Tabroom.com

December Potomac Intramural

2023 — Online, MD/US

Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Raif Ahmed Hire

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 3:51 PM EDT

Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

Aditi Annamareddy Hire

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 4:52 PM EDT

Hi! My name is Aditi and I will be your judge today:

Just a basic summary of what I like vs. dislike in a round

Tech>Truth= My personal opinions are completely compromised in a round. I will not vote for someone because I have a personal opinion that agrees with the points made by their team. Instead, I will vote for a team, if they were able to effectively defend their points while attacking their opponent's: meaning I am looking for weighing and strong arguments. I will use personal judgement to look for/detect false/weak arguments, but if your opponent fails to understand flaws in your argument then I will not hold it against you.

Spreading is fine, I don't really care but just be mindful. Don't compromise clarity for speed and send over speech docs if need be.

Please don't forfeit time in your case/rebuttal. Nothing gets on my nerves more than a debater who forfeits time during a constructive. Not speaking that whole time makes you seem unprepared. If you run out of content before time runs out in the rebuttal, you've probably lost the round. Just kidding, but please make sure that you are flowing and blocking out arguments so that you are prepared to speak for that time.

Flow, don't drop arguments, and keep them organized in chronological order. Ex. your case should go my contention: C1, C2, C3; rebuttal should go: opponent contentions: C1, C2, C3; my contentions C1, C2, C3; and so on.

I also prefer old fashioned debate round structures vs. progressive debates:

Please don't run Ks, they are a waste of time and aren't really substansial. You can run them if you see a benefit in your argument, but unless it's really solid, your K will likely not sway me to vote for your side at all.

That being said, I really like frameworks. A good framework that properly ties into your case is something that could win you a round. Personally, l love frameworks; it not only gives judges an idea of what key words to look for in your case but also is a really convincing front that makes your case a lot more solid.

Running Theory, PICs and other nontraditional arguments are not reccomended, I'm not really educated on running theory so please don't. You'll just confuse me.

I WILL MOST LIKELY GIVE THE ROUND TO THE PERSON WITH THE STRONGEST LINK CHAIN:If your case is too hard to follow, I likely won't vote for you. This also is the same for running progressive debate arguments.

For novice debaters:

Just have fun, I give out ballots to the team who is using their alloted time completely and enjoying themselves.

Although for novice rounds, they are a bit less Tech> Truth and more Tech=Truth

That's all from me; Good luck with this round and all future rounds!

Isaac Appelbaum Hire

Joaquin Arreola Hire

Diya Balaji Hire

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 12:15 AM PDT

note for april intramural: i have some basic knowledge of the topic but nothing extensive- i have not debated this topic so your arguments should be well warranted and clearly explained

add me to any docs/email chains: contact.diyab@gmail.com

hey guys im diya- freshman @ tesla stem, 4th year of pf

general stuff:

tldr: just be chill, make good decisions and do your best

truth>tech to an extent- i ain't voting on complete bs but ill buy pretty much anything u read if its extended and warranted throughout the round

i hate judge intervention but will not hesitate to if you’re ruining the debate space. i will try my best not to intervene as the rotj is to be a judge not an educator, but if you are making it unsafe for others i will give you the worst speaks possible in the tournament and drop you. this is the one place i feel no shame in intervening in.

please understand what you’re reading or you’re going to confuse everyone including yourself

offtime roadmaps good especially in back half

i love prereq weighing

unless ur in ms novice or elementary i need yalls evidence to be cut cards- this is nonegotiable

ill always disclose unless u tell me not to

talking to me about my decision after round is fine- just don't be mean lol

speed:

i'm not that great with a ton of speed, a decent amount is fine but the faster u talk the more u risk me not getting it on the flow

basically idc how fast u speak but you need to be clear- ur speaks will take a hit if i cant understand u

to be safe send me all speech docs

progressive arguments:

run whatever u want- as a judge its unfair to restrict what u run as long as its not problematic HOWEVER note that i don't have that much experience with some prog and u run a decent risk of me not understanding u

to clarify: im very comfortable with frameworks (in fact i love me a well warranted framework), ok with theory, and idrk k's

that being said i will vote on whatever if its explained and extended well

i HATE running theory for the sake of it- only run theory if u genuinely think ur opponents were abusive. friv theory will get ur speaks docked

don't run prog in ms unless both sides are ok with it and def no prog in elementary

speeches:

frontlining HAS to happen in 2nd rebuttal - ill be lenient for ms novice and jv

yes turns are offense but 1) extend and 2) weigh or i cant vote on it

only extend/weigh in rebuttal if u have time - dont do it and then drop half their arguments

everything i vote off of must be in the final focus; everything in the ff must be in the summary - if its not in the summary, its new in final even if you read it in case/rebuttal

ff should mirror summary

please collapse please please (choose one argument and focus on that in summary and ff)

defense is sticky

how i vote:

i evaluate weighing first or whatever highest level of offense is

ill vote off the least mitigated impact that is weighed the best

w/o weighing im going for the cleaner argument

speaks:

generally pretty good with speaks- ill start at a 28 and go from there

at the end of the day, just have fun! ik sometimes winning and losing rounds can seem rly big but at the end of the day its all chill so just do your best :)

lmk if u have any questions

credit to cady wu for like half the paradigm

Kyra Bergerud Hire

Emily Bergman Hire None

Chase Bezonsky Hire

Candace Bistodeau Hire None

Alessandro Brunelli Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 1:21 PM EDT

Hi, I’m a second-year college student and did 4 years of PF, Debating on the National Circuit from Orlando. Debater on the Florida State University debate team

Overarching things:

Tech>Truth: I evaluate the round solely on what's presented in the round regardless of the truthfulness of the argument. But remember the more sophisticated your argument gets the lower threshold I have on evaluating responses.

Frameworks: I default to the framework most brought up in rounds throughout speeches, If no clear framework is applied I will be forced to decide the argument by myself. If a team provides a framework for me to evaluate the round under it should be introduced as early as possible and extended throughout all speeches. If there are two frameworks please do the comparative for me and explain why I should pick one over the other. However, if only one team brings up a framework and the other team does not engage with it I will weigh all arguments of that one framework.

Comparative Analysis: Please do the comparative for me with different arguments. If both teams are running similar arguments do the comparative and tell me why yours is better. If teams are running different arguments I need to know why I'm preferring your argument. Absent comparative analysis, I will have to interpret things on my own and you don't want that.

Extension: Extending only the authors and taglines of cards doesn't suffice for me. You need to extend the substance of the card as well and how they relate to your impact. If you want me to evaluate something in FF is should be included in the summary speech. I usually allow first-speaking teams to extend defense straight to final focus but in reality, you should be mentioning important defense extensions in summary.

Progressive args: If you are going to run it then do so well and actually explain it with warrants. I will not buy a simple shell case that gets dropped.

Other things:

-I will flow cross. If something important happened in cross, mention it in the speech. A good cross is a great way to up speak.
- Will be lenient with going over time however DO NOT make it excessive, if I think you are abusing the system I will stop flowing.
- Quality over Quantity; don't spread. If you plan on speaking fast please send a speech doc. If I can't understand you I'll say clear and after 3 times I'll stop flowing.
- Second rebuttal should respond to turns/disads.
- Please collapse on a few arguments in summary. I prefer quality over quantity and clear extensions.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh (as early as possible in the round)
- Implicate turns and defense

L/D

Debate is like driving a car - you need the right accessories, and most importantly, you gotta know how to drive the car. You get better the more you drive, and eventually, you learn some pretty sick moves.. Getting a judge and getting a new car is pretty similar. Both require some getting used to, but once you figure it out, the highway is yours. You might be wondering what kinda car I am. Well, I'm not a 2020 Ford Mustang, but I'm also not a broken down 1988 chevy impala. I'm a 2006 Ford Fusion. I've been around the block and got some miles on me, but now I tend to sit in the garage. Let me give you some advice for driving a 2006 Ford Fusion. Here are some things that make the car run:

If you are affirmative, you should defend some sort of concrete action, preferably an action that can be written in one to two sentences and can be passed to your opponent. I tend to think that affs need stable plan/advocacy texts because it's important to generate stable offense. If your entire 1AC is the text, maybe this isn't the car for you. I also tend to think that the plan action should be topical, or at least topic adjacent. This is really a preference, instead of a hard and fast rule. I'm not a big fan of rejecting the res outright unless it's just that bad. If you find yourself constantly rejecting the resolution, that's awesome, but maybe I'm not the car for you.

Your 2006 Ford Fusion goes 0-60 in 8 seconds, which is a long time. As a debater, try to avoid going 0-60 in 8 seconds. I'm down for speed, but if you start the speech going full speed, I'm probably gonna miss some stuff. I can hang with your top speed, but work your way there. You can drive the car on the highway, but make sure you're using the acceleration ramp.

The car you've been given also has some weird dimensions. I think that debate is a game of net benefits, regardless of the arguments read. I tend to not vote for tiny IVIs or RVI's, but instead, I look at the entire flow. Your job is to create a larger narrative as to why I vote for you, so you should do impact calculus.

This car is a little old. Here's acceptable brands of fuel:

1. Topical affirmatives are great - especially with fleshed out advantages. I tend to award speaker points not just based on the quality of the debate, but the quality of your research. Well researched advantages with tangible impacts are best. The fiat question here isn't too important for me. I assume everything is fiated to some degree, even K affs. Just have something sticky for the neg to garner offense.

2. DA/CP debate is great for me. I love politics and hegemony debates, and I especially love them when paired with counterplans. Make sure your counterplan is competitive and actually solves the aff.

3. Theory. Theory is a great tool when used responsibly. I tend to like most theory, with some exclusions, which I'll get to below. Please note. You don't overfill your gas tank - so don't read too many theory arguments. I tend to think that 2 pieces of theory during a speech is the absolute ceiling. Otherwise, the debate gets messy and the car won't run well for you.

4. K debate. You should do some of that! You should have a clear alternative with links that describe why the plan actually trips the impacts. Saying "Plan uses the USFG" is fine, but that's only a link. Have multiple links. Also it's important that you very clearly describe the world of the alternative. Providing a really dumbed down two-sentence explanation of the action of the alt is recommended.

5. I'm gonna be honest, this car can only take special types of fuel. If you read the following K's in front of me, I'm more down to understand what you're getting at: Neolib, biopower, antiblackness, cap, fem, and on occasion, D&G. It's not that I'm not familiar with other lit, but I'm just not as well read as some others might be.

2006 Ford Fusions are not super complicated to drive, but here are some things that make it break down:

1. Perms are not advocacies, and I don't think they have net benefits. Advocacies have net benefits, but perms do not. They are tests of competition, so you should talk about competition.

2. I don't like silly theory. I think if you read an argument in the 1NC you should read it with your chest. SPEC is cool, but maybe only read it if you're actually going to go for it AND it would be strategically viable for you to do so. Also, I can't really get behind the whole "you should read the plan text in the first X minute thing." Just don't read silly theory. Make it count.

3. The car breaks down when you read disclosure. I won't vote on disclosure arguments, regardless of the format. It's not my realm to decide what happened before the round, but I often think disclosure only benefits larger schools. Disclose, don't disclose, I don't care.

4. I'll be upfront with you, there's a fair amount of car manuals that are not compatible with this version of the Ford Fusion. I get lost easily when the following lit bases are read in front of me: Baudrillard, Bataille, Buddhism, Nietzsche, and really anything in this tradition of really high theory. Again, I might not be the car for you, but if you do have to drive this car, don't use cruise control. Drive the car where you want it to go, and I'll go there with you as long as the path is clear.

5. I prefer depth. I really don't wanna see you read 7 off in the 1NC just to spread the other team out. Read maybe 3 offcase positions and drive the car real nice.

At the end of the day, the 2006 Ford Fusion isn't a hard car to drive, but there are certain ways the car needs to be driven. The car doesn't have a GPS. I don't know where you are going unless you make it explicitly clear. Rebuttals need to be wholistic and have clear win conditions. You've gotta park the car if you want the ballot.

The last thing I'll say is that I expect y'all to be nice. Don't spread your opponents out if they're a novice team, and more importantly, don't be hateful in your speech. It's been a really rough year for all of us, and this is a space to get away from the noise around us. If you start spewing that kinda speech, the car windows are getting rolled up and that's an auto loss. No exceptions. I really don't really think that people should be rude.

Oh yeah, I forgot to talk about speaker points. If you drive the car mostly right, without a fender-bender, the average is around a 28. If you wreck the car or deliberately start reversing on the highway, it'll probably go down from there. Don't wreck the car.

NSDA 2021 Updates: Add me to the email chain, or however you prefer to get me the evidence.

- Please don't miscut (I will drop you)
GLHF

Evan Bubniak Hire

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 9:11 AM EDT

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Vivian Cai Hire None

Nishka Chotai Hire None

Elizabeth Chung Hire

Wai Chung Hire

Cleo Cochran Hire

Beth Luzann Cole Hire

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:29 AM EDT

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Morgan Copeland Hire

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 4:29 PM EDT

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it's a game with real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debt, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on are chefs ki.ss

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good.

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they can access the same scholarship under the TVA.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

Joseph-Charles D'Antuono Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 11:32 AM CDT

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

Critical literature I read in debate:

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

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

Irene Do Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 5:08 AM EDT

It is my first time judging on this topic!

Pronouns: She/Her | Debated Policy 4 years & Public Forum 3 years, Experience coaching @ NOVA Debate | NYU Stern '24

- I consider myself a flow judge and score speaker points starting from 28 and going up or down from there

- Please sign post!

Public Forum

- Fine with speed as long as it is clear but I recommend slowing down online and much prefer quality>quantity

- You do not need to extend defense in summary unless it's frontlined in rebuttal (sticky defense)

- Be civil in cross, I'll intervene if I think it has gone too far.

- I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in speech

- No new arguments in final focus

- Calling Cards: I'm fine with it and if gets to be an important issue in the round tell me to call for it in a speech, please have evidence ready to send

- Theory/progressive arguments: I'll vote on it if relevant but I have a low threshold for responses

- Weighing: Start early in second rebuttal, continue throughout the debate, and comparative weighing

- Please collapse!!!

Policy

Aff:

- Add me on email chain: irenedo2002@gmail.com

- In debate I typically ran a policy or soft left aff. I know some K affs relatively well, but you need to be really clear since it has been a while.

- Performance: Fine with it! Just be clear!

Neg:

- I personally ran K's (Cap, Neolib, Setcol, Ableism, Fem, Queer Pessimism), Politics, DA, and sometimes theory

- If you want to run a K (not the ones above) I'll need a clear overview/explanation on it

- Politics: I'll vote on it, but make sure you're winning the link, I find that the faultiest in most politics debates

- DA (general): Fine

- CP: Fine with it, but the net benefit should be really clear

- Theory: I know most of the common theory arguments (T, Plan Flaw, Disclosure), if it's not one of those just make sure to be clear

In Round Details

- Keep track of your own prep

- Don't be rude - I will lower your speaker points

Extras

- Feel free to email me with any questions or for extra feedback: irenedo2002@gmail.com

Phuong Doan Hire

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 3:02 AM CDT

Updated: 12/9/2023

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

TL;DR:

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

General:

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

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

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion:

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

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

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

Allowable arguments:

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

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

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

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

Speeches and Rebuttals:

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

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

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

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

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

Cross:

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

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

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

Cross is binding, y'all.

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

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

Speaking:

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

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

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

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

Online Etiquette:

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

Pet Peeves:

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

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

Please ask if everyone is ready.

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

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

Yeou Dong Hire

Marclandonne Dormeus Hire None

Juliene Fuson Hire

Yusuf Gabr Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:18 AM CDT

Debating Experience

I currently debate PF at the High School Varsity level, so I do understand most of the terms and procedures of Public Forum.

Speed

It is acceptable to speak moderately fast, however, please do not spread and speak excessively fast. If you do intend to do so, please share a speech doc during the round.

Weighing

Weighing is absolutely critical to my decision making. Emphasize, especially using statistics, how many people will be impacted by your argument and to what degree, and make clear how you are weighing (scope, magnitude, probability, timeframe, etc.).

Signposting

Please signpost in rebuttal and in every speech so that it is clear what contention or argument you are talking about. It would also be helpful to take a little pause before moving on to the next contention/argument.

Extending Case

Please extend your case and your most important rebuttals throughout every speech. This is necessary for me to evaluate it. In addition, collapse on ONE of your contentions in summary and final focus.

Counterplans

Counterplans and offering alternatives are fine unless the resolution reads "On balance...". In that case, it is prohibited to offer alternatives and counterplans and the impacts of the resolution must be impacted against the status quo.

Argumentation

You must have a clear link chain that is clearly extended throughout the round. The impacts must also be clear and ideally, if evidence is available, quantitatively impacted out (for example, how many people will not be able to enter college as a result of student debt, or what percentage). Repeatedly signpost in rebuttal and refute not only your opponent's evidence but also the reasoning.

Kritiks and Theory

I have run arguments similar to kritiks before and I have studied theory, so I can understand them if you choose to run them. However, please limit their usage and make sure to decompose and explain each part slowly.

Lastly, please be respectful to your opponents and have fun! Debate is a learning experience.

Thanks for reading,

Yusuf

Arav Giragani Hire

Rachel Grimley Hire

Leavy Hu Hire

Crystal Huang Hire

Anna John Hire

Serena Jones Hire

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 5:06 AM PDT

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Tanmay Joshi Hire

Victoria Justice Hire None

Pranav Kasibhatla Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 12:02 PM CDT

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

Michael Kirylau Hire

Last changed on Thu July 4, 2024 at 11:49 AM CDT

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

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

Background

I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). I judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate, unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (aka tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

Mark Kivimaki Hire

Last changed on Sun June 30, 2024 at 2:49 AM CDT

Coach at Edina HS (LD, speech) and University of Minnesota (policy)

I've judged and coached pretty much all formats and styles of debate. I keep a rigorous flow, usually on paper, and I will evaluate the debate using the judge instruction that the debaters in the round give me. You should be clear and give me pen time when switching between flows. I care a lot about evidence, and my favorite debates are ones that involve well-researched and thought out positions.

I will not vote on an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or the opposing team's character.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

College Policy:

I exclusively read Ks when I was competing. Now mostly coaching policy arguments. I see a lot of clash debates, some KvK debates, and a few policy debates. Topic knowledge is medium.

Condo is good, but I can be persuaded either way. Judge kick is a logical extension of condo, unless you win it isn't.

Ks: Framework is where I start my evaluation of the round. You should be explicit about what your interp means for the debate if you win it and compare models. AFF teams defending a plan should read more cards about their AFF and less generic K blocks.

Competition debates for most process CPs should be unwinnable, but NEG teams often end up ahead due to subpar AFF debating.

T-USFG: Fairness is fine, clash makes less sense unless you do a good job of explaining an external impact. 2NRs need to engage with case somehow.

National Circuit LD:

Flow. You must use CX time or prep time to ask questions about what cards were read. If you don't do this, I will start your prep time for you and subtract speaker points.

Decent for philosophy arguments. I think a lot of LD debaters struggle to justify utilitarianism and more NEG debaters should take advantage of this.

Theory arguments: I am likely to conclude that rejecting the argument, not the team solves. Reasonability is underutilized. I have voted on "frivolous theory" before, but it needs to be debated technically and cannot rely on tagline extensions.

Tricks: Probably not the best judge for you. I need to be able to explain back the warrant for your argument to be able to vote on it. Sometimes "tricks" arguments meet this threshold, but often they do not.

Traditional Circuit LD:

I can judge whatever you put in front of me. Impact calculus matters a lot. I don't want to see arguments unrelated to the topic--my litmus test is that your argument must prove the resolution true or false. That means unconventional arguments are fine, but non-topical Ks or theory arguments are something I'd rather not see (unless your opponent also prefers to have a national circuit style debate).

Grace Li Hire

Vincent Li Hire

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Background

I did 4 years of PF in high school and 4 years of parliamentary (BP) at University of Southern California. I've coached in both PF and Parli.

Style

Be civil and regardless of your speed, remain coherent in your speech. I'm fine with spreading, but do realize that there is an inherent risk of me missing something if you do so, especially if you begin slurring words together.

I appreciate signposting and well organized speeches in general; either keep it organized or explicitly signpost. Otherwise, I will not guarantee the flow I have is the same flow that you may have wanted.

If you want to offer a framework, make sure that it's a framework of substance rather than just a glorified roadmap. I'd rather you set the tone for the round by providing a weighing mechanism instead (morals in utilitarianism vs. consequentialism, short-term vs. long-term, etc.).

I will only call cards if they are the deciding factor for the round, which is basically never. However, mentions of statistics or results of studies should touch on their methodology.

Judging

Impact, impact, impact. I won't care about how great your point is unless you explicitly show why it matters. Note: if you shotgun a ton of arguments in hopes that the opposing team will inevitably drop a few of them, do not suddenly bring them up at the end of the round without having extended them at all.

I lean tech>truth, but keep it somewhat reasonable. I appreciate creative arguments and am open to anything. However, if you run a more convoluted argument that requires a certain suspension of belief, keep it relevant to the topic of the round or at least keep it loosely grounded in reality.

Speaks will be given based off of argumentation and how well you engage points. Bonus points if you fit in a clever analogy somewhere.

Weighing and/or offering a criteria for weighing is far more appreciated that dogfighting the same 2 or 3 points for 30 minutes. I highly appreciate turning arguments, but make sure it makes sense.

Sherry Lin Hire

Ellen Liu Hire

Ethan Liu Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 7:47 AM EDT

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the offense you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it. Blippy extensions are fine in principle, but often insufficient for a ballot in practice. The more you think I should prioritize an argument, the more speech time you should allocate to it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me how I should evaluate it.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.

a. Be very explicit when telling me how to evaluate the argument. This is especially true for anything pre-fiat - if you don't tell me what I should do (and warrant why), I'll probably do something you didn't want me to.

b. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

c. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

d. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. Tabula rasa is fake. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes another argument to be evaluated in the round. For transparency, my "default settings" are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, rationality real, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging these assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.

5. My gut is not your gut. If you ask me to gut check something or rely on my intuitions, I'll do that but you may not like the outcome. The safe thing to do is just make warranted arguments.

6. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks.

Ayden Loeffler Hire

Last changed on Thu January 25, 2024 at 10:31 AM PDT

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Charles Lu Hire

Pankhuri M Hire

Njuguna Macharia Hire

Last changed on Fri March 18, 2022 at 1:35 AM EDT

My judging criteria is as follows:

1. Truth of claim :

The claim must be proven with strong reasons and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is in responding to responses of your proof of the claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team could attack a link in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response then the likelihood of truth of your argument becomes diminished. The result of this is that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which greatly reduces your chance to win the debate.

2. Impacting :

The claim once proven should be impacted. The importance of the argument is strongly reliant on your impacts. The greater the impact proven the more likely the importance of the argument increases. Ensure your impacts are reasonable within the debate and can be proven rather than looking for a huge impact that is unlikely to be proven within the debate.

3. Responses :

There are two level of responses I think are important within the debate. Responses that are constructive in nature which means you are responding to a rebuttal that was attacking your argument and rebuilding your argument. The second are deconstructive arguments attacking the opposing teams arguments. It is important to have different responses to the most strongest arguments in the round. Firstly because it allows you to mitigate the other teams arguments much more and reduces the likelihood the response is answered by an easy response from the other team. Lastly because you need to prioritize the strongest arguments and respond to those particular arguments within the round because they are the most likely to win the round and time limitations do not allow you to respond to every single argument.

4. Weighing :

Most responses within debate rounds usually only mitigate the other teams arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of this is to understand the importance of weighing after giving your responses, it is because although mitigated some strong arguments are still left within the round that required to be weighed up. You can use different metrics to weigh your arguments such as which one affects more people, more urgent or occurs more often and many others to prove your arguments are more important.

5. Structure :

It is important to have an argument that flows from the beginning to the end of the argument. This is because it makes it easier to track the argument and reduces the likelihood that there is internal inconsistency within the arguments.

Kindly respect your opponents. Do not engage in any rude and offensive language/actions within the debate round. I encourage you to be creative and have fun as you learn and engage with new people within the realm of debating. All the best !

Ethan Mao Hire

Adam Mimou Hire

Giovanna Moncores Hire

Inderpreet Kaur Mushiana Hire

Inesh Nambiar Hire

Jayant S Namdhari Hire

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:52 AM EDT

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Amanda Nobra Hire

Stephanie Odom Hire

Kenneth Ogden Hire

Last changed on Thu October 12, 2023 at 5:14 PM CDT

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

Ceili Peake Hire

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:56 AM EDT

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

Lily Peng Hire

Rahul V. Penumetcha Hire

Last changed on Mon February 26, 2024 at 4:26 PM CDT

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

Ramon Perez Hire

Matthew Reymann Hire

Urja Saha Hire

Parth Shah Hire

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 5:57 AM CDT

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

Rishik Rahul Shenolikar Hire None

Gowri Simha Hire None

Gina Marie Spanu Hire

Matthew St-Germain Hire

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 6:08 AM CDT

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

Lincoln Douglas:

Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Eli T. Louis Hire

Last changed on Thu April 25, 2024 at 4:23 PM EDT

e-mail chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Eli! Binghamton University (Bing TC)

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is legit a business. To debate is work. Like yes, enjoy the activity, but after a certain point what is the plan for how you interact with this space (and especially your arguments)?

That said, I do not have the capacity to busy myself with argumentation that is a waste (meaning it lacks intention, a goal, and/or a purpose). I'm deeply intuitive and clock things with ease.

Let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about meeting Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

For PF: you can read this paradigm to understand the framework I will evaluate arguments, but the threshold is lower (except for everything I wrote after the Theory section). Do you, have fun. I don't particularly care.

Top of the line: I like ethos. I vote for the team who best articulates a politic that shows an understanding of the world beyond technicalities and jargon.

Speed: If I yell clear twice, more than likely I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, if it comes down to the flow, please make sure I understand the important points. For your sake, not mine.

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I also require a clear link story to the impact(s), and how the plan actualizes a politic to secure a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

In many words, block out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' weakness when Affirmative.

T/Framework: I think procedurals can be a proper way to contest the aff's methodology and solvency mechanism. That depends on nuance and the way it is read. So, T-USFG: that’s fine, but you're not gonna go far if the block is just surface level on questions of YOUR wants.

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. In order to justify a win with the DA, I require a very clear and concise link story as well as impact comparison to justify the DA as a takeout to Aff solvency. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... this feels like a huge FYI and still don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...

-----

The K-

Aff: Let the aff be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: I think it’s important for content and form to be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden of rejoinder. Meaning y'all have to win an actual DA to the Aff and/or an outweigh claim.

POMO: I require an advocacy that could easily be materialized or understood in a way that I can intuitively see it solving for the impacts. Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": to win my ballot, you have to win your Theory of Power and that your method best alleviates the violence that incurs from power (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many. Black Fem args have my heart tho

Performance: Your stylistic choice in itself is also a critique. Be strategic and use your 1AC/1NC to leverage offense throughout the round.

-----

Theory: No one reads it properly for me. Divert from only reading unspecified shells. Apply it to the actual performances of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate the importance of this voter. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

Any rhetoric that defaults to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I have the complete right to drop you and end the round. I do not care. Auto-loss.

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down (iykyk).

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

Add on to previous: I do not flow from the doc, but from speech. Clarity benefits you.

//////

I vote fast because I am actively thinking about the round. My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

///////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. That said, with Novs/JV I'll watch my mouth but varsity? I view y'all as growing academic peers and therefore will speak to you as such. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is.

Nuveria Tajammul Hire

Last changed on Sun May 26, 2024 at 12:07 PM CDT

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

Tiffany Tang Hire

Catherine Terrace Hire

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:42 AM CDT

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Andrew Thong Hire

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 5:51 AM EDT

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19! i was a former co-director for nova debate camp and go to uva now. i also coach ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

online debate: unless you're sending speech docs, please just make a shared google doc and paste cards there. i get it, you want to steal prep while waiting. but really, it's delaying tournaments and i get bored while waiting :( (you don't have to though, esp in outrounds - but i will be happier if you do)

also, if you're debating from the same computer, it's cool, just lmk in the chat or turn your camera on before the round so i know, because i usually start the round when i see 4 ppl in the room

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't listen during cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

Sebastian Tucker Hire

Zaid Umar Hire

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:58 AM PDT

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Nick Velo Hire

Last changed on Sat June 29, 2024 at 4:45 AM CDT

Updated June 29, 2024

This was written with judging high-school-level policy debate in mind. Middle and elementary school, as well as non-policy debaters, some of this may not be applicable for you.:)

TLDR

If you have questions before or after round, ask in person or feel free to email me. My email is n(dot)velo2000(at)gmail(dot)com. Put me on the email chain if there is one!

Worldview:
K --------------x----- Policy

Speed for tags and analysis:
Slow---------x--------- Fast

Speed for the body of ev:

Slow -------------------x Fast

Introduction

I have a BA in political science from the University of Kansas with a minor in philosophy that heavily emphasized formal logic (2021). I have a JD from the University of Kansas School of Law with an emphasis on criminal law (2024).

I debated for Emporia HS in Emporia, KS ('14-'18: oceans, surveillance, China, education), and the University of Kansas ('18-'19: executive authority). I mostly read "soft-left" affs, though occasionally read traditional high-magnitude impact affs. Every aff I read defended federal government action. My 2NRs were a lot of T. Don't let the arguments I read determine what you read in front of me.

I try to judge when I can. Trends, community consensus, and topic knowledge are things that I am no longer up to date on. Given that the tournaments I judge are few and far between, my flowing abilities may not be where you'd like them. I often choose to flow on paper, meaning I may not make eye contact.

Deviation from my paradigm =/= auto-loss, following it perfectly =/= auto-win. I can be convinced to evaluate the round by other means than those below. This paradigm applies to other forms of debate where applicable.

Top level: Non-Debatable Rules

Be nice - you have a duty to be respectful and ethical towards everyone in the round. This includes, but is not limited to, not making arguments that could have traumatic implications. A breach of said duty will be met by a punishment I deem proportional to the breach. If being otherwise unethical/hyper-aggressive is your strategy, strike me.

Speeches, CX, prep, winning, speaker points - each debater must give exactly one constructive speech and exactly one rebuttal for their team. Each debater must be available for CX after their constructive; open CX is fine. Speech and prep times are strict. Prep stops once the flashdrive goes into your computer or when you open your email. Compiling evidence into one doc is prep. Don't steal prep. Exactly one team will win. Info on speaker points below.

Filesharing - I would like speech docs. Speechdrop > email chain > flash drive. Microsoft Word documents preferred.

Online chat box - only has been an issue for middle school/novices. Don't abuse it.

Clipping - if you clip and I catch it, you get the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. If you clip and the other team catches it with a recording, I will award you a loss in addition to the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. Don't clip. If you need to stop reading a card before finishing it as indicated by the speech doc, you should say "mark the card at [last word you read]."

General/Misc. Thoughts

Tech > Truth - within reason, a dropped arg is a true arg if there is an extension.

Clarity > Speed - slow down for anything that isn't the text of a piece of evidence, especially if the argument isn't in the speech doc.

The less work there is for me to do at the end, the better! Tell me why you win.

No judge kicks unless its explicitly an option. Make it clear that I can judge kick before the 2NR. Conditionality is a prerequisite.

The neg should disprove the desirability or scholarship of the 1AC. I struggle to vote on things that happened before the start of the 1AC or after the end of the 2NR.

I tend to lean neg on framework vs affs that do not defend USfg action. Not an impossible for the aff to win, but much harder for the aff if the 1AC content is not related to the topic.

I consider debate to be a game first and an educational forum second - fairness is an impact in and of itself and not merely an internal link to education.

I generally consider myself a utilitarian. Avoiding unnecessary suffering is inherently good. Unnecessary suffering is inherently bad. Death/suffering good arguments are neither true nor ethical.

Affirmatives/Case Debates/Presumption

The aff should defend a hypothetical solution to a problem.

The aff cannot sever out of the 1AC advocacy.

The content of the 1AC should be related to the resolution. Any aff not related to the resolution should be prepared to justify that decision.

Defense alone is never enough to justify voting neg. Presumption does not exist absent offense. There is always a non-zero-percent risk the aff does something beneficial.

Topicality/FW

The 1NC should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and a reason to vote neg. The block should give a topical version of the aff if there is one.

The standards debate should have at least one warrant. Saying "vote neg for limits and ground" is insufficient without more analysis, and especially so in the block. The block should explain how your interpretation resolves any alleged abuse, why non-topical affs and/or the 1AC advocacy damages limits and ground, and why limits and ground are good.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability has never meant that "our aff is a reasonable example of the topic," but has rather meant that "our interpretation of the topic is a reasonable one, so don't vote us down."

Absent clear, egregious abuse, T is not an RVI. If there's any uncertainty over whether that level of abuse is met, it probably hasn't been.

Theory

Generally open to good faith theory arguments, but "cheap-shots" will be held to a higher threshold.

Conditionality is usually good; it's up to the aff to tell me where to draw the line, if at all.

Disclosure is good, but failure to disclose usually does not justify rejecting a team or infinite conditionality. New affs are a valid, strategic aff choice.

Disadvantages

The neg should ideally provide specific link evidence, or spin generic link evidence in a way that relates to the aff. Specific link/no link arguments are stronger than generic ones.

Impact overviews are nice. I think there is a lot of room for nuance in "DA outweighs and turns case" arguments. These arguments win rounds.

Counterplans

If you're reading a "cheating" CP, be prepared to defend the legitimacy of it.

CPs should compete through mutual exclusivity or through external net benefits (such as a disadvantage). Internal net benefits are unpersuasive and lose to the permutation.

CPs should have texts that are specific and written in a similar format to the aff plan text.

Kritiks

If this is your bread and butter, I probably should not be your highest-ranked judge.

Framework debates (fiat not real, weigh impacts of aff vs K, etc.) are important and I like them but you have to slow down. Here, the quality of your arguments heavily outweighs the quantity of them.

Speaker Points

I think of speaker points as a way of grading your speech. To do so, I take the "grade" that I think you deserve, place a "2" in front of it, and move the decimal (ex: 75% = 27.5). In awarding speaker points, I consider both speech delivery and content. The standard for these scores changes with the tournament and division; novices at local tournaments will be held to lower standards than teams on the national circuit.

30 = Perfect.

27.6 to 29.9 = Above average, there are likely one or more small issues you can improve on to get closer to a 30.

27.5 = Average.

25.1 to 27.6 = Below average, there are one or more major areas you can improve on.

25 = Well below average, there are many major areas that need improvement.

20 = You clipped your evidence, displayed egregious disrespect, or created another ethical issue in the round.

Eesha Viswanathan Hire None

Paul J Wang Hire

Anita Wei Hire

Cady Wu Hire

Last changed on Thu June 27, 2024 at 6:34 AM PDT

interlake '27, she/her

background: 3 years of pf (2 competitive) & 1 year of mspdp prior to that, bid to toc '24

1 - larp/policy

2 - theory, cap

3 - other topical Ks, idpol

4 - other non-T Ks, basic phil, basic tricks

5 (strike) - high theory/phil

add me on the chain/doc. speechdrop is also ok. please add both emails here: cady.wu530@gmail.com & yellowhighlight00@gmail.com

this paradigm is for pf. for ld/policy, scroll down. anything else, treat me as a lay.

tech>truth, ill evaluate anything as long as its not abusive---do what you want to do, and do it well. i will try my best to evaluate anything you read, but the further you skew from typical pf arguments (substance, basic theory, stock ks), the more at risk you are for bad round evaluation from me.

i hate judge intervention but if you are making the debate space unsafe for others i will give you the worst speaks possible in the tournament and drop you. this is the one place i feel no shame in intervening in.

tws + opt-out form are required for triggering content that is descriptive; a quick cw prior to the speech is a-ok if its not descriptive.

tkos are real but only if there is actually no way for your opponent to win - call it before the 2nd summary - if i agree, you will be awarded W30s but will dock your speaks if not

i do not care what you wear. i also do not care what you call me (judge, my name, 'the queen of the heavens') as long as its not mean

postrounding is ok but dont be annoying/rude. otherwise, postround as hard as you want, its good for education. & feel free to ask questions before/after round

https://opencaselist.com/hspf23/Interlake/WuZh for reference

SPEED:

go as fast as you want. speed debate is fun, but send a doc over 250 wpm

if you’re spreading PLEASE be clear i’m not flowing off the doc, especially if it was unclear and i hear 1% of what you said.
clarity-------x----------------------------------speed
i'll say clear twice before i stop flowing.

if you go ultra-fast so like 250-275 wpm just a quick warning before speech please- if you spread (past 275 wpm), slow down for tags

sending speech docs for case & rebuttal is recommended, even if you are not spreading. also, please send marked docs after the speech.

PROG:

imo - prog is good in pf. if you want to try reading something new on me, i think it'll be good for education, but be warned: my best attempt at judging may not make you super happy since i've only been on a circuit for less than a year. and past 5 off, every new off you read on me decreases my ability to evaluate the round by 5% especially if you are unclearly spreading it at 400 wpm.

substance first--------------------------------------x---prog first
theory>k----------x-------------------------------k>theory
...but i can definitely be convinced otherwise.

if you are in a toc bid tournament in the varsity division, i will not drop you, but i will not be happy if you read "prog is unaccessible" or "put the public back in public forum". thats not a response. i think that reading it itself increases education and accessibility to progressive arguments, and that most of prog is good.

theory: i like it. i default to dta unless you implicate a voter to dtd. read all shells in the first speech after the violation. disclosure is good. paraphrasing is bad. i will not hack for either of these but i will be more inclined to vote on disclosure good than disclosure bad, and same for paraphrasing. friv theory is fine. rvis are not offense (who even came up with this)
education------------------x-----------------------fairness
text-x----------------------------------------spirit
competing interps-------------x----------------------------reasonability
no rvis-----x------------------------------------yes rvis

kritiks: love them, i run them and strive to be a k debater. neg ks get to fiat the alt (i am unlikely to buy "no counterplans") tell me otherwise if you disagree. cap makes the most sense to me because i ran it but i understand imperialism/fem ir/securitization/setcol/fem kj/rage enough. i will probably evaluate topical ks better than non-t, especially stock. running idpol is good, ill try my best to evaluate it properly. i dislike (but will vote on) identity arguments that are the identities of your opponents, but not you (ie reading a fem k on a girl-girl team as a guy-guy team). if you read dense progressive literature or high theory, i will most likely get lost. for reference, ive run cap, surveillance cap, and fem.

tricks: these are funny and i have run these, BUT they are easily the thing i am the most uncomfortable with evaluating. i know how they function, and have a decent understanding of basic tricks, but i do not know how to evaluate them and will probably not enjoy trying to figure it out on the spot. that being said, you can read it on me and i will still try to evaluate it to the best of my ability, but know that it is a risk for you.

impact turns (i guess this isnt prog but i dont know where else to put it?): love. ive ran spark, wipeout, dedev, and climate good. please explain anything outside of that well, but generally confident in evaluating.

SPEECHES:

signposting should always happen, especially starting with 2nd rebuttal. anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded. only extend/weigh in rebuttal if u have time - dont do it and then drop half their arguments.

defense is generally not sticky. offense is quality>quantity. turns are offense but 1) extend and 2) weigh or i cant vote on it. please collapse.

everything i vote off of must be in the final focus; everything in the ff must be in the summary - if its not in the summary, its new in final even if you read it in case/rebuttal. ff should mirror summary.

WEIGHING:

please comparatively weigh. if teams are weighing differently you need to metaweigh or i have to do it for you and that is not something you want.

framework is good & generally makes my life easier. you must warrant a framework. absent a fw, i default to util. i will evaluate almost any framework but if you read a vc that mirrors some kind of ld philosophy, i may not understand it as well as you want me to. i get general deontology, mostly understand kant, locke, and hobbes, and somewhat know levinas. if you are reading something else, you're taking chances

i default framing>prereq>link-in>scope>timeframe>reversibility. probability weighing is generally not real, especially if its just new defense implicated on their arguments, but historical precedent & incentive analysis is ok. please do not read strength of link on me. i really like prereqs/short circuits/link-ins or really just any smart weighing and would prefer you did that over general "we save 100 million, they save 1 million" but its better than nothing.

CROSSFIRE:

im not flowing cross, but cross is binding- i.e. if you go opposite directions as to what you say in cross vs. a speech, i will not be happy. if somethings important, bring it up in a speech. be funny. be as aggressive as you want, butdon't be rude.

if you want to be funny, cross is the time to do so

open cross, skipping gcx for a min of prep, flex prep, are all a-okay but lmk before round

EVIDENCE ETHICS:

please cut your cards and stop sending just links. if you're going to paraphrase for “education” or whatever at least send cut ones (also cards that are not cut ARENT CARDS SO PLEASE just cut ur cards)

reading cut cards>reading paraphrased and sending cut cards>>>>>>>>>>>reading paraphrased and sending a link???

cards should not take over 30 seconds to send (please have the cards ready!) - anything else i’m cutting from your prep

i generally wont call for cards unless 1) you give a reason & tell me or 2) there’s an ev debate that's unresolved and i have to intervene, which i hate.

clipping is bad. just don't do it.

VOTING:

i evaluate weighing/framing first or whatever the highest level of offense is. ill vote off the least mitigated impact that is weighed the best. absent weighing (which should not happen), im going for the cleaner argument and evaluating the arguments under util. i default util but i will listen to phil as long as you explain it well. i somewhat understand very stock stuff (kant, locke, hobbes) but do not feel confident in my ability to eval a round under most other things

i presume neg/squo on policy topics, otherwise i presume first.

SPEAKS:

you’ll generally get decent ones - i start at 28.5.

how to get high speaks:
-> physically turn when reading a turn or something thats similar
-> bring me food
-> be funny

how to get low speaks:
-> bad ev ethics
-> being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, xenophobic… etc
-> being rude/annoying in general
-> not collapse (i start at 27.5)

ld/policy

pf has made it so that anything that is not really simple will require me to think for like 2 minutes before i can understand it. otherwise, read whatever you want, but if its unconventional in pf, chances are, you'll have to explain it really well. try to limit the amount of offs you read, or i'll probably get lost

treat me like a lay parent that can flow at the speed of a 70 year old trad ld judge. judge instruction is really, really important, because i'm not going to be even decent at evaluating a messy, unresolved round in either of these events. the 2nr and 2ar should be writing my ballot for me.

Lina Wu Hire

Julia Yang Hire

Prisha Yelamanchili Hire

Trevor Yun Hire

Colin Zhang Hire

Natalie Zhang Hire None

Surie Zhang Hire

Login to Tabroom

December Potomac Intramural

2023 — Online, MD/US

Judges Paradigm List

Judges