Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Top:

I will pretty much vote on anything and lack many ideological predispositions with a few exceptions. I try to be as least interventionist as possible so please do judge instruction that explains to me why you have won the debate & the implications of the arguments you are going for.

Send a card doc after the debate has ended. I'll read the cards you think are important, but I tend to think the quality of evidence comes secondary to who did the better debating.

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is a reason to reject the argument not the team. I lean NEG on condo, and would only prefer you go for it if either a. the neg severely mishandles it or b. it's the only winning option. I will not vote on blimpy theory arguments that aren't developed or articulated out earlier in the debate.

Non-resolutional theory is a non-starter.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

Huge fan of them, I love me some solvency offense & AFF specific counterplans.

I am okay for counterplan competition, but the more egregious the counterplan, the lower the threshold it is to win the CP is illegitimate.

Disads:

Good

I think the interest rates DA is cracked. Though I haven't judge that many debates on this topic, I do not understand why some variation of an econ DA is not the 2NR in every debate.

Kritiks:

The best kritiks are ones with links to the plan. If you want to just rehash some theory about the world, without contextualizing it to the plan, I am not the judge for you.

Topicality:

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation.

Impact Turns:

Good

Misc:

- tech > truth

- Don't sacrifice clarity for speed

• Bigotry will not be tolerated

Ebarden323@outlook.com

January 13th, 2024

I debated four years at Emporia High School and Washburn Rural High School (Kansas)—class of 1991. I went on to debate at the University of Texas for three years. I suppose I should be considered a traditionalist, but I don’t have any predisposition against more progressive styles of debate.

My judging experience is mainly from policy debate. I expect my approach to public forum debate will be similar. You tell me how I should view the round. I will default to a utilitarian calculus, but it is up to you to define how I should rank competing impacts and values. I view the competing teams as authors of their own worlds, and I must choose which world I prefer.

Debates that demonstrate substantial interaction with the positions of the other side are more interesting than debates that operate in independent universes. Strategically, conceding too much of the case debate leaves you fighting an uphill battle.

I was around during the early days of the kritik, but I don’t have a lot of knowledge of most of today’s kritiks. If you abandon the case debate to focus on a generic kritik with only tangential links to the affirmative you potentially relieve the affirmative of their burden of proof.

Tactics that will help you win my ballot:

Be intelligible. I’m not going to flow the emailed text of your speech. I’m going to flow what I hear you say in the round. Go as fast as you want as long as you are not sacrificing comprehensibility. The goal is to deliver an efficient speech that maximizes word economy.

Explain the implications of the arguments that you are winning. It’s not enough to win the argument. Explain how the argument fits into how you want me to evaluate the overall round.

Specifically counter your opponents’ arguments. Highlight the weakness of their sources, or of the logic of their sources’ assertions. I’m looking for a demonstration of your ability to think independently of your front-line blocks.

Evidence is a tool to support your arguments and analysis. I’ll give more weight to a logical, original analytic than a piece of evidence with thin reasoning.

It’s an honor to participate in this activity with you. Have a great weekend!

Hi, I'm a parent. This is my fourth high school tournament this year; I judged a couple of debates last year, a tournament hosted by the State University of New York at Cortland in the mid-1990s and have taught public speaking. But I am not a debater. I was an opinion columnist for several years and have taught journalistic writing for more than 20 years. To me, facts are persuasive, bombast is a sign of a failing argument. An argument needs to be coherent and well articulated. Vague generalities and sweeping generalizations are signs of sloppy thinking.

More stuff written by my daughter:

-give me good link chains, not voting on an insane argument (if you impact to nuke war you've already lost)

-if there's an evidence challenge I would like to see it

General:

In general I will be able to be convinced of any argument, but you have to give me a reason to be convinced. Tell me how to vote and why I should vote that way.

I will rarely call for evidence, and I don't want to be on any email chain. Use the evidence to develop your arguments and your authors' arguments.

Rebuttals are meant to expand your arguments and convince me of them. I don't want it to be all about extended a million different pieces of evidence.

I have to understand your argument before I vote for it. If I don't understand the affirmative plan, or the negative's Cps, Ks, etc. I will not vote for it. Assume I know nothing.

My ears are much older and slower than they used to be. I am comfortable spreading, but be very clear in your taglines.

What follows are my defaults regarding various positions in the absence of an explicit framework debate.

Paradigm on specific arguments:

Case - I'm open to any case, but it has to make sense. If you want me to on the case, the affirmative has to have some sort of extension of it in their speeches outside the 1AC. I'm not going to give much weight to the case if it's only brought up again in the 2AR.

T - I like a good T debate but the burden is on the negative. If you force me to vote on T, the negative needs to have a clear definition and violation and a clear reason as to why the negative's interpretation of the topic is better

DA's - I love a good DA. But there has to be a very clear internal link to the affirmative. However, I need to be convinced how and why certain risks should be evaluated and given more weight than others. If there's a minuscule chance of nuclear war, why should that be considered more than a much more likely, but less dangerous risk.

CPs - The key to win the CP is the net benefit, why is it preferable to the plan? Perms can also be winning arguments for me. CP competitiveness is important to me. Give me reasons to prefer the world of the CP over the plan.

Ks - Ks are my least favorite argument, but I am fine with them. I can be convinced of framework arguments and that what we do or say in a round matters, but the negative has the burden to make the K clear, understandable, and a legitimate reason why I should vote for it over the plan. Be clear in establishing your framework so I know how to evaluate the debate.

Other:

Performative contradictions and other in-round inconsistencies could become abusive and are a potential voting issue for me.

Ultimately, I can be convinced to vote for any type of argument if you do a good job convincing me of it, but I'm not going to do extra work to make your argument for you.

I tend to vote based primarily on the flow, with a secondary emphasis on voting issues presented by the competitors. I look for solid argumentation of the ideas themselves, preferring if the competitors avoid semantic/definition based debating except when disagreement on definitions is crucial to the argument. In terms of evidence I give the greatest weight to source and recency, and will tend to evaluate competing evidence based solely on those two factors. On the point of evidence, please include me in the email chain at "bossegg@comcast.net". In terms of ethics, barring outright inappropriate behaviour I tend to not give a great amount of weight to decorum. In that same vein, I have no problem with speaking faster than normal conversational speed, as long as the speed doesn't interfere with comprehension, and I encourage aggressive argumentation as long as it doesn't reach the point of becoming inappropriate. I will disregard any argument which has been shown by the opponent to be fallacious, however fallacious arguments which are not identified as such by the opponent will remain on the flow. The same goes for evidence, guidance I have gotten is that the rules on leaving judge knowledge outside the round include the possibility of knowing what some specific sources may say. If your opponent misrepresents evidence, it is your responsibility to be the one to raise that issue, as my understanding of NSDA rules is that I cannot be the one to do so even if I am aware the source says something else. As an example, if your opponent says the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution covers quartering of soldiers, if you don't bring up that that is false I have to weigh the round as if it were true.

I judged a couple of tournaments. Lay judge. Go slow. I know the topic. I will kind of flow but also have a good presence.

I did Public Forum for 4 years, and have been judging for 2.

I can handle speed but depending on the event I might rule that speed is less critical than hearing contentions

I trust you guys to time yourselves

I lean toward tech>truth

I do not flow cross, It is a clarifying period for both debaters, however, if you deem something important was brought up in cross, please mention it in a speech in order for it to continue on the flow. Make sure not to end up having cross becoming a yelling match, it is not going to make me want to vote for you more.

I love Impact Calculus in rounds, ex.(magnitude, timeframe)

Quantifiable impacts are not necessary but if argued correctly, I will weigh them over likelihoods.

if you need my email for email chains: scottccoller@gmail.com

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

I am parent judge and have been judging from past one year in multiple debate competitions.

Don't speak too fast, where I loose the content and discussion. Maintain your pace, present the cards and evidences.

Manage your time properly, i do take notes.

Don't use lot of technical stuff, where i might not get the core of the argument.

I do consider how you speak, how you conduct yourself. Don't be offensive and rude.

NEW NOTE: PLEASE EXTEND YOUR LINKS IN SUMMARY AND FF!!!!! TEAMS KEEP TELLING ME TO "EXTEND THE ____ LINK"! THATS YOUR JOB, NOT MINE! IF SOMEONE CAN'T HEAR YOUR FF AND UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT IN FULL I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT!

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

Former debater for JR Masterman. Doubles at Gold TOC. noaheggerts@gmail.com

Win your links and weigh. Debate however you want, I’ll follow your lead. Over 250 WPM you’ll start losing me. I’m fine with Ks, theory, and prefiat framing, but not experienced with them, so explain it to me. However, if you run frivolous theory and your opponent explains why it's bad, I won't care about conceded warrants or competing interps, I won't vote for it. Defense is sticky. I will be playing the Google snake game during cross.

Confusing your opponents is never worth confusing me. Warrant, implicate, and weigh three times more than you think you should.

I promise you none of the perceptual stuff you do before round will influence me - be normal.

Be funny, don’t be a bad person, have fun.

tldr :

he/him

first year out

read whatever

i love impact turn debates

tab

idk the topic

must frontline in second rebuttal

collapse pls

I like theory debate that is well thought out. Ill vote off anything, but I will be mad if you dont know what you are doing or are doing it really badly.

longer:

did pf for 4 years and world schools at nats, did alright

I debated pf pretty technically ig, lots of soft left affs. theory quite a bit as well and a few sec ks

understand the k, but go slower in later speeches to make sure i am flowing every extension necessary for u to win the round.

if its psychoanalysis or a complicated high theory argument, know that I am not familiar with the lit base, and explain the jargon being used or make it clear what it means in context of the theory

if ur gonna spread, be clear, I am not j reading off a speech doc

u have 2 mins to put a card on a preshared round doc (unless both teams want email chain only) and in this time neither team should be prepping

i hope all those anonymous accounts on the round doc are not being sus

i will disclose obv

do not just read arguments you don't understand copied from someone else

I generally disclosed and like disclosing, but I will obviously listen to disclosure theory like any other arguments

i dont really like paraphrasing but I am extremely receptive to theory arguments as to why it should/ should not be allowed

i think speaks r dumb and will generally give 29s for good debaters and 30s for really good

i think thats it for now

I want a clear, concise, well supported argument that clearly responds to an opponent in later arguments. Spewing or talking too fast usually is not clear and does not present a compelling argument.

tl;dr standard fyo flow, i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

about me

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at dgarepis@uw.edu and if you’d like, check out my youtube channel at youtube.com/@danielgarepisholland. if you are a novice debater, please skip down to the novice section at the bottom.

pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

basics

speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)

wear whatever you want

i will always give a verbal rfd and feedback/q and a if i can/have time

good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense

do good weighing in the back half
gon't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
i will probably blisten to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep

evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

back half

- first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

theory

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

t

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

k

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

I'm a flay parent judge. This is my second year judging PF. In high school I did speech and went to nationals in extemp. But I did not do debate. Expect me to vote on the flow. Make sure your warranting is clear. Because public forum debate is meant to be substantive and understandable to laypeople, I do not look favorably on progressive arguments or debate jargon.

After graduating with Bachelors degree in Engineering, came to this country as an immigrant seeking opportunities,

Currently working as an IT professional for a fortune 500 company since last 20 years

Been an responsible citizen in the local community and actively participate in volunteering activities at various organizations

Avid learner and nature lover , interests in reading about science and nature, and space adventures.

Like to meet and network with new people.

Parent Judge, first time. Per my child:

No jargon. No spreading, but I watch videos/listen to podcasts at 2x speed.

Truth over Tech. No progressive argumentation, no Ks, no disclosure theory.

I judge based on the quality of arguments that you advance on behalf of the resolution. That means you clearly state your claims, provide reputable evidence in support of those claims, and drive home the implications of your claims. Your arguments should be well-developed and category-relevant. Rarely do I find Kritiks persuasive.

Keep in mind that in public forum, the goal is for you to make arguments that are persuasive to a “citizen judge” or lay person. Thus, you should speak deliberately (at a reasonable pace) and clearly, avoid jargon, and demonstrate the logical connections between your evidence and claims, and the resolution. Style/delivery are important considerations but I am most interested in and persuaded by the quality of your arguments and evidence.

Please engage one another respectfully and respond directly to your opponents’ claims and evidence. Ad hominem attacks, grandstanding, and condescending remarks are not appropriate. Good debates, grounded in classical rhetoric, explore relevant claims and evidence, and empower the audience to make an informed decision.

My Background: More than 25 years of teaching argumentation, persuasion, and public speaking at the undergraduate level, a Ph.D. in communication and rhetoric, and a research focus on the implications of argumentation on public policy. I have been actively judging on local and national circuits since 2021.

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com. Please also send the speech doc to cooper.john@iowacityschools.org. Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. NOTE: I am a PF traditionalist. Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently a 3L law student at the University of Iowa. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West. I have coached two teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB and Iowa City West KE) to qualifying to the gold TOC.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

1. Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
2. Frontlining
3. Defense/Turn extensions
4. Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm fine with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

Hello, I’m Jordan

Email: jordanhcalifornia@gmail.com

Important considerations:

-I have little experience in judging and debate

-It would be appreciated greatly if debaters could speak at a slow/moderate pace

-You can run any sort of argument you wish. I love seeing creative arguments with detailed logical analysis

-Rhetorical devices won’t be a big factor in how I judge the round

-Please be respectful to your opponents

-Because I am new to judging, I will usually wait to disclose the result of the round just so I can evaluate my flow, and try to compare both sides arguments as best as I can

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

TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive arguments.

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

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

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

Logistics

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

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

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

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

Speed

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

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

Substance

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

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

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

I don't flow cross.

Progressive

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

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

Framework

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

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

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

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

TLDR: Util > other framing

Top 3 about Ms. D...(Funny Face Emoji)

1) My son is a TOC Champion

2) PF Debate when I was in High School and College = I feel your pain and understand the blood, sweat, and tears that go into this thing.

3) I am FLAY judge. Clear, enunciated arguments where you explain to me and the other team, why and how your evidence and argument is superior to your competitor will always get you the win. Don't tell me who to vote for. Make eye contact, be a team player, and COOK! (Chef Emoji)

Parent judge

I would appreciate clarity with speech and speed.

Please explicitly state your roadmap, what was conceded, extended, i.e. make your speech layout easy to understand.

speaks: clear, concise, and respectful speeches will get awarded high speaks.

Parent lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not use jargon. Arguments should be fully explained in detail.

I am a lay judge and this is my first-time judging.

Please speak at a conversational pace, if it's too fast I can't consider it at all. No technical jargon or progressive things.

Do not depend on arguments being flowed - instead, focus more on the general argument and reasoning as to why your contention should win and why the opponents' should not.

Being very explicit with this comparative analysis will help you as my decision is more intuition based (due to being a first-time judge ever), but also focus on partner cohesion and effective presentation.

Truth >>>>> Tech.

Quality > Quantity.

Please explain everything very clearly and layify as much as possible.

When you use weighing mechanisms explain what they mean to me and make the ballot as clear as possible.

Please do not expect flow level feedback for the round on a line by line format, this is my first time judging so please keep that in mind as you debate.

Parent judge, will be taking notes.

Speak clearly and enunciate. Don't go too fast please. 

background: Hebron debate 2014-2017 (PF, Congress, speech events)

PF Paradigm 2023

Strong preference for quality of argument over speed/trying to get in a bunch of info in your short time limits. speaking fast is fine - I can flow most levels of speed as long as you do not spread too much. Please use credible evidence with dates. Recency of evidence is important.

I have been judging debate and forensics tournaments for 5+ years.

With a long career in business, my judging in debate tournaments is based on the quality and delivery of information to support your position - solid evidence with an outstanding presentation.

For forensics competitions, the selection of the piece or product combined with your your creative interpretation are the key winning factors.

Hello debaters!

I'm a parent judge, I've judged 7 tournaments, so I am ok.

I do not have much experience on the debate topic so please make sure to explain everything very thoroughly. Please do not use too much debate jargon as I do not understand most of them.

Please do not run any squirrely arguments, because I will have a hard time understanding them.

I will try to be a tech>truth judge but please don't make things too unbelievable.

English is not my first language, so please talk slowly and clearly so I can understand you. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to vote for you off of it. Also, please signpost and make it clear whether you are talking about your case or the opponents' arguments. Make your speech easy to follow. This will make it easier for me to understand your points and vote for you.

If you bring up sensitive topics, have a trigger warning. Please also avoid bringing up politics, religion, race, etc. if it is rude or derogatory.

If you talk very fast or unclear, I will take off speaker points.

Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round and maintain a sense of seriousness.

Most importantly, I prefer confidence over anything else. Even if you don't know the answer to a question, present yourself well.

Good luck everyone!

have fun!

I'm a lay judge, and have some experience in the topics reviewed.

I prefer debate with clear logical reasoning without jumping to conclusions. Also, try and be nice to each other.

Please send speech docs to: evannmao@gmail.com

Umich'25

PF & Policy. Currently, I HC a circuit prep group and individually coach a few PF teams, many of whom have done well nationally.

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

My thoughts on debate change frequently. The following is generally unflinching:

I have evaluated everything -- like, literally everything (performance, tricks, theory, IVI, tech, lay, flay, whatever). By PF standards, I like to think that I'm a good judge for whatever experimental garbage you want to read. I actively implore people I coach to read experimental garbage. I do not think that PF should be less of a game than Pol or LD.

I encourage debaters to use my rounds for doing/practicing things that they can't deploy in front of other judges (bc, y'know, PF judging kinda sucks sometimes) -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory, science fiction, etc etc) so long as you aren't blazing (>250 wpm) through them. Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably 2AC/2NC docs with all new ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

I probably think perfcons o/w

Ballot DAs/PIKs are underutilized

Hiding prefiat in the 1AC is hilarious

SciFi is hilarious

Big fan of going for everything

There should be more soft left PF teams. Your impact can literally just be the plan representing some epistemology that o/w.....

I talk about debate/generally agree with with Kai Cowin, David Sposito, and Nimai Talur

• Idk why these bullet points are here they won't go away :(

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.

CCHS'23

Cornell'27

Use alanmunschy@gmail.com for email chains.

Background: Did LD debate for 4 years

LD: I prefer trad debate.

Theory should be reserved for particularly egregious violations (e.g. condo, topicality; I don't think disclosure is egregious).

Speed is ok if your opponent is okay with it. Don't spread.

PF: I'm not too familiar with PF, I'll probably focus on the flow when evaluating rounds.

Anything else: don't go crazy. Clarity is important.

Ask me if you have questions.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

1). Please show utmost respect to both your opponents and teammates. If I hear derogatory behavior from anyone, I will have to vote against you (Absolutely fine to be assertive and bold but please do not interrupt nor show disrespect).

2). No spreading at all. Talk in a way I can understand.

3). Time yourselves. I expect you to be fair about it.

4). You do not have to extend every piece of warranting but do it so I can still put stuff down in our flow.

5). I am a relatively new judge so organize your information in a way that is clear and concise.

6). Signpost or it will be hard to follow you.

I spent the last four years studying, judging, and teaching PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I offer the ideal perspective of a judge. I weigh each and every argument, I understand the conceptual details of debate, and I have developed such an interest for debate that I stay attentive through the enduring rounds. 

I am a lay judge. Would like to provide constructive feedback.

I will not intervene against any argument that has a warrant and has an implication on how I should be writing my ballot. I feel most comfortable evaluating topical rounds. I will evaluate any arguments about why things other people do are unfair or are bad for debate. I typically look to the argument that is best weighed assuming a reasonable probability of it happening with rare exceptions that you should delineate in the round. Answer all offensive arguments in the rebuttal speeches and answer rebuilding arguments/ frontlines when extending defensive arguments. The earlier the better.

Hi, I am a parent. I have judged speech & debate tournaments for the last 3 years with a heavy focus on PF, Parli and Lincoln Douglas debates, but I am not a debater.

PF/PA:

Voting:

I will vote off what you say not how you say it. Please have credible arguments with tangible explanations, essentially, follow common sense. To me, arguments need to be coherent, organized and well articulated. Vague generalities and sweeping generalizations are signs of sloppy thinking.

Off-Time Road Maps:

I am okay with off time road maps, but if you give one, please follow through in the speech.

Speed:

Please speak slowly, clearly, and loudly, if I cannot understand what you're saying, you did not say it.

Timing:

I will keep my own time and will raise a fist in the air to indicate that your speech time is up. I will not flow anything said over time.

Crossfire (PF only):

BE RESPECTFUL IN CROSS FIRE! While I will not vote off of cross-fire I will listen to what you and your opponents say and give feedback based on that.

Evidence:

If you are calling for evidence/cards in PF the card should be readily available for me to review as well should I ask at any point in the round. Prep time should be taken when a card is being read by a team and not while the card is being opened by the other.

Speech

Judged relatively less rounds compared to debates, but love the spontaneity that speech brings !

Hi thanks for looking at my paradigm.

- I am a fairly new judge

- I am not familiar to debate terms

- Please don't go too fast

I am fairly generous with speaker points.

I will most likely give you (28-30)

I do not tolerate disrespect please keep this debate clean.

i have a daughter who debates & i have judged at a couple of tournaments --

send constructive & rebuttal documents. I can not keep up with fast speaking & would prefer to have something I can read off of/reference when making my decision.

email - kerenandellen@gmail.com

- parent judge

- speak slow and clearly, clarity + presentation comes first

- i prefer logical arguments

- do not be rude in crossfires or during the round

- i do listen to crossfire and it does impact my decision

- please time yourself and your opponents, I may time sometimes

- i do not take many notes, i follow the main idea

- do not argue with my decision, i may lower your speaker points

I am Judging online tournament for the first time, please speak slowly and clearly and introduce yourself before starting.

I am a parent judge. I am not familiar with debate terms and rules. Please speak very slowly and clearly. Please also make sensible arguments.

Bach Tran (he/him)

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

Seven Lakes '23

UT '27 (not debating)

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

Pref Shortcuts

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

Policy, Trad - 1

Stock Theory/T, Ks - 2

Dense Theory/Ks - 3

Phil, Tricks - 4/Strike

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

General Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

Ks on the Neg

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

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

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

Theory/T

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

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

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

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

K Affs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF Stuff

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

Evidence rant:

--No Google Docs. Absolutely not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge and I do not have experience in judging. Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand.

Thank you,

SRT

I'm a lay parent judge so please speak clearly, and use common jargon.

Any questions can be asked before the round.

I primarily vote on links to arguments. Please ensure that your links to your impacts are clear and that the same should be applied to attacks on your opponents' links. I appreciate a well-controlled flow. Note when your opponents drop arguments and when they drop your arguments. Do remember to flow your own arguments through your speeches. I want a well-organized clash. Ethics do matter, please abide by pleasantries when crossing. I am fine with speed, but if you spread I will not flow. I only care for definitional debates for purposes of framework and narrowing the scope of debates. Do not get into the semantics of definitions. Please do not give off-time roadmaps. They're unnecessary I know where you're going.

If there is an email chain please include me: tam.vo@colorado.edu

2nd year out, current debater at the University of Michigan. I am a flow judge, have debated 4 years of public forum on the national circuit in HS.

Go fast as you want but speaking fast to cram in as many words as you can doesn't guarantee a good case or speech - the 8 cards can be taken out by a single solid delink by your opponent if you don't structure your arguments well.

EV: If there is a hotly debated piece or conflicting pieces of evidence in the round, I will call for them, but also make sure to point out why I should favor your evidence. If I can't differentiate which is better, or you don't tell me why your's is better, then I'll decide the argument is a wash and move on.

Theory: By PF standards, I have a comprehensive understanding of theory. However, my threshold for responses to theory is extremely low when it comes to interacting with the "rules" of theory (having a counter-intercept, etc).

Finally, in a round with no offense for either side (extremely rare), the burden of evidence falls on the Aff, as a large majority of NSDA topics are set up that way. Absolutely no Aff offense (again extremely rare) is a presumption vote for the neg.

Speech docs -> higher speaks

pf rounds ck-debate-students-23-24@googlegroups.com AND formula1nr@gmail.com

policy rounds formula1nr@gmail.com

he/him

I did debate all four years in high school so I know how tournaments go.

What I would like to see in round is just a well done, civil debate. I appreciate a good amount of clash, just don't become too disrespectful. Please make sources used very clear so I know where your information comes from.

Other than that I trust you to make the round go smoothly by timing yourselves (I will also be timing) and to be prepared to speak loud and clear, and sell your case to me.

I love debate and being able to judge after graduation. Just remember speech and debate is hard work but it is also so important and valuable in your lives; don't forget to have fun with it!

For my speech friends, all I ask of you is for your name, your prep time (if applicable), and your speech time. I ask that you do your best to not go over time, but I will respect the grace period given. That being said your final time will play into my final ranking and decision.

I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.

Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.

If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.

Be confident, respectful and have fun.