognition and criticism of this factor ought to secure I try not to make those mistakes, but if you come from a program that encourages the race-to-the-bottom methodology which functionally values novelty on an intrinsic level as the modus operandi, I'll flow things the way you want me to but I'm not going to be happy about it. Predictability serves zero good for the debate if you're dancing around the spirit of the motion, but that's exactly how degenerative (as opposed to restorative) pedagogical perspectives on this debate manifest themselves which, sadly, is becoming the norm. I wasn't actually able to contextualize this take until I started to see my own students' ballots with written feedback containing coded language for political bias or xenophobia.

***rambling over***

Plats/Speaking
Speech cohesion is a huge thing that can push you over the top, floating attention-getting devices make your approach feel canned or ill-composed. I'm a stickler for structure and look heavily at time management. I hover around 7-11 sources as my ideal in most events. These events are about balancing on a tightrope between content density and entertainment value, your speech shouldn't have to tradeoff between the two if you put proper care into it.

Interp/Performance
Blocking & Spacing are the most objective measure for how refined your piece is, so I evaluate the choices you made with the piece moreso than the content you chose. There is a certain level of gesturing and facial control that can push you over the top, but those are minor details compared to how you're creating tone/mood with what you cut and the way you're delivering lines. Character shifts should be apparent but not jarring to how you've presented yourself. Don't let your theming emphasis be unclear to make a scene with more gravity hit harder, it feels really cheap.

You're supposed to debate because you enjoy it, keep that in mind and have some level sportsmanship.

Updated 04/28/2024

Parent Judge

pittmanphoenixdeb8@gmail.com

Described by Isaac Chao as a "Gamesman" and apparently "very underestimated" by Eric Schwerdtfeger at Strake

My Judge Stats from Nelson Okunlola's script in like 2022: "Out of 202 rounds, you voted AFF 48.02% of the time and NEG 51.98% of the time. Out of being on 48 panels, you sat 6.25% of the time (3 total) (solid imo)"

Lindale '21 U of Houston '25

Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible

he/him/his

Quick Prefs:

Phil - 1/2

Theory - 2/3

Policy - 1

Tricks - Please just read policy, I'll evaluate it I guess but please don't make me ;(

K - 3

Paradigm Summary: I'm a third year out who's taught at TDC a couple of times, coached every type of student under the sun from a security K fiend to an extinction good lover to a policy head to a hyper technical theory gamesman to nerdy phil debaters and have judged more rounds than I can count. I can judge all styles of debate but fair warning I haven't judged actively in about a year so I am rusty.

History:

I am a junior at UH - I coached for DebateUS! in my freshmen year of college and taught at DebateDrills, TDC, and HUDL in the summer between freshmen and sophomore year of college. During sophomore year I slowly phased out of debate and I judged less often only coaching McNeil at a few tournaments. My only connection to debate now is helping out TDC in backend work.

I evaluate the debate through the easiest ballot route and absolutely adore judge instruction - please make your strategy crystal clear and write my RFD for me. The easiest way to get a 30 in front of me is to have the best strategy and make the round as clear as possible.

Phil

- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read

- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer

- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews to make them resolvable

- General Principle means nothing, just answer the counterplans

- default epistemic confidence

Kritiks

- I can evaluate K debates but I'm probably a mediocre judge for it - there are better judges than me at this and there are worse

- Specificity is always better - please don't read generic state/fiat/util/etc links

- Please stop being rude as part of your performance (e.g not answering questions for queer opacity or acting strange as part of baudrillard)

- Do not read nonblack afropess in front of me. I am not afraid to give you an L0 after the 1NC.

- Flex your knowledge! Pull out those historical examples, K debaters are at their best when they can really prove they've done their homework.

Policy Debate/"LARP"

- I've really grown to love policy debate and I think it's probably close to my favorite style. I've judged the best policy debaters in the last few years and really, really appreciate very in-depth topic knowledge.

- Weighing, weighing and more weighing

- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns

- Please do more case debate. I repeat, please do more case debate. No such thing as too much time on case - I mean that. The best 1NC, 99% of the time, is 0 off case.

- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies

T/Theory

- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)

- I think RVIs get a bad wrap - they can be very useful to deter bad theory (e.g an RVI against shoe theory)

- Will evaluate all theory but my bar for responses to non-argument related theory (e.g must wear a santa hat theory) is much, much lower than my bar for responses to argument related frivolous theory (spec status, afc, etc)

- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis

T-Framework v K Affs

- Debate bad affs that don't offer some microcosm or "solution" are silly

- 1AR probably needs a counter interp/what debate looks like in the aff's world

- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense (unless specific to the aff, then maybe but still probably not)

- It's not enough to just say "SSD solves" you should explain why and how that's specific to the aff

- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"

Tricks

- If you don't have too, please don't.

Speaks

Good strategy -if you have a perfect strategy, you'll get perfect speaks.

Make me laugh- I've probably been judging a thousand rounds that day and could use entertaining rounds just have fun with it and don't take debate too seriously

I try to keep a 28.5 average but my friends make fun of me for being a speaks fairy or being too volatile with speaks

Just have a good time - we all do debate because we think it's fun so have fun with it and make sure your opponent is having a good time as well. If you're being kind to your opponent and we're all having a good time, it will be shown on the ballot.

You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that.

My favorite debates that I've judged so far:

JWen v Max Perin @ Emory Quarters 2022

Daniel Xu v Miller Roberts @ TFA Prelims 2022 (Only ever double 30)

JWen v Anshul Reddy @ King RR 2022

I am a parent judge.

Debaters:

Please speak slowly and be respectful during the round. I am not the best at taking notes. i prefer you to time yourselves, but I will be keeping time as well.

Please do not use debate terms, please remember to signpost and tell me what side of the flow you are on. Please remember to tell me why you won, I will not do the work for you.

Please do not run any K's, counter plans, theory, etc. I will not flow this and I will not understand.

Have fun and good luck!

I value clear and concise communication. If your arguments are difficult to follow or if you're spreading too quickly, it may affect your speaker points.

Please ensure that your case and responses are well-organized. A logical and structured presentation will make it easier for me to evaluate your arguments.

I appreciate well-reasoned arguments supported by credible evidence.

Quality over quantity: I prefer a few strong arguments with robust evidence over a multitude of weak points.

Treat your opponents with respect, and avoid any disrespectful behavior or language. I appreciate debaters who engage in a spirited but collegial exchange of ideas.

Hi, I am a parent judge.

Keep debates grounded. Presentation is REALLY important to me. Explain things in layman terms.

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

This is a debate event, where you speak. Your speech and rhetoric must be at the forefront of your competition.

"There are no new waves, only the sea" - Claude Chabrol

Your arguments must be concise and CLEAR. These are not practice rounds. Every round is a test that you face against yourself before you even begin responding to your opponents claims. Do you understand your arguments?

I will flow the round, but I will not flow for you, as in I will not make extensions unless stated, and I will not place arguments on the flow, you must tell me where to apply them.

SPEED: I can generally follow along as long as things are clear, but on a 1/10 scale, I'm at like a 5.

I am a policy maker at heart, I like to evaluate the arguments you make and then from there, I will look at your metrics. So please define your metrics for winning the round and tell me why your arguments are more substantial.Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

On the speech side: I want to see speeches that give a thesis and tell me what's happening in the larger topic area. Idc about sources as much as I care about logical arguments.

On the IE side: technique, efficiency of physical movements and blocking are important. Tone, volume, and timber are important things that your voice has to use to make me feel your performance.

Hi! My name is Vanessa Riley.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I'm fairly new at judging, and I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

For debate rounds, I vote for whoever has the better argument in the round.

Parent Judge

Congress:

Congress isn't entirely one genre of speech and debate it's a culmination of just about every style. I don't lean toward favoring a lay debater or a flow debater. In this event, you're just trying to convince the judge to rank you whatever means you go about doing that is 100% up to you. However, if you're able to balance both the flow and lay appeal you're going to rank higher in my ballots than someone who's just good at one or the other.

For PO's: Run the round as smoothly and quickly as possible. I'll grade you on how well you can keep the round on track and avoid disruptions. The more the parli has to intervene(within reason, I won't fault you for asking for the specific rules of the tournament) the lower I'll rank you.

Local/TX Circuit: Please Clash

LD: I don’t have a preference on which style of LD you choose to do. Whether it’s modern or classic is fully up to you I will grade each style equally.

PF: I find PF strategy really interesting I’m more of a flow judge but I can ealso be influenced by the lay although not as strongly.

Feel free to call me Stacey, I'm a current public forum debater for Bellaire.
Email: ashih2008@gmail.com (questions, add to email chains, etc.)

General:
Speech and debate can be very stressful, so go as fast as you want and run whatever arguments you feel comfortable with. That being said, if you're going to spread, please send docs. I’m also familiar with most debate jargon, but not so much with progressive arguments. If you’re going to run theory/Ks/obscure arguments, pleaseerr on the side of oversimplification. Quality > quantity and explain each argument with claim, warrant, impact.

Tech .......>........................ Truth

Flow ..........>..................... Lay

Pre-flow before the round. (will dock 0.2 speaks if we don't start on time bc of that). I'm pretty generous with speaks otherwise -- range from 27.5 to 30 unless you do something unacceptable.

Be respectful and make strategic choices.

PF:
- Weighing: Don't just say "We outweigh on probability, etc." Compare impacts/links and explain why it's important.
- Cut cards > paraphrasing
- Analytics with very well-warranted impacts > Statistics with no warrant
- If something important is mentioned in cross, make sure to bring it up in the next speech. (I don't flow cross)
- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep)
- Please time yourselves and opponents, 10 second grace period for speeches.
- Signpost please + extend warrants through summary/final, not just card names.
- I am against judge intervention—give voters in final
- No sticky defense (everything in final should mentioned in summary)

LD:
- Not familiar with LD, please explain any terms/acronyms.
- Will judge similar to PF.

All other events:
- Other debate events— I will value good argumentation over rhetoric.
- Speech— Please keep it interesting and engaging.
- Basically, treat me like a lay judge :)

For specifics, ask in round. Have fun and do your best!

Congress:

Congress isn't entirely one genre of speech and debate it's a culmination of just about every style. I don't lean toward favoring a lay debater or a flow debater. In this event, you're just trying to convince the judge to rank you whatever means you go about doing that is 100% up to you. However, if you're able to balance both the flow and lay appeal you're going to rank higher in my ballots than someone who's just good at one or the other.

For PO's: Run the round as smoothly and quickly as possible. I'll grade you on how well you can keep the round on track and avoid disruptions. The more the parli has to intervene(within reason, I won't fault you for asking for the specific rules of the tournament) the lower I'll rank you.

Local/TX Circuit: Please Clash

LD: I don’t have a preference on which style of LD you choose to do. Whether it’s modern or classic is fully up to you I will grade each style equally.

PF: I find PF strategy really interesting I’m more of a flow judge but I can ealso be influenced by the lay although not as strongly.

Hey everyone! I am a parent judge who has been judging for over a year now, I judge both speech and debate. You should treat me like an average lay judge.

Debate preferences-

• PLEASE NO SPREADING
• I like clash and calling out
• Please be respectful to each other
• Humor is good if purposefully used
• READ THIS EARLY ON- DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT MY PARADIGM IN ROUND

Speech preferences-

• I care about both presentation and content
• I will be checking sources- do not lie
• Please make sure your voice can be heard

Debate is supposed to be a friendly and respectful place. No disrespect will be tolerated.

Varsity public speaking and interp, he/him

• be respectful of everyone, no transphobic, homophobic, or racist comments will be tolerated, respect pronouns
• project when you speak and have vocal intonation
• have at least 6 sources in your speeches (for platform speaking)
• avoid fidgeting and rocking back and forth, try and make some hand gestures, but if too confusing, leave your hands at your side
• have fun giving your speech! Let who you are shine through what you talk about!

I believe that everyone has a voice which needs a platform to embrace self-expression, unique personalities, and the social construct of expressive speech in a safe, nurturing environment. As long as we follow the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment," for ignorance shall not prevail!

It is imperative to be polite, purposeful. and punctual.

With Lincoln Douglas (LD), I prefer traditional value and criterion debate, impact calculus, solvency, and line-by-line. Speech should have obvious organization which allows me to make a well-informed decision, focusing on presentation, logic, argumentation, and conclusion with a summary to wrap up the topic presented.

With Public Forum (PF), I prefer line-by-line, impact calculus, solid evidence from valid sources, be polite, and time yourselves. There should be a pre-determined resolution based on current events and trends. I should hear valuable insights. If you are providing a "filler", this will guarantee a low score, especially if it is personally offensive to the opponent or other marginalized groups.

With World Schools, I prefer obvious teamwork, focused on the issue presented with in-depth, quality argumentation creating solves with real-world examples while challenging the opposing team on a principled level.

With Congress, I look for proper parliamentary procedures and clarity of delivery through rigor, focused on democracy and clarity of ideas, seriousness in demeanor, and effective empowerment in speaking extemporaneously about the topic. Authenticity with clear speaking points such as sentence structure, eye contact, transitions, and word choice. The standard of decorum must be met.

In terms of speaking events, be purposeful when presenting the piece(s) to the extent that I feel as if you wrote it and expressed it with rigor, intensity, and passion.

You've got this!

Sonya Smith

"olivia"

student from SLHS

I. General Philosophy:

• I value clear, concise, and respectful communication.
• I judge based on the quality of arguments, not the quantity.
• I am open to various styles and approaches, but I expect strong evidence and logical reasoning.

II. Debate Specific:

• Burdens of proof: I expect the affirmative to establish their case and the negative to challenge it.
• Theory: I am open to traditional theory arguments, but I will not vote on frivolous or abusive ones.
• Weighing: I appreciate clear explanations of why your arguments are more important than your opponent's.
• Evidence: I value credible and well-sourced evidence, such as academic journals, expert opinions, and reliable statistics.
• Impact: Explain how your arguments make a real-world difference and why they should matter to the audience.

III. Speech Specific:

• Delivery: I evaluate vocal variety, clarity, eye contact, and overall stage presence.
• Content: I assess the depth of research, clarity of organization, and effectiveness of argumentation.
• Originality: I appreciate unique perspectives and engaging approaches to the topic.
• Engagement: I value the speaker's ability to connect with the audience and evoke emotional response (if applicable to the speech type).

IV. Additional Notes:

• Feel free to ask me questions during the round to clarify any expectations.
• I will maintain professionalism and impartiality throughout the round.

V. Preferences (Optional):

• Speed: I prefer a clear and understandable speaking pace, but I am flexible within limits.
• Visual aids: Feel free to use visual aids, but ensure they are clear, relevant, and not distracting.

Hi, I am a parent judge having an experience of judged in World Scholars Cup Global Rounds at Manila and Dubai. Do not spread, do not run theories, live action role plays and kritic as I may not be able to comprehend it. Speak in a conversational pace.

Johnathen.standifer@leanderisd.org

But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward, don't be petty for your prep.

Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school, and run a PF team now as a coach.

I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it.

I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.

Don't just throw a trick in the first speech ignore it 'til the end and tell me to vote for you, that's boring.

Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.

MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite.

Speak in a normal speed and tone. When you speak fast, it comes off very monotone. Debate is a conversation about specific topics. Be CONVERSATIONAL in your speaking. It's not about who gets the most information, but about who has the best information and presents it best. DO NOT SPREAD!!!

Please make sure your cameras are turned on.

Please don't tell me how to vote. You may SUGGEST how I should vote. But, when one says "you must vote in favor of (insert side here)," it sounds more like a demand.

I tend to consider STOCK ISSUES (topicality, inherency, impacts, solvency, disadvantages, counterplan) when making a decision about whether the affirmative or negative side wins the debate. In general, I weigh the quality of the argument as more important than the quantity of the evidence supplied. In my view, the quality of an argument can be negatively affected by "spreading," especially when the rapid delivery of evidence interferes with civil discourse and effective communication.

Therefore, if the negative team wins one of the stock issues, then they will normally be declared the winner. Similarly, the affirmative team may lose minor arguments in a round, but if they win all the stock issues, they should win the debate.

slhs sophomore

main event: pf

last yr tfa state qual in LD, this year state qual in PF + 1 gold bid to toc

You can run whatever just explain it well--links, warrants, impacts and weigh

if you want to set up an email chain --> anikasud9@gmail.com

add me to the email chain- ameerahsuleman2008@gmail.com

I consider myself a flay judge. No new things in the final focus or 2nd summary. new stuff in 2nd summary is only allowed if you are responding to something in 1st summary.

You get a 10-second grace period if you go over time.

Analytics are kewl if you have warrants. No Ks or theories I still don't understand them despite doing PF for two years

Cross is binding. Tech> truth

I dislike prep stealing, when your opponents or teammate is sending cards/ a doc I don't want to see you prepping. Especially in online tourneys.

Spread at your own risk, there is a good chance that I won't understand what you're saying. If I don't flow it then it doesn't exist. Signposting is also important

I want you to basically sign the ballot for me and tell me why I should be judging for you. Good comparative weighing will get you my ballot

you have to send a marked version of the speech doc if you did not get through your whole doc delete the cards you did not read

post rounding for clarification questions/feedback is fine. postrounding bc u think u won and ur tryna convince me u should not.

speaks

If you're being a jerk to your opponents you WILL get downed for that.

20 = you did something racist/sexist etc

25 = You were a big jerk

27 = Below average speaking wise

28 = Average speaking

29 = Pretty good

30= Excellent, best speaking

vishalsurya0704@gmail.com

Seven Lakes'25

Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else.

Evaluating Debates

I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that.

I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so.

Planless Affs

Critical teams should pref me if they are confident that they can out-tech their policy opponents. If you can’t do this, then you will likely lose. I don’t have a strong ideological predisposition against critical affs, but personally believe the best arguments favor topicality.

Equally good for ‘fairness’ or ‘skills’ framework. The aff either needs to counter-define resolutional words or have an impact turn large enough to outweigh the full magnitude of the neg’s offense.

Critiques on the Neg

The best critiques are framework arguments that moot the plan. Critiques make almost no sense when they use the language of causation or are debated like CPs. By design, they lack uniqueness and attempt to establish exclusivity through something other than traditional opportunity cost. This requires an alternate framework for evaluation.

Accordingly, I am much better for frameworks that exclude the case (or, alternatively, exclude the K) than most. I will decide the FW debate in favor of one side’s interpretation, not attempt to divine some arbitrary middle ground that splits the difference. Of course, you are free to advocate a middle ground interpretation.

Topicality

I judge topicality like any other position. This entails defaulting to offense/defense, not randomly suspending impact calculus because the aff “feels” topical enough. Reasonability is a winnable argument but requires substantial investment and should be offensively framed.

No strong opinions about any standards. Fine for ‘predictability outweighs limits’ and the reverse.

Theory

Most theoretical objections to CPs are better expressed through competition. The average theory interpretation is self-serving and contrived. All CPs have ‘a process,’ anyone can be a ‘solvency advocate,’ and any CP could ‘result in the plan.’

Against these and similar interpretations, I find neg appeals to arbitrariness difficult to overcome. If, however, you manage to craft an elegant theory interpretation, I’ll be receptive. This could include ‘CPs can only fiat governments,’ ‘CPs may not fiat both federal and sub-federal actors,’ and so on.

My default is limitless condo. This is a strong default as far as the 1NC and a moderate default for the block. I can be persuaded some egregious CPing---like CPing out of a straight turn in the 2NC---is illegitimate, but I’m inclined to lean negative there as well.

Counterplans

Much better for process and competition-based strategies than most. I don’t share the community’s sanctimonious distaste for Process CPs and tend to think a 2AC requires more than sputtering with indignation. I won’t automatically discount a net benefit because it is ‘artificial’ or ‘not germane,’ nor do I take it for granted that process strategies are inherently less educational than their counterparts.

I’m equally good for ‘must compete textuallyandfunctionally’ and ‘functionally only.’ Textual competition alone is a hard sell. If the aff wins the CP needs to compete both textually and functionally, that justifies permutation that are partially legitimate.

I’ll judge kick the CP if no one says anything. If the aff wants not to, they need to say so in the 1AR, but it’s an uphill battle.

Disadvantages

I do not understand nor participate in the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant, so long as the neg is capable of winning it outweighs the advantages.

What fiat means should be debated like any other argument. My default is to assume that fiat entails durable, good-faith passage and implementation of the plan.

Case

'Try or die' refers to whether extinction is inevitable. If the neg only goes for solvency takeouts, then the aff controls try or die. If the aff drops an internal net-benefit to a CP and only extends deficits, then the neg controls try or die. This is a relevant consideration. Both sides should always be aware of whether they access try or die and either point this out or explain why it is irrelevant.

Zero risk is obviously possible, but extremely hard to get to in practice. If the neg drops 1AC impacts, you should reference them, but don’t need to formally extend them in the 2AC. However, the 1AR must always extend an impact for it to be eligible for the 2AR.

Miscellaneous

For online debates, I’d prefer cameras on. I won’t punish you if you choose to keep it off though.

You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, getting water, etc.

You don’t need to flash analytics.

I do pf.

Add me to the email chain: aarushi.thatola@gmail.com .

Don't be rude. If you're running anything progressive, just explain it really well and I'll vote on it. Don't forget to extend and explain your arguments. Weighing is very important. If you're spreading, send a doc but there's a chance I'll miss something.

Have fun! :D

Treat me as a lay judge, coming from a 20+ years of technology consulting and management background.

Debate: Don’t talk fast, clarity is very important to understand your points. Explain your arguments clearly and consistently, so that I can make a fair judgment. Don’t be rude or disrespectful to other party, respect each other throughout the event. Be confident in your arguments and make sure they are backed-up by data/facts and most important thing don’t forget to have fun!

Speech: Presentation, content of a speech and fluency is a key factor. Be engaging and have good points that flow well. Don’t rush if you are running out of time and be confident. Come prepared with great material, analysis, looking forward to seeing you in action with great presentation, humor and creativity.

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

(c) Competing Interps > Reasonability

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Bach Tran (he/him)

Please add me to the email chain: kienbtran1655 at gmail dot com

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

This is based on my familiarity at evaluating things--will vote for anything that is explained well.

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

TL;DR: I vote for anything with a warrant and impact but most comfortable with larp + basic T/Theory/Ks. Regardless of content, if you are technical and know what you are talking about, I will enjoy judging you. I generally try to follow what you say to evaluate debates before inserting my biases so the more judge instruction/comparison you do the better off you will be. Things like what is/isn't new, when can things be new, what's the bar for answering/extending stuff, how should I read a piece of evidence, how should an argument be framed, etc. are all very helpful and increase your chances of winning/getting high points.

Tech>truth--my predispositions below can be changed easily by out-debating the other team but my threshold for beating obviously dumb arguments are pretty low. My bar for what counts as a warrant is not that high and things like "dumb argument" is not a warrant.

I'm generally not that picky with extensions so long as there are properly warranted (i.e, an overview of a conceded advantage is probably fine). Obviously, the details of explanantion should vary proportional to how conceded things are--overviews are probably not enough to replace LBL work on arguments that are contested.

Non-starters: -isms, ad homs, changing speech times, self harm good (wipeout/spark/the death K is fine), eval after [X speech], speaker points theory.

Please start the email chain early/preflow/whatever so the debate can begin as close to the start time as possible.

I flow on paper. I tend to not flow author names. Speed is fine but slow down/inflect on tags and analytics and give me some pen time. Signposting, numbering, and answering arguments in order are also helpful.

Other procedural things: tell me to write stuff down in CX, probably won't time, I always disclose the RFD (+speaker points, upon request). Feel free to preround/postround/email me questions/whatever.

Speaker points: I'm generous with them as long as you are technical, strategic, and generally a nice person. My current average is in the 28.8-29 range.

If you want to initiate an ethics challenge, it's a no take-back. Winner(s) gets W30(s) and loser(s) L0(s). Would prefer that you save this for things like clipping or malicious distortions and not small violations.

Rehighlights: yes insertions if indicting author/context/less than a sentence, no if you're making new arguments/recutting the card. Debate it out if you think I should/should not evaluate certain insertions.

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

Policy

I like people who know the topic lit and are good at weighing/evidence comparison. You can read whatever as long as you can do these two things. I can be persuaded about zero risk (especially if an impact is very poorly explained).

I like impact turns. Please do 0-off impact turns/case, I promise to give you high points if execution is decent.

I will read evidence if you tell me to (no "read card", yes "read card and check for [thing]"). Good debating can usually overcome good evidence (for the most part). Good analytics + debating can beat bad arguments/cards (for the most part).

Default no judgekick, everything else (condo, PICs/whatever CP, whatever fiat/perms, etc.) are fine unless the other side reads theory. Probably slow down on dense theory stuff (mostly if you are reading like a big textual perm block or something).

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

Ks on the Neg

Know the tl;dr version of mainstream Ks (cap, set col, security and whatnot) + very vague understanding of identity/pomo stuff. Please dump down the confusing philosophies and/or granular details between different theories/authors. Unpacking buzzwords and contemporary/historical examples help a lot. Please do LBL instead of giant overviews (they are bad).

Framework: Realistically, I think "middle-road" is the most reasonable interpretation but I understand the strategic value of excluding the plan or reps/epistimology/etc. So, to each their own--I'm more than happy to weigh the plan or reject rhetoric or critically examine power structures or whatever if you win on the flow that I should do so. Judge instruction for what count as uniqueness/solvency/offense is paramount. My default is probably along the lines of "yes Ks of whatever but they must implicate plan solvency."

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

Theory/T

Send interp/counterinterp texts and slow down on your blipstorms. Default DTA (unless it's incoherent), CI, no RVIs.

I'll vote on any shell except ad homs/clothes theory but my threshold for answering silliness is probably low. If there are multiple shells please weigh them as soon as possible. I'm probably not the one for hardcore theory rounds.

"[X] is an IVI" does not automatically uplayer anything. Not voting on IVIs that miss DTD warrants when introduced.

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

K Affs

Ideally, the 1AC should defend a change from the squo at least vaguely related to the topic (doesn't have to be policy/larping the USFG) but you can do whatever if you can defend your 1AC. Probably err on more explanation of the aff/method than less.

Debate is probably a game. Anything can(not) be an impact depending on impact calc. Again, no strong opinions--but all else equal I am probably better for affs that defend a CI + impact turns vs only impact turns. That said, I also find impact turns contextualized to neg framework (i.e. "their specific explanation of fairness/limits/etc." is bad) more persuasive than categorical rejection of debate/fairness.

I think KvK rounds are really interesting but you probably want to slow down and explain interactions between the K and the aff + how the perm works (or doesn't work) because every KvK interaction has its own take on how competition functions.

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

Phil: Bad for "phil" that is tricks in disguise. Otherwise, ELI5. Slow down on analytic walls. Default presumption and permissibility negates, epistemic confidence, comparative worlds.

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

Tricks: Probably quite bad for this but if you want to go for skep or something feel free. I need lots of hand-holding/judge instruction to evaluate these debates. Will be impressed if you can convince me to abandon reality and vote for stuff like condo logic or trivialism.

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

Trad: Sure. I am more than capable but trad rounds are usually very boring and messy to evaluate. Good for technical debating, bad for yapping/grandstanding, "framework is a voting issue" (no it's not), "LD is for vAlUe dEbAtE" (no it's certainly not) and such.

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

PF Stuff

Most of the stuff above applies where applicable (the policy section is probably most relevant to PF). I'm also down for theory/the K/whatever if you want to (you still need to explain the arguments though...don't just read LD/CX backfiles and call it a day).

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

--If you don't send evidence/speech docs before speeches I am capping your speaker points at a 28. I don't super care how you share evidence, but if you don't and the round drags on forever, I will be very grumpy. Also if you do paraphrase I want cut cards at the bottom (at that point, why not just read the cut cards...but what do I know...).

--I think generally disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but will still vote on the flow if you win your stuff. If debated evenly, I probably will never vote on paraphrasing good...

--I don't know how PFers get away with reading one-line, unwarranted "cards" with random prepositions as taglines that get spun out of proportions in the backhalf. Having quality evidence (i.e., warranted and written by qualified people) matters a lot, especially when the debating is even/close. Teams should also challenge silly/unwarranted extrapolations of terrible evidence more. If the other team says a blog post is somehow a "meta-study," you should point that out and I will most likely concur. Or alternatively just read better cards and explain evidence in a consistent manner.

2nd rebuttal and every speech after should probably frontline and collapse but I'm open to ignoring this if you can theoretically justify not doing so. In general, I think answering case in 2nd constructive is an interesting strategy. A full-on, well-executed impact turn dump in 2nd constructive will probably earn you very high points.

I like a lot of warranted, comparative weighing. Please do more link/internal link weighing--I do not care if your impact outweigh if you concede a bunch of link defense. The more warrants/examples you add to this step the easier it would be for both of us. Judge instruction is crucial in the backhalf and good execution will be rewarded with high points.

Trigger warnings: obviously you should include TWs for objectively triggering content. I will vote for trigger warning theory but would rather not. Please just be nice to others and don't weaponize others' suffering for competitive benefit.

Please don't yell over each other in cross/grand cross.

I am a parent judge that has slight experience with judging debate.

Please avoid Hurtful comments or rude behavior (ex: sexism, racism, etc.) ,will not be tolerated.

Please do not speak too fast or spread as I may not be able to understand what you are saying so it will not be on my flow. Keep in mind that I am a lay judge!

Time yourself, and if it is an event where you cannot then explain how you would like time signals.

Most importantly, be respectful, have fun, and good luck!

Most of my feedback will be on the written RFD.

• Don't be offensive and be respectful to people( respect their pronouns, names, etc).
• Make it a productive debate but also have fun!
• Feel free to ask any questions after round if we have time!

akkivarre@gmail.com

debate:
i am year 2 PFer @ seven lakes
i am lit js a varsity pfer so i only judge novices!!

tech > truth

i care muchhhh more about what you talk about rather than how you say it - but that doesn't mean i don't give any regard at all to your speaking style.

PLEEEASE WEIGH - if you make good enough weighing args i'm willing to vote on solely that

i love clash

IMPLICATE!! - don't just read cards or make statements, i need to know what you mean and why i should care. this is prob the most important thing - i will genuinely not know how to eval the debate unless you extend all your arguments and implicate what you want me to vote on. basically i need warrants. every speech.

speaks
speaks range from 28-30 if you give me good rhetoric throughout the round - auto 30s
if you debate without a computer auto 30s
i love it when you are funny in round - make it entertaining you don't have to be so serious 100% of the time.

overall have fun, debate is supposed to be enjoyable so don't ruin it for yourself or anyone else.
feel free to ask questions about the topic, the round, your speech, etc. i'd love to give you advice.

if you bring me a coca cola i'll really like you

if you are online and it looks like i am not flowing - I AM I PROMISE I JUST FLOW ON MY LAPTOP

speech:

extemp and impromptu are based on your speaking ability. don't worry sooo much about your sources or your info, lie to me if you have to just make it sound good. i'm a debater i'll believe you if you make it sound like i should.
(don't lie about your sources tho pls practice good evidence ethics)

I believe that speech & debate offers an invaluable experience for students in that it provides a platform and an audience. Your voice matters, and I am honored to be but a small part in the process where you speak your truth.

I competed in LD, Extemp, Poetry & Impromptu throughout most of high school. I had a very brief relationship with Policy that left a bad taste in my mouth, and I think I tried every speech/interp event that existed at the time. I judged debate tournaments in college, began coaching a debate club about 9 years ago, and started teaching a speech & debate class two years ago. I truly believe it is THE class that most prepared me for my career in business because it improved my analysis, helped me create ideas, and gave me confidence in communication - both written and verbal.

Now for the paradigms you seek...

DEBATERS: debate is first and foremost a speaking event. I expect you to stand when you speak, make eye contact with your judge and not speak so quickly that you spit on your laptop. I also expect for you to provide evidence AND analysis for your arguments. Please do not expect me to provide the link in your justification. I am a relatively traditional flow judge- if it's not on my flow at the end of the round, then you didn't carry it over, and I don't intend to vote for dropped arguments. I also do not flow CX- if you bring up a really great question during that time, I expect that you will then mention it in your next rebuttal speech.

Specifically, I'm comfortable with LD, PF, WSD and slower/well-posted Policy rounds. If you're reading this paradigm right before you walk into a Congress round with me, let's hope I'm on a panel. :) I don't mind Kritiks or theories, but I do not like abusive arguments. If there is really NO WAY for your opponent to outsmart that idea, then it is abusive and has no place in a high school debate round. I don't have to believe your argument to buy it in the round, but you do have to sell it. If you want to put me in a box, I'm probably a Stock Issues judge with a dash of Policymaker and on some topics a bit of Tabula Rasa thrown in. But feel free to not put me in a box.

I really appreciate signposting so I know where you are in rebuttals, but I absolutely DO NOT need an off-the-clock roadmap where you just say aff/neg or neg/aff/voters. There are no times during a debate round where I am listening to you when your time is not running. Oh, and to be clear, your time starts when I press the button, which is likely to be on your first word. I do not need for you to tell me when your time starts. If you trust me to judge the outcome of the round, please trust me to press the button on my phone clock appropriately.

SPEAKERS: in speech events, I expect you to come across as the expert on the topic at hand, whether it's an Info or OO you've researched for 6 months or an Extemp topic you drew 30 minutes ago. I expect all of these to have strong research, well cited sources and solid analysis on your topics. Remember that you are conveying a message to the audience that you care about and we want to listen to. Enjoy your time in the speech!

INTERPERS: I know how difficult it is to continue performing the exact same piece over and over again for months- it's hard to keep it fresh. Think of it as a juicy piece of gossip (the good kind- don't spread bad vibes!) that you just can't wait to share. Then it stays fresher each time you say it because now you're excited to share it with THIS audience.

Who knew I had so much to say about judging in the speech and debate world? If you're still reading my paradigm, my sincere prayer is that you are enjoying this journey and wherever you are in it right now. Oh, and hurry up and get to your round! :)

I am a parent judge. Please do not speak too fast, and please speak clearly. I prefer clarity of speech over speed.

I am a parent judge please speak slowly and make your arguments clear.

Hi! I'm Joy, currently debating for bellaire in pf

Debate however you want to. This can be a very intimidating activity, so just do your best! I don't want to inhibit your ability to debate at your best with specific nitpicks.

That being said, I will probably be better at evaluating the round fairly if you send speech docs, initiate clash, and weigh. Any complex arugments (dense ks, phil, etc.) should be dumbed down a lot for me.

I consider myself tech > truth. Speaker points will be based off of articulation and overall performance. Every argument made including extensions must have warranting. Please be efficient in sending cards.

Ask me anything else in round. Remember to be polite, try to make the round fun, and good luck! :)

My paradigm

Debate is the test of the truthfulness of a claim, thus truth is important. I don't understand the tech over truth argument, nor do I want to.

Debaters should:

Speak slowly.

State the resolution, as that is what is being debated

Explain everything. Don't assume that I know what a K is. Because I don't. Don't assume I know what anything else is either. I probably don't.

Speak very slowly.

Explain what the big arguments are and why the opposing side is not winning.

Be nice to each other.

Give me a reason to vote for your side. Or more than one.

Speak slowly.

To summarize, in debate judging, I adopt most of the nuance but very little of the substance in this abstract on the qualitative vs. quantitative debate that Kenneth R. Howe espouses in the American Journal of Education Vol. 100, No. 2 (Feb., 1992), pp. 236-256 (21 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press. FYI, '92 was a good year for debate about debate in educational philosophy.

Speakers should:

Be entertaining, thoughtful, logical, organized.

Present evidence/sources (not so much in IMP maybe, but definitely in OO, INF, EX,

Don't go too fast, but instead go at the exact right speed.

Be entertaining. Try not to steal minutes from your audience's life (especially mine) by being boring. Try and pretend this stuff is fun.

Interpers should:

Be real, or sometimes in HI or humorous DUO, be so polished and perfect in your blocking, gesturing, and facial expression, that the hyperbole does not need realism.

Real acting is seen in the eyes. Are you believable? Is there anything about your performance that distracts?

I do my best to judge the performer not the script.

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

For LD:

Signposting: Please use clear signposts to guide the judge through the debate. For example, clearly indicate when you are introducing a new argument or transitioning to your opponent's points.

Delivery: Maintain a clear and confident speaking style. Make eye contact with the judge and your opponent, and speak at a moderate pace to ensure effective communication.

Wording: Avoid using debate jargon, as I may not be familiar with it..

Clear Voters: When presenting your final arguments, explain the key issues in the debate, why you believe you are winning, and why the opposing side is not.

Remember to maintain respect and sportsmanship throughout the debate.

Hi, I am parent judge and I've judged IEs and debate during the 22-23 debate season for TFA and NSDA District.

IEs:

For speech delivery, I appreciate that you speak clearly without excessive word crutches. Use time wisely to fully develop the speech. Fluid speech and professional mannerisms will be noted.

On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure your points discussed clearly address the question that you’ve chosen. Following the standard speech outline and including clear impact analysis would help. Cite your sources. I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis. Logical analysis of event and impact will be noted.

On INTERP, it is a performance and characterization is important. All movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose.

Debate:

- I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I also evaluate on speaking ability.

- I will evaluate how each side address other’s arguments with good logic and evidence.

- Off-clock road map is much appreciated.

- Please add me to the email chain: joyzhang08@gmail.com