my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

I am a parent judge and an Electrical Engineer with a love of literature and history. I appreciate eloquent speaking and well-reasoned arguments rooted in data and facts.

Please speak clearly and do not spread - I won't give you a win if I can't understand what you're saying.

I am a debate parent. I will keep and open mind and not bring my prior bias or knowledge of a topic into my decision. The style I prefer is to speak slowly and clearly and present well organized, clear arguments with evidence and cite sources and dates. Please emphasize the important arguments that you really want me to hear and be sure to address and counter argue each of your opponents positions. When asking questions please remain respectful, you can be confident but not cocky.

For public forum, I feel the best competitors stand out for their level of preparation and ability to concisely re-state their argument while parrying their opponents points. Some of the best arguments reinforce their opening statements thru to their conclusion/final focus.

The ability to respectfully and tactfully debate is important.

I am a college professor with a background in public policy and international relations.

I enjoy judging both speech and debate. With debate, I have a strong preference that debaters speak in a conversational style. Try not to speak super fast - it is often distracting and hard to follow your arguments. In my experience there is ample time to make your points in the time allowed with a conversational style.

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

Hello,

I am a new judge and I would prefer that you talk at a medium to normal pace and with good clarity. I will be judging based on which argument I believe is the best, so please give clear arguments for your points. I will take into account your tone of voice and how passionate you sound about this topic. Most importantly I care about how you demonstrate your points to me and whether or not they are easily understood by a person with little experience on the topic.

Good Luck and have fun!

Hi I’m Maddie and if you’re reading this I’m probably your judge! I competed at Campbell hall for 6 years where I did MSPDP and PF. I am currently a freshman on the USC debate team doing policy.

Please include me on the email chain: madisondamus04@gmail.com

Debate in General:

• you don't need to give me an off time road map just tell me if your starting on aff/pro or neg/con

• Pre-flow before the round or even print your pre-flows, don't waste everyone's time doing it in round

• If your gonna spread make sure to include me on the speech doc/email chain

• Be respectful; I will not tolerate ANY forms of discrimination

• Don't dismiss the validity/existence of structural violence args - if you don't know how to engage with them try linking in instead

• Don't mis-cut or make up evidence

• I am not a fan of debater math and probably won't buy it

PF:

• tech > truth

• Extend links, warrants, and impacts

• SIGNPOST: tell me where to put things on my flow

• Going through the line by line will help you win my ballot

• Defense isn't sticky -- Don't extend things in final focus that weren't in summary

• WEIGH PLEASE. As a tech judge this is extremely important and could make or break your round. Don't make me weigh for you.

• Quality > Quantity of args

• Second rebuttal has to frontline

• Paraphrasing cards is lame but its fine ig

• Structural violence args should have some sort of framework

• Don't extend through ink - please engage with clash

• Don't miscut evidence

• Don't post round me

• I don't really care about any content mentioned in cross unless its a binding question. Just be pretty respectful and make it entertaining.

Theory/K’s:

• Don't read frivolous theory you’ll probably lose

• Fine with paraphrasing + disclosure theory

• Fine for the most part on K’s if ran well (run at your own risk)

Parli:

• Be funny

• Engage with clash

• Address your opponents arguments

• signpost and go through the line by line

LD:

• I have the least amount of experience with this format so tell me what arguments to prioritize and why

• unless yall are debating T I don't need to hear definitions I think they can be a waste of time
• I look to who's winning the framework debate (if framework is read) when casting my ballot
• please signpost

My priority is communication. I have to be able to understand you, so I would prefer it if you not spread. If not, I have a tendency to disengage. Clarity is key!

Effective claims and evidence not only supplies your own side, but works as a counterattack against your opponent's case. Recency and evidence source will also be considered for any potential bias, implicit or explicit. Be mindful of dropped contentions: any arguments left unanswered will flow through. It is your responsibility to ensure that your case aligns with any provided value criterion. If offering a differing weighing mechanism, be sure to explain why yours should take precedence instead.

That being said, not all arguments ought to be weighed equally when using said criterion. What might be the financial burden and which population would be affected the most? Will this solution be able to work in the short-term and the long-term? Of these includes-but-not-limited-to example questions, there has to be a bottom line. Why does yours matter the most?

I look forward to hearing your well-researched and well-delivered cases. Good luck!

Email: fangyandu@yahoo.com

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed.

I like well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested.

I am a previous four-year competitor in mainly debate events. I have competed in all debate events but specialized in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum.

General Debate:

Framework matters more so in LD than PUFO but I will view the round under the winning value/value criterion or weighing mechanism.

You need to have cards, even in LD. If there is a card challenge read the card word for word. I look for recency and credibility. Whoever's evidence is more recent and comes from a better source will have their card take precedence.

I do not mind heated a cross. I like passion but keep it respectful.

DO NOT SPREAD. I am not a fan and see it as a weak strategy to win a debate. The point of debate is to converse from a rational and analytical standpoint. Speaking so fast that your opponent can not keep up or respond to all of your arguments proves that your points are not strong enough to stand on their own. Please respect your opponents and the purpose of debate. If you chose to spread if I did not hear it you did not say it.

I will always time once you pass the grace period I will stop listening. I expect you to keep your own time and police your opponents. If your opponent is over time the gradual knocking rule is a great way to get their attention.

Lincoln Douglas:

Framework matters. Your framework should align with your case and your impacts should always tie back to it. Whoever wins the framework debate is how I will view the round. Please try to find a better value than morality. It is stated in the resolution with ought and it is LD we are already viewing the round under this lens. As mentioned earlier I expect you to have cards. Tie your impacts in each contention to your value and maintain the value debate throughout the round.

Public Forum:

Put thought into your weighing mechanism and tie your impacts to it. You must have multiple cards supporting your case. Please stand for questioning and sit for grand cross. Grand cross can get chaotic keep it respectful and organized. AFF always asks the first question.

I've been judging for a few years now and, being the parent of a speech and debater, I understand most events. For every event though, I prefer quality over quantity. I understand you have a lot to say but keep it understandable.

Debate: I encourage you to define acronyms, organizations, or things that a person who is unfamiliar with the topic wouldn't understand. I appreciate the effort you have put in, including time and research into your arguments, but if I can't follow the flow, it makes it more difficult to judge. Along the same lines, I do not appreciate spreading. If I can't follow your thought process, I will have a harder time understanding your argument. Additionally, be respectful to your opponents. I value professionalism especially in cross. If I see the same case across multiple teams/same school, I will devalue the argument for plagiarism. I heavily look at the resolution and compare it with your argument, I want to see topicality. I value a clear outline (clear, separated contentions; off-time roadmaps and directing your debate towards your judge). I appreciate evidence if it is used effectively to add to the debate.

Speech/IE: I've judged all speech events, and I'm fairly experienced with all of them. It should be organized and constructed well. I enjoy impactful conclusions; I listen to speeches all day and I want to see something that will stick with me. Please speak clear and concise. Do not force emotions, represent the proper attitude for your topic or speech event. For unprepared speeches, I can identify "canned" speeches and discourage them. I appreciate a speaker embracing the spirit of the event. Also, tell me what topic you chose. Especially for interps, make your characters clearly separated and characterized so I understand where your story is going. Have a clear plot line as well as believable acting.

Good luck!

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

I vote on truth over tech on arguments. Clear and concise arguments will win.

I do flow the case. Be clear on warranting/linking and have credible evidence.

Use clear structure and signposting in your speeches. Best to number your contentions for clarity (i.e. contention 1a, contention 1b, 2a, 2b, etc.)

Don't spread: if you talk so fast that I can't understand you, you will lose.

I am a parent judge and have judged debate for a few years

I am a parent judge. Be concise and clear. If I cannot understand your points I will drop the ballot. If you spread, run K, or run theory I will drop the ballot. Good luck!

Enjoy your time. Speak clearly and concisely forming easy to follow arguments. Wait your turn, be humble, courteous and thankful.

I'm ok with speed, but no spreading

I value content and logical arguments, but good speaking quality is also important

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution"). You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Hi my name is Andrea Molina and this is my 3rd year judging as my daughter is a Junior on the speech and debate team.

I am a parent volunteer who has judged several tournaments over the past 2 1/2 years. I am also a high school teacher who appreciates a respectful, courteous, and assertive (not aggressive) style of communication. I also prefer quality over quantity, so please don’t speak too quickly, and be sure to include strong evidence backed by credible sources. Thank you.

I am a lay parent judge. Please avoid spreading, speak clearly and concisely. Make your information and arguments palatable to the general public, and stick to the merit of the debate. I do not appreciate K's and theory. I value civility in debaters, overall just be civil and respectful. Be well researched and prepared for your topic, and for logic based arguments make your link chain clear. Signposting is absolutely necessary for clarity in the debate, and is greatly appreciated and aids in flowing the debate. Most importantly, have fun!

---PERSONAL INFO---

I'm a coach. I did PF + Extemp when I debated.

I prefer flowing traditional cases, but I'll accept Theory and Kritiks that I can understand. I will prefer clean rhetoric over spread jargon unless you have a good reason why I shouldn't (read the reason in your first constructive).

In my opinion, a good debater is somebody that can make it abundantly clear why they are winning. Make the structure of your argument clear and meaningful in your speech. I also don't like performative arguments. Think about why you started debate and why you have continued to do it; this is a learning experience! Stay respectful and try new things.

--- GENERAL DEBATE ---

Speed

CONVERSATIONAL ONLY, PLEASE.

Generally, I don't vote for cases I don't understand. If you want my ballot, practice brevity. Jargon's fine. Contention tags or card tags should be slow enough for me to copy down exactly (if not, I might forget to write the whole thing and then not remember what you meant later).

Speaks

Debate in good faith. Attitude, respect, and accuracy count. I give better speaks in better rounds. Unless there is a serious offense committed in round, I won't go below 25. If there is something that I see, I will let you know explicitly in the ballot. If you see something, I expect you to kritik or address it in round.

Theory

Topicality specifically first: On defense, the topicality of your case should be obvious. I'm okay with ground-skewing definitions in the first constructive if you can justify that it is necessary for a fair debate. On offense (and just generally for any shell), I need an obvious violation and a substantially better interpretation to buy the argument. I will evaluate the theory debate before stock.

Kritik

ONLY USE WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. I will judge you not only on your choice of K, but execution, clarity and structure before considering it as an integral part of the round. I want an obvious link and a full internal link to your impact. Explain the alternative and role clearly and slowly. Please don't spread these, especially the more complex ones; I won't follow. I see bad faith K's as an RVI. Running a K doesn't guarantee a win. Running a K in bad faith guarantees a loss. Don't abuse these.

Counter-plan

Do it only when there is a plan that precedes your counter-plan. Don't run counter-plans against traditional debaters.

Tricks

I appreciate a good trick. Remain respectful of the format. I also don't know why everyone started calling these tricks. Sometimes, they're just fun cases. Do what helps you learn more in debate.

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

With the technical stuff out of the way, above all I want to make sure everyone enjoys the round thoroughly. Have fun with your cases; I am always interested to hear unorthodox methods! Happy Debating!

This is my first day judging LD (Feb.10th 2024) please don't spread! I will comment on all the participants, even if not immediately after the round, please check in later if you don't see a comment from me on the day of the debate. I enjoy judging Congress, as well as Policy, I have never done Parli or World schools.

Nats:

If this is an intra-economic impact debate please avoid economic soup. I've judged about 8 rounds so far on this topic and I find by the end of most of these debates if there are 4 to 5 unique uncontested economic impacts without weighing which impacts matter more. If small business closures increase in the EU but FDI increases in the US how do I evaluate or weigh these competing impacts? Terminalize economic impacts to a common denominator more or tell me why certain economic impacts are more important than others. This could be something like which groups are particularly affected by said impacts, how long these economic effects persist, the severity of the economic impact, the immediacy of the impact, the reversibility etc. I think it's obvious that a trade deal will have both positive and negative effects but your job in the round is to do net analysis (which is hard because we are doing formal economics) but if you can't do that give me reasons why certain economic impacts matter more than others.

If we get into contesting the specific economic impacts themselves (BTA increases GDP by 2.5% vs BTA decreases GDP by 1%) you need specify or demarcate the reasons why your a. evidence is better or b. the underlying warranting is better. How do you prove one economic study is better than the other? Tell me about the data set, the controls, which journal it was in, who wrote it, why it is more specific, longitudinal, or takes into consideration variables the other study does not.

If you are running politics be them China, US, or EU related your evidence should take into consideration events in the last six months if not month. Plx evidence from 23 is sus.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Experience: I have three years of experience in parliamentary debate, and am familiar with the structure and style of LD debates.

Argumentation: I want clear arguments followed by quality evidence. I expect debaters to engage in meaningful clash, which means identifying weak points in their opponents' arguments and explaining how these weaknesses either hinder their opponents' cases or bolster their own. Finally, I prefer arguments to be impactful, and will consider the weight of contentions over the quantity of them.

Time Management: I want you to talk a normal pace. I can understand if you speak quickly, but don't go too fast. I will also time you independently, and will give a grace period if time is up to wrap things up. From there I will respectfully cut you off if you continue on.

I am a parent judge, and am a pediatrician with a special interest in mental health. I have limited knowledge of the current topic. Please speak slowly and clearly, and make sure to be able to provide evidence if needed.

Offtime roadmaps are appreciated!

Most importantly, be respectful and have fun!

I will vote for a team that is persuasive, clear/organized in argumentation, gives solid evidence, and is able to maintain a respectful tone.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

I did PF for 6 years at Fairmont, qualified to gold TOC twice.

Ask any specific questions you have before the round.

email chain-- hitakshi2021@gmail.com

Some stuff lol:

1. be polite, your speaks will be docked if you are rude/problematic etc *especially in cross

- cross is not a time to be making speech like arguments, use it to ask questions, clarify, set strategy etc I will not be writing things on my flow during cross unless its to clarify something

2. if its not in summary it should not be in FF. PLS EXTEND CLEAN link warrant impact if u want me to vote for it.

- big on the warranting. extensions that are blippy are not extensions i want to vote on and neither are just card names- extend warrants

- i will not vote for turns that are not terminalized or are very blippy

3. At least frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal (if you start condensing here i will be happy- feel free to drop arguments early and build clear narrative)

4.time your own speeches (and prep) and be respectful about it- a couple seconds grace period is fine

5. i prefer you do not spread, speed is fine **if it will be very fast let me know beforehand and give me and the other team a speech doc

- if it is early in the morning or late at night pls go easy on my brain lol

6. sign post please; if you are doing something weird give me a roadmap

7. prog/K/Theory/Tricks etc- I'm good with it as long as u explain it/warrant well and it isn't just to mess ur opponents up

8. evidence exchange should really not take more than a minute have ur stuff ready

9. WEIGH!!!!!! and actually clash and interact with their points

making me laugh will boost ur speaks; debate is a game play it

have fun <3

Add me to the email chain/card doc: smoneysh@gmail.com

I flow but I don't consider myself completely tech (Flay judge)

Talk at a decent speed, don't go overtime (I don't flow after 10 secs overtime)

1. Signpost - This is is crucial, tell me where you are so my flow doesn't get messy
2. Frontline - If your team is first, summary frontline, if second, rebuttal frontline
3. Do weighing - tell me WHY I should vote for your impacts over your opponents
4. During crossfire be clear and confident (Clarity is where I give speaker points)

Just say "Aloha" when you introduce yourself for extra speaker points

I believe that it is not the judge's job to decipher the round but instead the debater's job to simplify the round to the judge. I vote for teams with simple cases that are clear and easy to follow.

I did pf and extemp for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. I did NPDA for like a couple months in college.

My golden rules:

1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.

2. Refer to rule number 2

3. Add me on the email chain rohit.srinivas2@gmail.com. (I don't read ev (that seems legit) unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)

4. PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND. I like to get started asap.

5. READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME. I believe in evidence ethics and it is your responsibility to CUT cards and have them on hand for immediate access.

6. EVIDENCE ETHICS ARE KEY. IF I SUSPECT A CARD IS MISCONSTRUED/FALSE I WILL CALL FOR IT. If I do find it sus, I will tank speaks or maybe drop you. I have changed my stance on calling for cards in recent years because the quality of ethics has been declining severely. Now I do my best to maintain a fair field. I would prefer if everyone read cut cards, but I am not going to drop someone for paraphrasing unless someone reads paraphrasing theory.

7. I do disclose if you give me like 2-3 minutes to submit a decision. I will give oral RFD so stick around after the round. I will disclose speaks if you ask. I judge on how effective I believe you are at communicating. I default 28 if yall are kinda bad at conveying your args and go up to a 30 based on how well I thought you spoke. I can give feedback on speaking if asked.

PF:

Follow rules 1 and 2

Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though. This is supposed to be a safe space)

I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PROPERLY. A PROPER EXTENSION MEANS RUNNING THROUGH THE WARRANTS AND LINKS AND THE IMPACTS AGAIN (explain the whole logic behind the argument every time not just a title or name of one). If you are not sure what this means ASK me before round.

Is a blip an argument? Absolutely not. If i say the sky is green with no warrant that is not an argument. I will not vote on turns that have no impact analysis done either. You cannot win without explaining how a turn interacts with their argument and how it gives you an impact.

IMPACT CALC IS KEY TO MY BALLOT. Tell me how to vote. Tell me which type of impacts come first. Tell me why your argument matters more than their argument. If you do not tell me what is more important I will be forced to make a decision on my own and I default to (probability*magnitude) and factor in time frame where shorter timeframe boost probability and longer timeframe harms probability.

Defense is sticky if the other team does not bring up the argument again. If they do, you need to extend defense as well.

IF YOU READ OFF CASE ARGS IN PF PLEASE READ THEM PROPERLY I DO NOT WANT TO EVALUATE SHELLS OR Ks WITHOUT FRAMING FOR EACH ARG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS ASK BEFORE RD BEGINS. my threshold for tossing out theory spikes is low as long as it is not dropped.

Other args/events:

I did policy camp and picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.

Tricks idk what to do with them, explain them to me like I am stupid and I might be able to understand. No guarantee I will vote on them the way you imagined.

CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise (I do not have a threshold at which condo is bad because I believe the nature of reading so many args weakens each individual one), gimme a ROB.

No RVIs unless you have a good reason and win that.

Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.

Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear. If you are not a clear speaker above 250 wpm give me a speech doc. If you are clear I will need a speech doc around 275+.

Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.

Hello, my name is Ninad Tambe.

Few things to keep in mind:

- I have basic topic knowledge but I would appreciate really clear arguments so that I know at the end of the round without a doubt who I should vote for.

- I can't understand speed, so if anybody goes too fast for me, I reserve the right to shout "CLEAR" or stop taking notes. If you see my pen go up or you see me stop writing, that should be a cue that you're going too fast for me and you've lost me.

- Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross - I want to see reasonable and calm crossfires, not the two speakers shouting at each other.

- I appreciate humor, and if you can make me laugh (NOT at the expense of your opponents) I'll award extra speaks.

- If you cannot prove to me why the impact of your case is more important than the opponents', I will have to decide myself.

Good luck to everyone!

Please speak slowly and clearly.

Hello!

I'm a mom of four and love seeing everyones preparation and hard work. I'm a novice judge but enjoy persuasive arguments that I can follow. It helps when you let me know which argument you are referring to. Good Luck!

I did Public Forum, World Schools, and International Extemp all throughout high school, as well as a little bit of Congress, Parli, and Impromptu.

Extemp:

Analysis is more important than evidence to me. I'll look out for 3-4 citations, but prefer speeches that aren't completely reliant on cards. I appreciate economic and political theory, as well as detailed plans of action, if they make sense with the question. With all other factors equal, I'll award more points/a higher ranking to a competitor that chooses a more difficult question.

Other IEs:

Pretty much the standard. I'm looking for strong speaking, organization, etc.

Debate:

Please include me on any email chains: gwheeler1216@gmail.com

I'm fine with some spreading, as long as you're still intelligible. I generally don't love theory or kritiks, but can appreciate them if they're well done and appropriate for the round. I don't flow crossfire/cross-ex, but will consider them for speaker points.