I want to be on all evidence and file sharing (chrisbriggs832@gmail.com)

TLDR: My paradigm isn't that long but I'll evaluate everything just do it well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

General

I was a HS policy K debater so I will evaluate everything, Ks, theory etc. Speed is good so go as fast as you want just be clear. Don't spread faster than you can because bad spreading sucks so don't be bad at it.

Other than that I don't really care what you run I will evaluate it regardless of what the rest of my paradigm says.

If you have any questions about my RFD ask me. If there is no round disclosure at the tournament I probably will disclose anyway just don't tell tab <3.

For in round stuff (for policy, open cx that kind of thing) do whatever you want as long as the other team agrees.

All of this is for whatever event I am judging. The rest of my paradigm is just my personal thoughts on some arguments to let you know where I personally stand even though it will not impact my decision.

Theory

I'll evaluate it just do it right.

Tricks are for kids. That being said, I am a kid.

Theory - CX

If you run ks bad, cps bad, or try to convince me that ks and cps as a whole are abusive or don't belong in the space I will evaluate it but the burden on negative team is low, it's not the 70s. Go to open ev, do research, get good. (Obviously there are some CPs that are actually abusive thats a different story) I just generally hate this theory but I guess I'll evaluate it.

T-T is a theory you need all the parts.

CX - General

KAFFS -I love them. I ran one my senior year and loved it. I don't have any major opinions about kaffs but I do believe they have a space in the activity. That being said I will vote on framework. I don't really think that fairness is a voter I think it is an internal link but I could be wrong and will vote on it being an impact if the neg is winning that.

KVK- Please do this. I love kvks I think they are awesome and probably the most interesting debates I've had and seen.

K-the previous 2 sections should tell you enough but I love them

PF

I probably have a fair amount of knowledge of whatever topic you all are doing and I would like to be on ev share, whatever that looks like.

K- It belongs in PF just don't suck at it

For novice, you probably shouldn't be running prog anyways but if you know what you're doing go nuts.

for georgetown:i have done literally no research on this topic just a heads up

hi! i'm samara (she/her). this is my third year debating in pf for hunter college high school.

add me to the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions: samaraburstein@hunterschools.org

tldr: flow judge, im ok w prog (although pls explain well), extend and weigh well, make sure the round is safe, be nice :)

if you have any questions ask me before the round starts im happy to explain any of my preferences

general preferences:

please pre flow ur arguments, i don't want to have to awkwardly sit in silence at the beginning of the round while u rush to write down all of ur arguments

time your own speeches, prep, cross x, etc.

i generally go w tech>truth BUT pls do not make any extremely outlandish or problematic args (no climate change is good, racism/sexism/homophobia is good, etc). i will drop u w low speaks if u say anything offensive

i'm fine with *some* speed, but if you are going over 225-275+ wpm send a speech doc. honestly it depends on how tired i am on any given day, will lyk.

i will probably listen to cross (although don't hold me to that) but i won't flow it or vote off of anything said during it unless you bring it up in speech

i'm cool with open cross and/or flex prep (skipping grand for an extra minute of prep for both teams) as long as everyone else in round is

don't steal prep. i won't drop you but it's mean so i'll probably give u low speaks

don't be rude

if you say anything offensive, racist, homophobic, sexist, etc i will drop you and give you the lowest speaks i can

you can postround *nicely.* i'm happy to explain my decision just be respectful

wear whatever you want, sit however you want, you can sit or stand for speeches. generally j do whatever ur comfortable with i dont really care.

debate/speech stuff:

please don't do any of the "3, 2, 1," "my time starts on my first word/now," stuff i won't penalize you because it's not a huge deal but it just bothers me i promise i wont start your time until you begin actually talking

extending: please please please extend. if arguments aren't extended in summary and FF i will consider them dropped. anything extended in final focus needs to have been extended in summary. don't just say "extending Smith '22" or something like that. that is not extending. i do not flow authors and will have no idea what you are talking about.

weighing: one of the most important things for me in a round. you should have clear warrants as to why your arguments are more important. im ok with probability weighing but only if actually done correctly which can be tricky. please metaweigh!

collapsing is important. please don't read me a million different contentions in summary/final focus

no new arguments in summary or final focus. anything you bring up in final has to have been brought up in summary.

signpost your speeches as you go so i know where i should be in the flow

analytics/warranting>evidence. even if you have cards that say a certain thing, if you can't explain it well you shouldn't be using it. i have to be able to understand your argument to be able to vote on it

please have cut cards and good evidence ethics. idrc if you paraphrase in case, but don't misconstrue and make sure to have a cut card.

frameworks: i love framework arguments. please give warrants as to why you are running the framework and make my role as a judge clear. make sure to extend the framework and/or rotb in every speech. and be respectful of everyone in round etc etc

progressive args:

disclaimer: i don't have a ton of experience with progressive arguments, but i will vote on them, just be sure to explain everything well. that being said, i may not be the best judge for them.

in general: please don't read progressive arguments against novices or people who very clearly don't know how to interact with it. my main priority is keeping the round safe. only read progressive arguments if you genuinely care about the issue, not just because you think you can beat the other team.

theory: dont read frivolous theory, i won't drop you, but there's a decent chance dock your speaks. only read theory if you genuinely care about making the debate space safer/setting better norms. generally, i tend to think paraphrasing is bad (i acc have complicated thoughts on this, but whatever) and i have pretty neutral thoughts on disclosure

tricks/trixs: i hate tricks. i will drop you and tank your speaks.

kritiks/ks: go for it, just go slowly and explain well. again, i don't have a ton of experience with this stuff, but i think it is valuable and will 100% judge it

once again, please keep the round safe

speaks:

i think speaker points are kind of stupid to be perfectly honest. for the most part, everyone will get good speaks.

i'll drop your speaks if you are rude

if you make me laugh i'll bump your speaks

that's pretty much it! always feel free to ask me question about anything on (or not on) here before round. and have fun <3

I will be judging as a Lay Judge. Overall, presentation is the biggest factor for me personally, but displaying the facts should of course be the focal point of your debate.

Contention: Comprehension is key. If I can't understand what you're saying, then how am I going to grade you? Remember to stay on track and please annunciate your words.

Crossfire: While crossfire is indeed the best time to argue with your opponent, please be kind to them. Along with that, confidence is key. Of course, I will take points off if multiple people chime in, including any form of communication between partners.

Rebuttal: Sign posting is essential before you begin your rebuttal. You will sound sloppy and thrown together if you do not.

Summary: This would be a great time to impact weigh and not doing so is a huge mistake. However, do not just go over the facts again, instead highlight the points that better your argument the most.

Grand Crossfire: I would highly recommend everyone to speak up. Teamwork!

Final Focus: This is your moment to really knock it out of the park. Be passionate about your subject and really convince me on why your way is the only way. Utilize impact weighing, mistakes that your opponent has made, and cold hard facts. You got this!

Speaker Points: I will be grading each section by point, so you must try your best the whole way through!

I employ a tabula rasa approach-I will only judge based on the evidence and argumentation brought into the debate by the contestants.

I am a retired administrative law judge and I am new to the Public Forum debate format.

I am not a technical judge. I expect a conversational, or slightly faster, speaking style,

In my view, the debate is not a race to speak as many words as you can in the time allotted, but rather your effort to persuade me that your team's position is superior to the opposing team's position because of your argument and your evidence.

I mark debaters down for speed-talking presentations. I keep a detailed flow of your arguments and evidence, and the responses of your opponents, and I expect to have time to listen to your arguments and evidence, and to take notes. If you speak at a high rate of speed, I will not be able to take notes and your argument and evidence will not make it onto my flow.

I expect you to cite your evidence in a way that informs me of the source's credentials as they relate to the topic. Merely citing a last name and a number (e.g., Smith at 24) tells me nothing about the source and I will give it little weight.

Please be selective about asking for the evidence of your opponents. If you ask for it, and don't refer to it again, I will assume you have no specific issue with it. If you do have an issue with the evidence, be specific concerning why you take issue with it. Similarly, if your opponents take issue with your evidence after requesting it, I expect you to respond and defend it.

I like debaters to keep their own time, but to do so accurately.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.

When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.

It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point

I was a policy debater in the 1990’s and have been coaching since 1999, currently, I am the coach at Avalos P-TECH School. I know that ages me, but it should also tell you that the debate I grew up with was much different than what is going on today. I tend to default to a policy-making paradigm and prefer traditional debate. As a debater, it is your job to be clear at all times so you don’t lose me.

General:

• DON’T BE RUDE

• I DO NOT LIKE DISCLOSURE THEORY OR TRICKS

• It’s fine if you flex prep, just don’t take advantage

• Keep your own time, I will also keep a clock running just in case there are any issues

• I do not consider flashing to be prep, but again don’t take advantage

• Do the work for me, it is your job to communicate to me as to why you are winning the debate. Do not make me figure it out myself, that will inevitably leave one of you mad at me, but it won’t be my fault.

• Discriminatory or exclusionary language is not okay and not accepted and I will vote you down if you use this language

Speed: I am good with moderate speed, but I can’t judge what I can’t understand. Keep in mind that I am old so you probably need to slow down a bit.

Weighing: Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to. If you don’t weigh for me I have to do it for you and you do not want that to happen.

Other:

Please be respectful to one another I hate judging rounds where the debaters are being rude to one another, debate is supposed to be a respectful exchange of opposing views on a topic and when you take the respect out of that equation debate loses its productivity. Also please do the work for the judge, don't make your judge try to piece things together. Remember I am old so I will probably lose pieces along the way.

One last thing, I am old fashioned. You are participating in a speaking event. Stand up during your speeches and CX/CF periods (Grand Cross would be the exception). You need to persuade me as to why I should be voting for you.

Speaker Points:

26-30

Anything under 26 means you were being rude, discriminatory, or exclusionary.

I am a career Adjudicator experienced in various formats of debating such as British Parliamentary, World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, Australs, Public Forum, Policy debate and several others.

Please be respectful to other debaters while speaking because I am very strict in implementing rules because I always want all debaters to feel comfortable in their debate rooms despite meeting people from different backgrounds and beliefs.

Lay judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

Hello!

Yes include me on the email chain—Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com

I am a policy debater at Liberty University.

General things---

1. Tech over truth—-my job is to determine who did the best debating in round. I will vote for any argument regardless of personal convictions.
2. Quality over quantity—-I am much more persuaded by a few warranted arguments than by numerous blippy ones.
3. Line-by-line—- do it.
4. Judge instruction—-my goal is to have the least interventionist RFD, and telling me what my RFD should look like will go a long way
5. case/da turns are great
6. If you make me laugh, I will boost your speaks
7. Be kind, if you're racist, sexist, etc. I will vote you down
8. I'm fine with any arguments other than death good, just do what you're comfortable with

PF---

1. Make sure you extend the story of your arguments and answer theirs.
2. Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.
3. Keep track of your own speech times and prep.
4. Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.
5. Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.
6. Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.
7. Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.
8. If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.
9. I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.
10. I'm not sure that PF is debate.
11. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact.
12. If you ask to preflow after start time, use prep time or I doc your speaks

hyt60435@gmail.com | she/her | college freshman

TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive arguments.

Current debater at Carnegie Mellon University. I have debated 4 years of varsity PF on both local and national circuits during high school at Cranbrook.

You can assume I know enough about the topic/stock arguments/abbreviations.

Include me in speech docs and email chains. My WiFi is terrible -> please speech doc.

Logistics

The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be.

I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning. I don't need a Google Form opt-out. Just read your warning before constructive or ask everyone before round.

If there's a piece of evidence that is contested in the round, I will call for it again. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically drop you.

I will usually disclose if there is longer than 20 minutes between round ending to next round release. I do not disclose in Novice/JV.

Speed

Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. I will let you know clear once, and after that, if I still can't understand I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 250wpm - 300wpm is the max speed for clarity with a speech doc.

If you are online, remember that it's much harder to hear you over NSDA campus/Zoom.

Substance

Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case.

Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting. I'll be very happy if someone reads global warming turn because it encourages space exploration or arguments like that :)

Extend and weigh. Defense is not sticky. If you don't extend something (contention, defense, weigh, turn, etc.) through a speech, I will assume it's dropped. If the round is close, I will default to the weighing in round.

I don't flow cross.

Progressive

If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well, with the exception of obvious discrimination or micro-aggression from your opponents (although at this point I'd drop them regardless).

Even then, I cannot guarantee I will be able to vote correctly. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.

Framework

Framework is fine. Framework that calls for a response in your opponent's constructive is not fine. Framework that is read in rebuttal is not fine. Default to util if no framework in either constructives. Cost/benefit = util framework.

I don't like frameworks that are warranted to "vote for this argument to spread awareness" or "because this issue is on the back burner in the real world then we should evaluate this first in this round."

I will vote correctly on frameworks but it doesn't mean I like them. If your framework is obviously a time suck or abusive towards the opponents I will drop you. If you aren't sure ask before the round.

In general, if you're defaulting to util, I highly suggest you write a 3-4 point warranting on why util is better (or just find one on Wiki).

TLDR: Util > other framing

Tldr: I competed in policy debate and public forum debate for all four years of high school. Go for whatever you want as long as it’s not offensive and it’s explained well. Make sure you’re respectful to everybody and have fun!

Pittsburgh Central Catholic ‘23

Pitt ’27 (not debating)

hudsonnoah0482@gmail.com (please include me on any email chain)

PF: Good impact calc/weighing will help you win the round. Especially love pre-req arguments. This goes beyond just having a large number and repeating it. Make sure you have a clear link story that’s explained well and you should be fine. Everything needs to extended properly for you to go for it in final focus. A good comparison of arguments will be valued highly. This means not just repeating your argument and your opponents’ arguments, but explaining why your argument is better and why it matters. I don’t flow cross-ex but I’ll definitely pay attention. Off time roadmaps are fine, just make sure your speeches are organized. As the debate comes to an end you should limit the amount of arguments you go for. You should not be going for 5 arguments on each contention in FF.

Policy: It’s been a while since I’ve done policy, so make sure you explain everything clearly. Tech>truth. If something is conceded you still have to explain it and why it matters. Make sure you extend all arguments you plan on going for later. To be honest, I’m not too great with Ks. I’ll still definitely vote on it, you just need to make sure you’re clearly explaining everything, that includes any jargon. Make sure you have strong and preferably specific links to everything. Good impact calc will help you win a da. Probably won’t vote off of T unless if the plan is super abusive. Still feel free to run it.

Nice to meet you! I have been debating over 4 years (1 year in PF) and would be an honor to judge you. Here are some of my preferences.

1. Do not spread. But as long as you are clear, talking fast would be okay.

2. Adequate weighing is critical in the later speeches.

3. Good reconstructions usually lead to better weighing at the end.

4. Collapsing is totally fine.

5. I would not flow words that are said after 10 seconds grace period of time.

Enjoy!

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

Hello, My name is Peace John-Kalio, I am a seasoned debater, experienced judge and a great coach.

I have gathered experience and exploits in different forms of Debating such as British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debating format, Public Forum debates, Lincoln Douglas, Speech formats, and Canadian National Debate format etc.

As a judge i pirotiize logic and contents within debates and how speakers are able to logically defend their side and also logically rebutt their opponeths side.

I also pioritze equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants in general to have read tournaments briefings and manuals as I also do so myself in other for each participants to know what is expected from them.

The above also makes knowing different procedures like role fulfillment easier and how to tackle different types of motions and the burdens these different types impose on speakers therefore making rounds more engaging. I deem it as valuable for speakers to be aware of this.

Going further I appreciate when speakers are able to apply special skills and techniques within rounds such as counterfactual and fiats etc.

I also appreciate when speakers are time conscious and employ techniques like Pioritizing more important arguments so when time is up they are not at a loss.

In conclusion I like when speakers in whip and summary speeches are able to emphasize and compare why they win with the arguments brought up by their previous partners and how those arguments beat the opponents by drawing comparisons and not necessarily trying to add extentions. Speakers are also advised and encouraged to keep cameras on during rounds in an online tournament unless in situations that they absolutely cannot afford to.

I have also participated in cultural diversity training as a judge, several judging workshops and of course several tournaments both as a speaker and a judge.

For MS PF'ers: treat me like a lay judge

HS:

General Stuff:

I may ask you to treat me lay if I'm tired (I apologize) but in general, tech judge.

• make email chain pre-round and add me (elamalsakini@gmail.com)
• send case before speech; I don't need docs for other speeches but no spreading (stay within ~225 wpm)
• have cut cards
• you have three-ish minutes to find a card when asked before it's dropped and we move on
• anything you want evaluated in decision should be in speeches
• i'll evaluate Ks + T but be clear/treat it like an argument
• tech > truth (don't use that as an excuse to not warrant/implicate)
• pre-flow before round
• don't be a bad person + have fun

Speaks:

I average somewhere between 28 - 29, but I go higher often enough.

Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I am also a part-time, de-facto assistant coach for the Mount Vernon team, and I'm starting my own at the school I currently teach at-- I've never really left the debate community, so I know a bit of the norms and I know what's going on. I have my Bachelor's in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa, and my Master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com

Congress:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

Substance > Style

Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.

Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!

LD:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics or trix.

Side note: Please make sure you are educated on the 2024 Jan/Feb LD topic... I don't want to hear arguments that are factually untrue, and I'm excited for well-informed debates that get into the depths of this subject! I've written articles on this topic that you could use as a card-- I know it well.

PF:

A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.

I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.

Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.

I am a tabula rasa judge. 

Policy: I am tabula rasa in the sense that I believe my judging paradigm is an issue to be debated in the round. I default to a policymaker paradigm if the issue isn't debated. I don't prejudge arguments; I'm open to listening to any kind of argument you care to make. Be kind and respectful of others. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Warrants, impacts and clash are important. I don't like time to be wasted.

LD: I tend to be somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to theory, though I can be persuaded. I consider the standards debate (value, criterion -- and please don't refer to a "value criterion") to be very important. Big picture is as important as line-by-line. Warrants and impacts are crucial.

PF: I adhere to the NSDA rule that prohibits plans and counterplans. My primary background is policy debate, so I tend to look for impacts to arguments. The appropriate paradigm I should use to judge the round is an issue to be debated in the round. I'm not a fan of paraphrased evidence.

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

hi! I have been competing PF for Hunter (Princeton Co-Champion, Harvard Quarterfinalist), and I competed Parli in middle school. My email is juliakraffczyk@hunterschools.org, if anyone wants to add me to their email chain or to send case.

GENERAL

• CLARITY > SPEED. I’m not a fan of spreading, but if you really need to, please send me a copy of your case!
• SIGNPOSTING and off-time roadmaps are greatly appreciated.
• Gov/aff can define terms, but if the framework prohibits opp/neg to win or strays from the resolution, I’ll vote neg.
• Make sure your LINK CHAIN is properly defended and the impact is believable (PFers: if you can’t adequately explain a link in cross, you should reiterate the warranting in a later speech)
• Theory and K’s are accepted, but I’ll always prefer an argument with solid, simple contentions.
• PLEASE don’t be rude (particularly during PF cross. Let everyone speak!) You don’t have to be BFFs with your opponents, but a great team will be able to win without disrespect.

REBUTTAL/WEIGHING

• If you don't frontline a refutation, it will flow through on my end, so EXTEND your best frontlines!
• For weighing, refrain from reading pre-written weighing and instead, interact with your opponents’ case. It is not particularly persuasive or applicable to the round if you don't.

PF SPECIFICS

• Tech > truth
• Collapse during Summary to cut your losses!
• Empirics are important, as well as warranting. Refrain from relying on cards that are just quotes from certain individuals: anyone can say anything.
• I won't judge cross but I will notice if you lack understanding of your link chain or cards.
• FF is a time for WEIGHING. I value this over restating refutations or collapsing (again).
• QUANTIFIED impacts with TIMEFRAME are key

Don’t be any type of -ist. GL and have fun! :)

hi im andrew (he/him). i debated pf at adlai stevenson for 3 years. typical flow judge, assume im lay on the topic.

add me to the email chain: andrewsli2436@gmail.com

ms/novice: frontline, extend, collapse, weigh. be nice. dont run progressive stuff (pf). the rest of my paradigm is a *suggestion*; my priority is ur comfort :)

round stuff:

-- dont be exclusionary

-- for sensitive args: anonymous opt out forms >>>>> trigger warnings

-- do email chain or speechdrop. send cases and docs

-- ~250 wpm max (w docs!!) but pls slow down in back half or i will 100% miss smth. 5 sec grace period. i encourage opponents to call clear or speed!

-- blippy extensions make me sad. no sticky defense

-- i dont flow cross but also dont filibuster or concede random stuff. flex prep is ok

-- SHORT roadmaps pls

-- metaweighing is kind of a cheat code ngl (do it)

-- i generally believe prob weighing is fake or abusive when used for different terminal impacts

everything else:

-- run prog at ur own risk. i havent judged prog much and what i have judged has (generally) been very mid. more receptive to "we cant engage" answers in jv. pls slow down and tell me before starting so i can get a third sheet.

-- i despise how incredibly exclusionary speaks often are. speaks start at 30 and decrease for only for mistakes in strat/signposting

-- i presume squo. warrants can change this

-- if u have questions about rfd or anything else after the round please feel free to reach out and email me!!

glhf :D

aditya stole my old paradigm + bless hebron daniel + scott elliott + renee li (approved on 4/21/23) + gavin serr + mac hays + watch this pre-round entertainment + i judge most like this guy and this guy

add me to the email chain: patmah729@gmail.com
but for team events I'd prefer a speechdrop
Please set up the filesharing before the round. Rounds should start on time.
PLEASE RECORD YOUR SPEECHES FOR ONLINE DEBATE

Conflicts: Byron Nelson (the whole team) and Tempe Prep CO

he/they
call me "Patrick," "Pat," or even "Judge" is fine, anything more formal makes me uncomfortable

Debate is a safe space, keep it that way. This means don't be violent. It also means give content warnings.

TLDR: I'm comfortable listening to most arguments at most speeds. Give me pen time (even if I'm laptop flowing) or it will not get to the flow. Refer to cards by authors and dates. Pop them tags. Flash analytics or slow them down. Give me a filler word between cards. Tell me what to do and I'll do it, leave the decision in my hands and you'll be disappointed.

General Paradigm (Mostly LD)

I will try to be tab

- Speed: I don't have the best hearing, so maybe around 80% of your top speed is best.
- Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible.
- Comparative worlds > Truth Testing
- competing interps > reasonability
- yes RVI
- you should probably read some kind of framework, but I'll default to util if nobody says anything.

Pref shortcuts (I'll evaluate anything but I'm better at some things over others)

Ks: Bad K debate makes me sad. Good K debate is what I'm here for (1)
K Affs: are good, explain things pls (1-2)
Larp: is fine, go for it. (1-2)
Phil: is fine, go for it. Explain your wacky philosophy. (3)
Theory: I actually really like these debates, but I'm bad at flowing procedurals so be really clear, send the doc or something, otherwise I'll probably mess something up. (2-3)
Trad: To each their own? Like you'll be fine but I don't particularly enjoy these debates. (4-Strike)
Trix: are for kids. Low threshold for response, I will still evaluate them, I'd just rather not, and if I can't understand them, I will not vote on it. (4-Strike)

Rapid fire misc thoughts:
Disclosure is good, I think open source + RRs should be the norm.
Condo is probably okay, but you still have to justify it
RVIs are good (in LD/PF)
The best rebuttals have minimal/no overview and do everything on the line-by-line.
There is such a thing as a bad argument, but that is totally irrelevant to my decision.
PTX Disads are fun and I like them, but you should be reading updated, unique, interesting scenarios. When every team at a tournament is reading the same scenario and it's not even very good I question why you're reading it in the first place.
Dedev is good and you should read it
Nebel has a point but please make new arguments
"I don't need this to win, but I'll extend this anyway" is one of the most frustrating things to hear. Collapse. Don't go for everything, just because you win it doesn't mean you should go for it.
Speech times, safety, and whatever tab yells at me for are the only actual rules of debate. Anything else is a norm and can be changed.
I will vote on ivis vs trix, especially if you're reading identity based positions.

I'm pretty solidly in the trial by fire camp, but there's a line between trial by fire and just throwing your weight around. Don't make it harder to be a less experienced or institutionally disadvantaged debater, there are already enough barriers to success for the least privileged. Read what you want, but don't be inaccessible. Be the support you wish you had as a novice. Be nice and take the round seriously and I'll boost your speaks.

An off-time roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in. Please just leave it at that.

Traditional framework debate: Framework is not a voter, it's just the lens I use to evaluate the round. Contextualize how your case best achieves the winning framework of the round. Ideally, you should do some weighing under both frameworks if the debate is at all uncertain. Anything less is gambling with my ballot. Btw, value debate is meaningless and I would rather you concede a value of morality/justice and then do the framework debate on the criterions.

Also directed at trad debaters: Arguments need evidence, and evidence needs citations. If I don't hear a citation, it is an analytic, and if it is an analytic vs a carded piece of evidence, it had better be a pretty good analytic. If your case is entirely analytic, you're behind from the beginning. You've already (presumably) done the work and have a citation. Just tell me the author's last name and the date it was published and I'll be happy.

I hate paraphrased evidence, it makes misrepresentation easy, and I will vote on potential abuse. Please just read highlighted cards.

I LOVE evidence comparison, PLEASE rehighlight your opponent's cards and tell me why their authors suck, I BEG to be in the back of the room when you go for them.

Speaker points

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on strategy, delivery style, norm setting, and round conduct. I will disclose speaks, just ask. I'm trying to be objective about how I give speaks, I think speaks are a dumb thing overall and I try to be cognizant of the fact that they determine breaks.

I am very comfortable giving an L-25 to people who are rude or make debate a hostile place to exist.

If you just docbot, I will tank your speaks. Good speaks are for good debates and just reading prewritten blocks instead of making your own arguments does not make for good debates. Some of the messiest and most boring debates happen because debaters refuse to make arguments in round.

Speaks calculations:
I'm pretty relaxed on these with novice rounds and if there's tech issues, I'm not gonna tank your speaks for them, don't worry abt that.

+ .1 for each card you read that has your initials in the cite (you had to cut the card) and that has author quals and everything in the cite (Max is + 1.0, tell me if you want these during your prep, otherwise I'll probably miss it)
+ .5 if you send analytics in the doc
+ .5 if you innovate and read something unique and interesting that I haven't seen before
+ .1 for reading a PTX disad that was updated the day of the tournament.

- 1.0 for stealing prep
- 1.0 for misgendering someone (It's an auto loss if you do it twice. Be better)
- .5 if you don't send a doc
- .5 for weird gross purple highlighting
- .5 for calling me "Mr. Maher" or "Sir" this just makes me super uncomfortable.

25.3 if you lose disclosure theory at a TFA tournament that tells me I'm not allowed to vote on it. I think TFA is setting a bad precedent by enforcing rules about what arguments are/are not allowed to be made, and I want all arguments to have implications. Following these new rules, tanking speaks is the implication I can have access to. I fundamentally disagree with TFA's decision, I think any non-offensive argument should be able to be considered, but I don't want to get yelled at, so that's the best I can do.

25.3 and under is reserved for people who are rude/violent.
29.7 and over is reserved for people who are nice, give optimal speeches, and are organized.

I feel like asking for 30 speaks is silly.

CX: I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to policy.

Docbotting is probably not strategic but it won't hurt your speaks

RVIs are dumb in policy, condo is probably fine unless it's something absurd

PF: I'm a progressive LD judge. Almost everything above should still apply to PF.

I believe in norm setting for evidence norms: straight up if you send your evidence without being asked I will start your speaks at 29, I'm so tired of wasting time waiting for cards. Only way to get a 30 in pf is if you send a speechdoc with non-paraphrased evidence (policy style cards) like how every other event does it. If you choose not to send evidence initially and we end up wasting time (cumulatively over 5 minutes) for you to find it and send it, I will be docking speaks heavily.

If someone asks for evidence, sending a link to a study paper or webpage is not acceptable, you have a responsibility to clearly mark where you're paraphrasing from (that means send highlighted evidence). Each time it happens is -1 speaker point, I can be (and have been) persuaded to vote on it. Debate has clear standards for evidence and you don't get to just ignore them. This is like the simplest thing.

read paraphrasing theory

Emmanuel Makinde - Add me to the email chain - (emmanuelmakinde18@gmail.com)

i debate at NYU currently

Top-Level

For the sake of all things good in life, cringe, and the activity of debate... call me Manny or Emmanuel, not "judge"

Debate is a space where people come to test their intellectual capacities through a discussion about the reading of the 1AC. I don’t care what your methodology is for accessing that discussion, but you should be able to defend it. I love debate and have a lot of fun, so it is more enjoyable for me to see other debaters having fun.

I can't promise to set aside my biases entirely (I try my best, but I don't think anyone can 100% do this). I do promise to evaluate debates as fairly as I can and give you the most valuable feedback. I'm always going to be open to questions at the end of debate, and don't be afraid to disagree with the RFD. I've experienced a fair share of inexperienced judges, and strive to be as far from that as possible. I default to common sense unless you tell me otherwise.

The nuance between, "The plan is not topical" and "The plan is so obviously, wildly untopical" can make or break debates. Don't mistake this for ad homs, but don't forget that debate is about persuasion as much as it is about research, and argumentation—how you articulate your argument makes a difference. I'll clarify here that tech and truth aren't mutually exclusive, but judge instruction on how to evaluate a certain argument is useful. Here, I'll also insert a link to a certain segment of Juju's lecture that embodies how I feel about tech v. truth. A dropped argument is true to the extent that you explain it.

Spreading is good. Speaking slow is good. Debate ultimately relies on communication. I know how hard it might be for you to grapple with the idea of maybe not spreading incomprehensibly through tags and analytics, but it's just that simple. If I can't hear what you said, it won't get on my flow. Just be self-aware about your spreading. You don't automatically get higher speaks because you spread faster.

Plans Texts

Plan texts are cool. I think a lot of policy AFFs have poor evidence and can be beaten with analytics sometimes. I generally dislike the ones that “The USFG should do the resolution in its [insert plan focus]” plan texts because they are a moving target for me. I will gladly fill in for the neg here and probably err on any theory if there isn’t much contextualization coming out the 2AC. I value the quality of evidence (because it’s really hard to find), but I won’t look at you sideways if your warrants are SLIGHTLY inconsistent with your tag unless the opposing team points it out.

2ACs should integrate extensions on the line by line. 2AC overviews are fine, but I won't flow them as a response to any case arg made by the 1NC. Long 2AC overviews are boring.

Case debates are so underrated. Please do it more

CPs

I love weird, specific, techy CPs. Advantage CPs and PIKs are my favorite. A lot of teams are usually bad at explaining why the perm doesn’t solve beyond a random card in the block or saying “Perm links to NB”. Good analysis is rewarded on the perm debate. Case solvency usually needs more time spent as well.

I don't believe in judge kick lmao sry

DAs

Similar to 1AC's, I think a lot of DA's have terrible link ev. I don't think it's the fault of the card cutters, but rather the topic committee for picking topics with terrible neg ground. I also think generics are generics for a reason - you can win on them if you debate them well. I'm willing to vote aff on any part of the DA that neg loses (i.e. if there's no impact why does it matter, if there's no link why is it relevant, if its not-unique why should I vote neg, it the internal links are cheap why should I grant you risk of impact o/w)

Ks

I'm very comfortable with anti-blackness Ks. I'm less comfortable, but still fine with other identity/positionality Ks, DnG, dark Deleuze, Baudrillard, Bataille, and some other pomo Ks, but do not expect me to fill in the lines. In those debates, I will flow cross and value/reward digestible explanations on the line by line.

I'm more attracted to small alternatives/advocacies than big ones. The former is more like "Discourse within this round is good" while the latter is like, "We organize an international communist revolution". I think the bigger ones lose more often to the args that are foundational on the "How do we get there?" questions. With that said, presumption becomes more convincing on the big advocacies than the smaller ones.

Be clear whether or not you're kicking the alt in the 2NR.

I’m not the judge for you if you are not black (especially white) and you want to read anti-blackness. Autoloss 0 speaks. Content > Strategy. It’s the same thing if you read bizcon and cap in the same 1NC. Do not embody perf cons.

K/Performance Affs
I've read several K AFFs the majority of my senior year (and still do in college). Even though I love the K so much, remember that I still value the clash and technical component of debating, so don't just read a 2.5 hr overview and then say "that was the work i did in the overview" in response to line by line. That is not debating. Also, do not come into the debate with the idea that your K just sort of subsumes every conceivable notion of human thought that doesn't directly engage with the body of literature you introduce. There isn't any theory of power that can intricately explain every single other theory of power.

With that said, KvK debates are fun but easily get muddy. Fortunately, there are easy ways for you to get out of the muddiness (specific link contextualization, using the grammars of your opponents, specific quotes, etc.).

I do not appreciate you reading a K Aff as a justification for being rude and disrespectful. A lot of K debaters in general have felt the need to assume this perceived role of K debaters (especially identity K debaters) as just rude and like all French revolution "F the state and F you". No. Your K authors aren't saying to be rude to people, so don't do it. Don't confuse that with being assertive which is excellent.

It should be related to the topic. You cannot just read a K AFF that has nothing to do with the resolution---you will definitely lose on T. I know how tempting it might be given the low prep burden, but even one card or two cards that establish a relationship to the resolution is enough.

I love performance AFFs and respect the debaters who have the courage to do it and make it look so easy. I also don't care if you choose not to read cards; just make it something flowable.

Prefs

On a scale of 1-10, how confident am I to render a ballot on certain debates?

Policy vs. Policy: 8.2

Policy vs. T: 6.3

Policy vs. K: 8

K vs. FW: 7.9

K vs. K: 8.1

K vs. Cap K: 9

K vs. Antiblackness Ks: 9.3

K vs. Pomo Ks: 7.2

Theory

If you go for theory, you should make the framing clear as to how you are going for it/how you want me to evaluate it (i.e., procedural, reason to reject the team, PIK solves case *these are not mutually exclusive, but it helps in terms of impact framing*)

Impact it out, please. It helps to point out in-round abuse. On procedurals, it helps to explain why their model abuses others.

If you feel like there is an ethics violation, I'd rather you make it as an argument than stop the debate unless you feel the ethics violation is making you seriously uncomfortable or unable to continue the debate. Here, I'll insert that homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, sexism, and any other "ism" that expresses deep prejudice towards any specific group warrants 0 speaks and an auto loss. Ad homs are also weird.

More than 3 condo probably isn't good against common AFFs that were alr on the wiki. Disclosure is good.

T/FW

Fairness is an impact if it's an intrinsic good. Otherwise, it's an internal link to education and clash. Predictability controls everything.

v. K Aff: If the 2NR doesn't have a way to prove why you can access the critical lit/discourse of the 1AC (i.e. TVA, SSD) then aff offense on your model becomes so attractive. PIKS, counter-advocacies, and your regular CP + disad debates are smart if deployed correctly.

v. Policy Aff: If you think I'm slightly on edge about whether or not the plan text is topical, good impact debating should mitigate that. If the plan is "obviously" not topical, then that should be clear to me from the 1NC. A single line as to why I should prefer the interp or C/I is necessary.

I believe non-traditional AFFs can be topical because "affirming" the resolution is entirely up to the terms the debaters set on. That means I have a high bar for voting on T against non-trad AFFs (especially ones that don't impact turn the resolution). That doesn't mean if you read non-trad you shouldn't work hard to win your model of debate, but I will not just sort of default to normative ways of affirming the resolution.

Cross

Cross ex is the most interesting time of the debate. It is where debaters actively interact with each other. I don't flow cross, but I pay close attention to and will write down arguments that are made. I've seen entire K links from cross make it into the 2NR.

If you run high theory and can't answer questions about your thesis sufficiently, you will likely lose.

The nuance between assertive and rude are apparent and you lose speaks for the latter.

Misc

Tech -----x--------------- Truth

K ----------x---------- Policy

AT x-------------------- A2

Turns case x-------------------- O/W

Saitama -x----------------------- Goku

Ins and outs are fine.

Some of my favorite current/past debaters & coaches atm: *subject to change* Will Baker, Darrian Carroll, DB, Eu, Tyler Vergho, Raam Tambe, Azja Butler, Iyana Trotman, Maeve Ella, Ryan Cavanaugh, Beau Larsen, Nae Edwards, Greg Zoda, Joe Leeson-Schatz, Aden Barton, Gabriel Chang-Deutsch, John Sharp, Diego (Jay-Z) Flores, Curtis Ortega, Taj Robinson

Public Forum

I've never done PF, but I've judged quite a bit. It's a nice break from all the policy spreading.

A lot of the policy stuff applies.

I prefer speech docs where everything you read is in one document. Google docs is fine, but don't send me like 8 different docs for the first constructive

Off-time road maps are good

+0.1 speaks if you reference any of the following:

Adventure Time

Steven Universe

Vikram Saigal

Maximillian Layden

I am a lay judge, and have not debated public forum before.

However, I do understand the format of public forum debate and will be flowing the round. As for speaking, a conversational speed is preferred and the speech should be clear and concise.

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

Here are some things you can do to win my ballot:

• Main Point: I look for a few main arguments that are stuck with throughout the round, and I value quality over quantity when it comes to this speech. Please do not run theory or kritiks as I do not have experience with them and will most likely not vote off of them.

• Rebuttal: Attack your opponent's case as much as possible, and stick to a few clear points. Frontlining is recommended in 2nd rebuttal, but not necessary.
• Summary: Make sure the impact weighing is laid out well in this speech. A neat comparative analysis of the arguments presented is the easiest way to win the round
• FF: New arguments/responses can't be brought up in this round. Make a clear analysis of the round and weigh impacts.

CX:

I will not vote off of CX but it will affect your speaks. Having a good knowledge of your case and the topic will result in higher speaks.

Evidence Sharing:

If any cards are called for, they should be shared ASAP, since this tournament is online I understand if there are delays, but an email chain should be set up before the round starts and if the debate truly comes down to a clash of evidence then I will evaluate the cards as well.

Speaks:

I will give speaker points based on your in depth knowledge of the topic and your ability to speak clearly and to the point during rounds.

Most importantly, debate is all about learning and improving, not winning or losing. At the end of the day I want you to have a good round, and have fun!

For me, Speaking is a hobby and I love listening to various speeches too. I’m a flat judge with experience in judging PF, LD and a few other speech events. He/Him pronouns.

Glendale ‘21

Missouri State ‘26

rauhoffdebate@gmail.com---yes chain---please include tournament, round, teams debating, and sides in the subject line.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

Education (HS, debater)

Immigration (HS, debater)

Arms Sales (HS, debater)

Criminal Justice (HS, debater)

Water (HS, coach)

NATO (HS, coach)

Fiscal Redistribution (HS, coach)

Nukes (NDT, debater)

I was exclusively a policy debater in high school and I’m exclusively a policy debater in college. Debating the college nukes topic now. Currently coach for Glendale and cut lots of cards for them, so I will be up to date on the vast majority of the topic lingo.

FOR MISSOURI:

If I am judging you and you want to spread, I love it! You all don't get that opportunity much, and I remember being ecstatic in HS when I'd get a flow judge/panel at a Missouri tournament. However, there are a few things to note:

1---I very much dislike spreading that sounds horrendous. This looks like debaters mumbling through cards incomprehensively, making it impossible to distinguish tags/analytics from the body of a card, attempting to speak faster than you can read, etc---you should prioritize clarity over speed.

2---Your opponents should be able and/or willing to participate in a round with spreading.

3---I will flow, and will decide the debate based off of said flow.

I've noticed some debaters in MO bragging about not taking as much prep time as their opponents or making it a goal to not take prep time at all. I will audibly laugh if you stand up for the 2NR/2AR without prep, and immediately after the debate, tell you several things you could've used prep time for to improve your speech. Prep time is useful. It's there for a reason, and no debater that has ever stepped foot in a debate round is too good for prep time.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

Will vote on whatever, just impact it out & tell me why your argument matters more than/outweighs your opponents’ argument. Don’t care if you read death good in front of me, but just know that the threshold for beating that argument is pretty low. Same goes for ASPEC/FSPEC/whatever weird stuff you feel is necessary to read.

I try not to be a very expressive judge, because I find these judges to be extremely annoying.

Clarity is more important to me than speed---go however fast you want, but make sure I can hear taglines/analytics, regardless of whether they’re in the speech doc or not. If you want to blaze through cards, that’s fine, just make sure I can hear like every fifth word or something.

Condo is good (within reason), judge kick is good, reasonability is stupid, utopian alts are stupid.

I will not adjudicate out-of-round events, regardless of the situation. My role is solely as an educator, not as an executioner. If you bring up an issue to me that has happened outside of the context of the debate round that involves your opponents and you refuse to debate the round, I will give all debaters involved a 27.5, immediately stop the round, and report the issue to tab/let them deal with it.

ONLINE:

Could not care any less if you have your camera on or off.

Slow down slightly.

Include analytics in the doc (don’t care if you do this in-person, but tech issues makes it important).

Use an external mic if possible.

TOP LEVEL:

Probably about 60/40 on tech v truth. If you explain to me why one matters more than the other, I will evaluate the debate that way. I lean slightly more tech, because you can’t just answer an extinction impact with “extinction won’t happen!” with no ev or warrants to substantiate that claim.

I typically vote pretty quickly, but this doesn’t mean the debate was bad or lopsided. All it means is that I feel as if the debate was clear enough argumentatively that I was able to adjudicate it without putting pieces together at the end or looking at evidence. This is my ideal situation. Debates are long and we all want to move on. That said, if I need to take 20 minutes to decide a debate, I will do so.

If you’re rude, it’ll affect your speaks in a negative way, though I might have a higher threshold for what I constitute as “rude” than most. For example, if you’re giving a long, drawn-out answer to a question and your opponent cuts you off, they’re not being rude---they have more questions to ask and you don’t get to use CX as 3 minutes of extra speech time. Calling an argument “trash” or something isn’t rude, but calling your opponents “trash” is. If you’re REALLY rude, it is possible for me to vote you down, but this is an extremely high bar that I’ve only come CLOSE to crossing once.

I will only intervene if neither side has made the arguments they’ve gone for clear. This is my least ideal judging situation. The more I have to intervene, the lower your speaks will be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I do not pretend to have a strict rule for speaker points, and they are adjusted on a tournament-by-tournament basis. What this means is that my average will be contingent upon various parameters of the tournament (i.e. size, pool, length, etc.). My average is a 28.5 and you’ll go up or down from there.

DISADVANTAGES:

They’re great and ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Politics DAs are awesome.

COUNTERPLANS:

They are also great and the other ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Textual v functional competition can be debated out. I don’t have particularly strong thoughts about either. Competition is more impactful than theory.

Conditionality is definitely good, but I’ll vote on condo bad if you decide to go for it. That will, however, require lots of work done on the line-by-line and there should probably be an example of in-round abuse.

Advantage CPs are great and underutilized at the high school level.

Multi-plank CPs are fine.

Probably better for Process CPs than most.

PICs are good, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Plan-plus counterplans are bad 99% of the time---not from a theory perspective, but from a substance perspective---just stop reading these

TOPICALITY:

Pretty bad for T vs policy affs, unless

1---The violation is obvious or

2---It’s a new aff.

In situations where your opponents break a new aff that has not been read commonly on the topic, I understand T as a last-ditch strategy and will give the negative some more leeway. That being said, if the aff IS clearly topical, it will still be difficult to get my ballot on T.

While I don’t consider myself a good judge for T, I do place importance on having good interps/reasons to prefer. It is possible for the aff to get my ballot with just a “we meet” argument, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Fairness & clash are not independent impacts---but rather internal links to impacts like education---this is especially true for T against K affs.

T is not an RVI.

Will not flow an ASPEC shell or any other theory shell if it's hidden inside a T shell---stop doing this

KRITIKS (on the aff):

In my ideal debate, the affirmative will defend a hypothetical plan through the USFG and the negative will negate the effects of said plan’s implementation. If I was a critical debater creating my pref sheet for a tournament, I would likely place myself in the 70% range. I personally believe that in an equally debated framework v framework debate, I am likely more easily persuaded by the negative.

In order to get my ballot, you will have to convince me of three primary things by the end of the debate:

1---My ballot in this particular round is key for the solvency of the affirmative.

2---The world of the affirmative creates a better model of debate than the negative, or at the very least, does not create a worse model of debate than the status quo.

3---The affirmative out-teched the negative team and voting affirmative outweighs the offense that the 2NR has.

If you think you are unable to convince me of these three things, you should not read a critical aff in front of me. While it may be harder to win my ballot than some judges, it will not be anything close to impossible. I will reward good debaters, regardless of the arguments they read.

Having a strong framework argument is integral to getting my ballot. In order to prove to me that the model of debate you produce is better or equal to the status quo, you will first have to win that debates over the resolution are bad.

KRITIKS (on the neg):

The three questions from above also apply to this section. In order to win my ballot, you will have to convince me that my ballot in this round is key to solve, that you create a better and/or equal model of debate than the squo, and that you have out-teched your opponents.

If your kritik is a DA, i.e. just “aff perpetuates x, no alt”, refer to the DA section.

I think that the Cap K is extremely strategic on this year’s HS topic---and I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on it if there’s a viable link to the aff. I think that it is extremely strategic to run this as more of a linear DA, too.

I am Padmaja Sanapureddy, a board certified physician in Sleep Medicine. My daughter is a public Forum debater for the past two years. My preference is for the speakers to speak in moderate speed. I would say I am a flay judge (mix of tech and lay). I vote of all the speeches including crossfire and supporting arguments with evidence. I ask speakers to be respectful and professional to each other.

lunakansasdebate@gmail.com

email chains please

You should aim to be clear in front of me. Double what you think is clear enough.

KU '26

"judge" or "Luna"

Do whatever. I'm an educator first. Maximize your chances of winning by arguing with my ballot not your opponent.

Final rebuttals are most likely to win if they start with: "Our argument is X. Their best argument is Y. Even if they win Y, we have still won the debate on X for Z reason."

Feel free to email or ask any questions.

Ev ethics (L25) is skipping more than 5 words in a card, misciting author or article title, cards cut missing at least 1 sentence, or cards cut that don't start and end with the start and end of paragraphs in the article.

It is an evidence ethics issue when not better explained by: an accident that results in leaving off an author, an accident that produces minor discrepancies in the article title, an accident that results in a missing letter, single word, or instance of punctuation at the beginning/end of a paragraph, or discrepancies better explained by the existence of multiple versions of the article. In essence, close is close enough, but wrong is never enough.

flow judge; debated pf for 4 years

PF preferences:

General Round Info:

• I value warrants more than evidence (This doesn't mean you shouldn't try to card your responses, however); every response and argument should have a warrant behind it.
• All turns should be weighed because they are independent reasons to vote for you.
• I will keep track of time, but I'm not too strict. You can go 5-10 seconds overtime in order to finish your last sentence.
• I'll only call for evidence if you tell me to AND if I think it's important to making my decision.
• Time your speeches! I'll time them too, but this helps you know what to cut out/add and how fast you should be speaking.

Case:

• Don't spread
• No friv theory, theory and progressive arguments are fine but I won't know how to evaluate them.
• I'm tech > truth. Even if what you say is blatantly false, but your opponents don't respond to it, it's considered true for the round.
• If you are running potentially sensitive arguments, please include a trigger warning.

Crossfire:

• Be respectful but also assertive.
• Any concessions in crossfire are binding
• Any concessions in cross must be brought up in speech in order for me to flow it
• When the time runs out, whoever is speaking can finish their thought (max 5-10 seconds more).

Rebuttal:

• Make sure to signpost and try to weigh as well.
• 2nd rebuttal should frontline and collapse.

Summary:

• Weighing is especially important in this speech (You should do the work for me in your speeches so I don't have to intervene).
• Make sure to be organized throughout the speech. You can do this by signposting as well as having a structure to your speech. Offtime roadmaps are encouraged.
• No new responses in 2nd summary.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Please extend your case.

Final Focus:

• Everything said in FF should have been in summary.
• Make sure to extend case and focus on weighing. (Look to the summary section for more specific information.)

I am a parent judge. I have been “coached” on the structure of the debate and main ideas of the topic. So, I am somewhat familiar with it.

I understand that in some cases you must speak fast to cover as much information about your case as possible. As far as it is organized and you give pointers throughout the speech that I can follow and connect, I am OK with speed.

I also understand that you are passionate about your arguments. Maintaining respect is very important.

I will be tracking each point in your case, how you defend them and how you negate your opponent’s case. As far as you do it convincingly, you should be good!

Best wishes!

Viral Shah

Hi, my name is Jiana and I have been debating (mainly PF and policy) for 3 years now.

When it comes to your arguments, please note:

1. Go at your own pace, anything's fine with me, but clarity is important. If you want to go at an extremely fast pace, however, you will have to send me your case so that there's nothing I'm missing out on.
2. Always respect your opponents, interrupting someone in crossfire, or other manners or rudeness won't be looked favourably upon.
3. Use roadmaps, but don't make them too long please.
4. When you're sharing cards, please send the link as well as an excerpt from the link that is relevant to the argument.

When I'm deciding my ballot, here are the main things you'll have to do to prove to me that your argument is valid:

1. you reinstate your points throughout the case, and with appropriate weighing, prove that yours is the most credible
2. you refute your opponents cases and rebuttal points appropriately
3. use credible sources
4. again, WEIGH, if you convince me that your magnitude, impacts and timeframe are more beneficial to the case, the win will most probably be yours.
5. respect is also very important, if you're not respectful to me, your partner or your opponent, I will definitely take that into consideration when choosing my ballot.

Tobi is a student sometimes, a part-time oceanographer and an amazing adjudicator every day. If there is anyone to be referred to as one of the faces of adjudication in Africa, Tobi is one of your go-to people. With over 60+ breaks in tournaments, you can think about, Grand-Final and Semi Judge at about 25 including, PAUDC 21, Western IV 2022, and IIT Bombay 22. He has served as Language Officer at Campbelltown Australs, NEADC 22, SANUDC 22, and was on Appeal for Madrid WUDC 2023. He is the absolute definition of excellence meets hardwork. He is also the first West African to judge the Quarter-finals of the World Universities Debating Championship, Belgrade 22, talk about awesomeness. He was on CAP over 10+ tournament including, RRAC 23, Kampala Open 23, Debate A+ 23, Uganda National Team trials, Zimbabwe National Team trials and, Jozi Open, others. Outside of the debate room, Tobi is that sweet and soft guy you want on your corner everyday of the week. Always willing to help however he can.

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

I'm a fourth year university student at SFU studying Health Science.

Generally, I'm open to every argument, but please (please!!) keep your delivery slow and clear. It's more important to have quality evidence than quantity of evidence. Please do not be rude or cheat. At the end of it, I vote based on the flow and the debate round.

Feel free to contact me after the round if you need more feedback. You can reach me at Jasminewxb01@gmail.com.

(Debaters better send your cases to the email in advance :) )

Good Luck to you all, Here are some points that matter to me :

I am a lay judge, so please be clear and talk slowly, If I cannot understand your point it cannot be considered in my judging. so please be clear.

Maintain your tempo at all times.

Make sure you note the time and talk accordingly.

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

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

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

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

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

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

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

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.