Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

• I am a new parent judge

• I will take notes to keep track of your arguments and key points

• I will not evaluate any new arguments brought up in the final speeches

• I would like debaters to elaborate and explain their argument very clearly

I'm new to judging debate rounds, but I have experience with speech so I have good speaking skills in value.

Notes that will help you & me in rounds:

DONT spread- clarity>speed

If you use jargon, explain what it means to me, I'm not technical with debate.

Signpost- helps me take notes and listen to your arguments.

Tell me WHY you should win, and give me a direct reason I can put on the ballot- gives you a higher chance you win, because it lets me choose your argument over your opponents.

A disrespectful team or a team that uses derogatory terms will never win.

Source credibility is important- if you don't tell me the credibility of a random source, I won't consider it valid.

If you have any questions tell me and I will address them in the round notes.

Good luck with your debates- look forward to seeing them!

I am a lay parent judge. Please explain arguments thoroughly at a reasonable pace.

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

add me to email chain: isabelle.cho123@gmail.com

Did PF for 4 years went to TOC quarterfinals on this unsc topic lol

Tech> truth

Weigh

Running prog arguments are risky, i don't vote for disclosure

I am unfamiliar with Ks run at your own risk

I am a new judge. Please speak at 1x. Time each other and call out if any rules are broken. My email address is sgarg.usa@gmail.com, if you guys want to share cases and evidence with me prior or during the round. Good luck and enjoy the tournament.

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

I believe a good debate team should always directly addressed the topic and clearly explained their position with strong evidence.

be clear with impact weighing + warrants

speak clearly

don't be rude to your opponent and keep your own time

signpost

Have many years in debate. Will be voting off of the flow, and okay with spreading as long as it is understandable. Okay with any types of arguments.

This 2023-2024 is my first year judging debate and public forum. I have background experience in speech and judging speech.

For Public Forum the following are very important:

I will flow your speeches and arguments and will look for consistency.

I'm looking for clarity of references for making your case. You need to state the publication source, author and date clearly. Do not just state the author's last name and year. References from >5 years ago are not as relevant.

Address the opponents arguments clearly, and don't ignore them. Make your statements with logical arguments and address specifics. Avoid vocabulary of broad generalizations/categorizations, which do not go over well with me. You need to make the logic and connections clear. Acknowledge where the problems are complex, and it is not so clear cut. I expect you to actually address your opponents' arguments and their logic flow.

Make good use of your crossfire time and prep time. Do NOT go over in time, especially in pre-prepared opening sections. No excuse of going over time as the first speakers - you may be penalized for this. I'll provide ~5 sec grace period to finish your sentence. Anything said after the time limit will not be taken into consideration.

Do not speak too fast. I'm looking for evidence of thoroughly thinking through your arguments and case and that it makes logical sense.

Absolutely be respectful towards others. Keep a level head. No yelling or eye rolling or any other disrespectful behavior or body language.

Please introduce yourselves clearly so I know who is who (name, school, order of speaking) and which side.

Avoid using acronyms or special debate terms.

For Speech:

Pacing, speed, intonation, gestures, eye contact, walk, volume will all be taken into account and need to congruent with the actual content of your speech.

i did pf for four years at leland high school in san jose, california (c/o 2023). lhuang2023@gmail.com

important notes

• conceded cards, even if misconstrued, are true if not called out. i will not reference the email chain unless I am told/have to.
• speed is fine, but clarity matters. I flow what I heard, not what I read.
• new arguments need to be flagged for me to strike them, with the exception of new arguments in the second final focus.
• second rebuttal must collapse. defense is not sticky.
• in a lay setting, i ask you adapt to the most lay judge on the panel. i appreciate when debaters make rounds accessible to everyone involved.
• terminal defense >>> weighing > mitigation >>> "we outweigh on scope."
• i have a low bar for extensions. a 10-second repetition of what affirming does and why that's good/bad is enough in my book.

progressive argumentation

• i will always prefer good explanation over buzzwords. leaving me confused in round = my decision is confusing. in other words, do good judge instruction.
• theory: fine for anything, would prefer not to be in the back of a disclosure round if your opponent does disclose in some form.
• ks: understand these to a very minimal extent, explain your literature well and any links to opposing argumentation.
• k affs: i don't understand these but you can run them if you want to. please err on the side of over-explaining everything if you do.

I am a first time judge, please speak slowly, don't be rude, I am confused on the rule. Good luck debators!

I am a parent judge.

Please be professional and respectful of everyone in the room. I will judge a topic based on your power of persuasion and not my personal beliefs.

For PF: Speed is not an issue, as long as you are clear and logical in your reasoning and arguments (ideally <225 wpm). State evidence to connect your arguments while offering practical solutions. I would like to see good team balance. I flow the round, and I will disregard any new arguments in your summaries or final focus. If something is conceded in cross, it must be brought up again in a speech for it to affect the ballot.

Please clearly weigh to make my judging easier.

If you plan to spread, I would like to have a copy of the speech so I can follow along more easily.

Please manage the length of your speech, I will allow a maximum of 15 second grace period before it starts to detrimentally impact your points.

For Speech: I will be looking for cutting, delivery and context. Manage your vocal variety, volume and diction while also trying to portray the mood of the speech well.

Most importantly, I am just as excited to be here. So don’t forget to breathe and have fun!

Hey everyone!

He/his pronouns

TLDR; Debate well, run any and all arguments you believe in, be nice, respectful and have a good time. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. People often forget that.

More Specific

I did PF and LD throughout high school, and did Parliamentary and British Parliamentary in college.

I am fine with just about any argument you can run. Clearly explain links, impacts, and solvency. I think Theory, k's, topicality and just about anything else you can run is perfectly fine and can keep debates kind of fresh. If you like an argument, and run it well, chances are I'll like it too.
However, if you are running theory, K's, or topicality in PF you will have a harder time because every time I've seen these in a PF round they have been missing key parts mostly due to the short times of PF. I may still vote for it, but consider what types of arguments are best based on your time constraints.

More basic debates can also be great. Make sure you clash and address the other teams case. Find ways to create offense and don't spend all your time on defense.

Speed is fine, but try to be as clear as possible. In our unfortunate digital circumstances there are more ways to miss what you're saying than there used to be so I think erring on the side of clarity is always better.

I don't flow CX. If there is something important that happens in CX that you deem is massively important to your case please bring it up in your future speeches.

The things I want to see in a debate are typically very clear links, impacts and weighing. You need to tell me exactly how I should vote and why. Debate rounds are always clearer and have more clash when each side can very easily explain their link chain to the impacts, and why those are more important whether it be magnitude, timeframe, scope, or probability.

Finally, just be nice to each other. Debate is a game and I think it should be fun. Be funny, add jokes, do whatever you need to help your arguments but also have fun during the round.

If there is anything I didn't cover here feel free to ask me before our round starts!

Please keep your delivery at normal speed, and be clear and loud. Clarity is more important than speed.

Please prioritize clarity in your constructive contentions. It's crucial for the judge to understand your main arguments.

Smooth and logical flow are important to me, as well as high-quality arguments and rebuttals.

If you use jargon, please explain what it means.

I will not evaluate any new arguments brought up in the Summary and Final Focus speeches. Provide reasons why your arguments outweigh your opponents'.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge and new to judging debates. Looking to judge debates on the points pitched for and against the topic. I will also be looking on weighing impacts and the overall structure of the argument.

I debated high school policy debate in the Mid 1990's and collegiate parliamentary at community college before transferring to UC . I am currently a speech and debate teacher at Quarry Lane school, Dublin CA . I am focused on Public forum debate. Before that I was the coach of Skyline High school in Oakland, CA and focused on Policy debate (primarily varsity performance) . Before then I coached at El Cerrito High School in Northern CA and coached all events, flex policy as well as lay adapted teams. I have coached teams to TOC, NSDA, and CA state championship. I love the community I coach in. It is the daily conversations, discussions, and socializing that keep us all going. Debate changed my life, it wasn't the only thing that made who I am but it's important and I am grateful to be able to share that gift with students on a daily basis.

Public Forum paradigm.

I am new to coaching public forum but am able to adapt from a historical policy background of 20 years. Speed is fine. But I always emphasis clarity. Technical debate is good. I will flow. Debaters should collapse to key winning arguments in beginning in the rebuttals. New arguments in summary and final focus are discouraged unless responding to an abusive argument by an opponent. I am comfortable with flex, both straightforward policy or Kritiks both post-modern to performance. I'm fairly tabula rasa in the sense that you are responsible for upholding the framework for the debate. Theory is fun and I enjoy a well reasoned theory debate with impacted standards.

In regards to evidence analysis I am looking for you to read warrants and good data and extend it and use it throughout the debate. Offense is key. Think strategically and you will be rewarded. Most of all have fun. Decorum is essential.

Please be respectful towards your opponents. I am fine with some aggression, but I will not tolerate any discriminatory, offensive, or disrespectful behavior/remarks.

Remember to collapse, extend, and weigh! When weighing, please explain why your argument matters more than your opponent's. For example, say "We outweigh on magnitude because..." and give me a valid reasoning to your weighing.

Try to respond to all of your opponent’s arguments if you can. It is critical that you respond to a turn. If your opponents do not respond to a turn, call them out for it so that I can take note.

I will not be flowing crossfire. If you want me to take note of something said during crossfire, bring it up in one of your speeches. I will also not count anything that is said during Final Focus if it is not said in Summary (remember to collapse).

I would rather not see any Ks nor spreading.

Email Chain: leesyemi@gmail.com

As a novice parent judge, I would appreciate the debate teams speak with clarity and don't go too fast. I will focus on how the team advance the argument, discredit the opposition and manage the clash with confidence.

I'm a parent judge with some experience judging public forum and speeches. I'd appreciate if you could speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Clarify and quality of argument are valued more than quantity. Thank you and good luck!

uc davis 26 james logan high school 22

former circuit policy debater qualed to the toc my senior year

tech>truth

yes add me to the email chain - lucnguy@ucdavis.edu

I'm cool with speed but be clear that being said if I'm on a panel with other judges, please adjust your speaking speed to the level of comfort in the room

my paradigm will closely reflect my teammates --> mateo mijares + jack jacobs -- (cept the part on jacks paradigm where he says copying ev onto a doc to send out is prep. this is objectively wrong. i don't care) you can check out their paradigms for a more comprehensive understanding of my judging philosophy

don't be racist or homophobic i hope this goes without saying

K's r cool, Policys cool - just warrant out your arguments & have fun

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

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.

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Interlake 23, Emory 27.

Email: michi.debate@gmail.com. Appreciate this subject line: Tournament - Round X - Team Code Aff v. Team Code Neg.

TL: I've said both policy and K and I am good to judge either. I will flow the debate straight down and evaluate the debate technically, following 2NR/2AR judge instruction. I will try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Minimal HS topic knowledge so overexplain acronyms/technical terms, but I have taken AP Micro/Macro for what it's worth. I have opinions about debate (below), but I am also very gullible and tech > truth. I think I am fairly expressive but don't read into it too much. I get to end the debate for -isms.

Clash: I've said the K Aff, but my AT: T win rate was/is abysmal, so good for either side! Aff notes: I find impact turns strategic, dislike when the 2AR is too new, impact comparison please. Neg notes: I find ballot scope arguments persuasive, limits DA needs a case-list, should adopt Aff language when answering offense.

K: Framework first, I will decide an interpretation and work from there. K teams should leverage tricks (framework, PIK, link turns case, ballot proximity, etc.) to moot/turn/outweigh the Aff. Aff teams should impact turn for wins or link turn for speaker points (lol).

Policy: No hot takes, slow down on T/theory/analytics.

email chain: reba.prabhakhar@gmail.com

I am looking for organized clear communication, logical argument content , compelling evidence and refutation. I am expecting confident and persuasive body language .

Stick to the key topic and no excessive spreading please .

Good luck to all participants!

Regarding general norms, I look for debaters to be respectful and kind to each other in round.

For debate specifically:

NO SPREADING!!! I am a parent judge and will not tolerate spreading. Argument wise, run anything you want: any K’s, counter plans or topicality arguments are fine with me. Just make sure to explain all of your arguments clearly as you read them. I judge based on the flow - so make sure to respond to all of your opponents arguments and defend all of your own. Furthermore, make sure to extend everything as I will not grant you full access to a contention when voting that is not fully and cleanly extended. Evidence is also important. If you make a claim then I expect you to have sufficient evidence to back it up. Evidence relevancy and recency might become a factor that decides my ballot. I wish all debaters the best of luck!!!

Hey! I'm Amrit (he/him) and I debated Public Forum for 4 years at the Quarry Lane School and am now a freshman at the University of Washington.

UPDATE FOR NSD Camp Tournament

Please do not read Ks in front of me unless I'm on a panel, theory shells are chill.

Tech > Truth (If you make the argument that 1+1 = 3 and it is extended properly and not responded to, I will vote on it even though 1+1 = 2)

Add me to the email chain: 2005amrit@gmail.com

I expect all cards for both constructive and rebuttal speeches before the speech is given. Teams that don't do this will have their speaks capped at 27.

Things I like to see in round:

• Frontlining in second rebuttal
• Extending defense and arguments in Summary
• interacting with frontlines when extending defense, do not extend "thru ink"
• doing comparative weighing (explain WHY you o/w on magnitude, timeframe, severity, etc.)
• ^^this is what will decide rounds for me
• no new weighing in second FF, very minimal weighing in first FF, most of your weighing should come in summary (even better if it's in rebuttal)

Speaks:

• +0.5 if you read cut cards in case
• +0.5 if you are disclosed on the wiki with highlights and cites
• Automatic 30 if you read solely from cut cards in both rebuttal and constructive

Progressive:

Shells:

Familiar with most (Paraphrasing, Disclosure, TW) , I can't judge a full-fledged theory debate nearly as well as others so run at your own risk

Kritiques:

I know less than nothing about these, please do not run unless I'm the only judge on a panel who doesn't know them.

This is the first year that I’ve judged. Please keep your delivery slow and clear.

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

I'm a high school varsity PF debater.

Treat me like I'm a lay judge - please explain things thoroughly, speak clearly, don't spread, and avoid prog args. I will vote off of what I flow, and I can only flow what I understand. Signposting is a must or I likely won't be able to flow your speech. Note that I will not flow crossfire, so if there is something you would like me to pay attention to, please address it in your speech.

Things I like: good clash, comparative weighing, collapsing in the second half of the round. Respond to all turns!

Make sure you extend your argument through all speeches in the round. I will not vote for arguments brought up in Final Focus that were not in Summary.

Regarding evidence: I take evidence ethics seriously. Add me to the email chain and I'll check the ev myself if you call your opponents out in speech.

Please time yourself.

Lastly, please be respectful! No hate or discrimination of any kind will be tolerated. Have fun and enjoy the round!

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

I possess over a year of experience as a judge in mainly PF debates but I also have experience with the BP style of debate as well. With that being said, I am more of a flay judge as well. My preference is to evaluate arguments based on their substance rather than style because the latter can be a disadvantage for ESL participants. Additionally, I prioritize convincing arguments over speed. (Please do your best not to spread, my old ears aren't as good as they used to be, and I might not be able to process your argument.)

During rebuttals, I urge the debaters to allow their opponents to respond to their questions. Furthermore, I strongly recommend that the debaters structure their arguments logically and succinctly. I am open to accepting cards and paraphrasing for evidence as long as the presented information is accurate and reliable! While I am not too nitpicky on evidence, I must emphasize that I will not tolerate deceitful claims such as lying that cows are pink or grass grows upside down.

Lastly, I wish all the participants the best of luck and encourage them to enjoy themselves!

TLDR bc this paradigm is hella long: Tech, weigh, warrant everything, try not to spread

Email: itswebster2@gmail.com

I'm a Senior at Woodside Priory in CA, 5th year competing in PF, 3rd year coaching PF, this paradigm is set up for PF judging.

Fake Flow / Flay / Fake Flay / Fake Fake Flow. I'm basically a flow (trust). I don't like theory much but I'll evaluate it. K's confuse me, and i'll try to evaluate them. Frameworks are great, trix are fine but lazy.

Spreading is goofy, I'll flow but I'll also tank your speaks, it doesn't matter if you send me a speech doc.

General Stuff❗:

Tech over truth if it's got an actual link and it's not a blatant lie.

Please don't assume that I understand the ins and outs of any given topic, and don't just drop a stock tagline and expect me to know the argument, I want actual warranting on everything.

Squirrelly args: great if they're warranted, I like sand mafia or trucking impacts.

Warrants: I need a thought out and explained warrant for everything. I will vote for the team that has strong, warranted responses / extensions in round over the team that sends me a speech doc and then spams at 950 wpm.

Weighing: Do it. Probability weighing is not weighing, I want to see actual evaluation of the impacts, not how likely they are to happen. You can evaluate probability but there should be actual weighing as well. Also, you can say the weighing mechanism, but try to go further. If you just say "timeframe" and move on, I probably wont evaluate it, because it doesn't have a warrant. If you want to win on a turn, implicate and weigh it the same way you would with a contention.

In general + specifically the debt topic: Recent economics cards: inflation cards and whatnot should be cited with month and day, don't just give me the year of publication: as recent as possible.

Interaction: If there is no interaction whatsoever, at least on my flow, I'll always default to NEG, and both teams will get relatively low speaks.

Progressive Debate: Again, theory fine, k's are not. I do not enjoy theory but I'll still flow it. K's bamboozle me and I have no clue how to evaluate them (my bad). I'll give extra speaks if you successfully run something like shoe theory. However, don't run progressive args against obvious novices. DISCLOSURE THEORY SUCKS, I don't mind disclosure, but judging a disclosure theory round is torture. But if you win it, I'll reluctantly vote on it. Also if the team proves they're breaking a new case I drop the shell. Also, running an incredibly long shell in rebuttal DOES NOT give you permission to spread, it was your choice to run the shell, don't act like your only option is to spread.

Kritiks: know your literature. If you're just reading off some doc and you didn't actually put in the research and the hours, i'll be able to tell.

New Arguments: DO NOT bring up new points in 2nd Summary or Final Focus unless they were brought up in cross. Bringing up new evidence to back up a previous response is no good either. If you do it blatantly, I won't evaluate it. If you try to be sneaky about it, I'll either raise or drop your speaks depending on my mood.

Calling for Evidence: Go for it, don't steal prep while your opps find their evidence. If you want to call out the evidence, have at it, I just hope not to see a round where the only voter relies on the legitimacy of one card. I will never do my own research in round, and unless your opponent calls out evidence I'll evaluate it as true. If you send speech docs, I'll look through them to make sure there isn't any like blatant propaganda or sources from the 1800's, but that's about it. I'm not going to go to the wiki for your cases, if you want me to see them, do an email chain pls.

RFD: Generally I'll try to disclose at the end of the round, but the quality of the oral RFD may vary based on time constraints on ballot submission times / round schedule. If you want more in depth feedback, it will be in the RFD on tabroom. I will try to never just put "oral rfd" into the tabroom, because that is insanely bummy.

Debating non topical stuff: If both teams agree to debate another topic, I'll still judge it.

Crosses: I will not flow any cross speeches. I'll listen, but unless you bring it up during a subsequent speech, I won't evaluate anything said in the decision. If you do get a concession, just bring it up in the speech after and I will evaluate it in the round. Concessions are not them misspeaking or something minor like that, make sure the concession is an actual point of a link chain conceded by your opponents. If both teams ask to skip grand cross, we can just skip it and give yall some extra prep time.

Post-Round: My decision will be final, and I will disclose. If you don't agree with it, I understand, but please don't try to argue about it after I disclose. It's not productive, and it's usually just a drag for me, your opponents, and maybe even your partner. That being said, if you have questions about the decision, or you want some advice, feel free to ask away, and I'll do my best to answer it all. If you ask for pointers on your case, i'll give them to you and tell you how to improve.

Speaker Points:

Basically you start the round with 28 speaks, this will probably increase if you simply debate well in the round. Here are a few ways you can raise or lower your speaker points:

Pre speech: "Hello judge, my name is x and I am the x speaker for x school" is bum activity, I will drop your speaks (maybe, its not that deep tbh). Just tell me where you're starting on the flow and we're good to go.

Music: If you play something hype before your speech I'll raise speaks based on how good it is (i have a scaling system), prob don't let it go into your speech unless I can still hear you clearly. It better not be drake tho. I luv playboi carti

Food: Give me food and I'll raise speaks, eat food and I'll lower them. Don't try to give me food in a virtual tournament.

Funny theory/framing: If it's funny it'll probably up your speaks.

If you win off of tricks, it will be a low-point win.

Timing: Don't go too far over on speeches, don't try to steal any prep, and generally make the most of your time during speeches and cross. I'll be keeping track of time, but I won't hold up my phone or anything if you go over time because it's obnoxious. That being said, you should be keeping track of your opponents time usage and vice versa.

Speed: Going fast is ok, if you annunciate I will understand it. What is more important is making sure your opponents can understand it. If your opponents are obviously new to debate, I don't want to see very much spreading. If you are both at a similar level, talk as fast or as slow as you would like. Just make sure that you are speaking clearly. If I can't hear you, it's harder to make a fair decision, even if I don't necessarily tank your speaker points for it. Spreading sucks, only absolute goobers spread, don't do it if you value your speaks. If you spread and I can't hear you, I don't care if you send a speech doc, your speaks are getting tanked. If you're spreading *INTELLIGIBLY, I won't tank speaks depending on your opponents. Sometimes, spreading can be a way to escape the constraints of short speech times and give more nuanced and well researched arguments. Usually, it's just annoying.

Cross: You can be aggressive to a certain degree, but remember that it's just a debate, it's really not that deep, and there's no point in being rude. be chill. Its fine if cross gets heated, that's normal, but don't let it escalate into a shouting match. Also don't just have the final focus speaker go on mute during grand, i know you're stealing prep.

Lying and stuff: If you come into final focus and say "they completely dropped our turn on x" and then argue that you should win on it, when your opps gave like 3 extended responses to it, I'm not going to evaluate it as dropped, however I will "drop" your speaks (that's a pun). Also don't assume that I zone out during cross, I'll still pay attention, so if you say "they conceded x" when they obviously didn't during cross, I'll probably drop that point and tank speaks.

Ethics: Don't bring up a new carded response in second summary or either of the FFs. Don't just obviously google a statistic during cross. If you bring up a whole new point in FF that wasn't introduced during Grand Cross I'm not going to flow or vote off of it. If you're going to run Theory at least run it well, try to mask the fact that you probably just want an easy win and your actual cases are mid.

Disclosure good, disclosure theory rounds are unbearable. Disclosure theory sucks, if a team proves they didn't disclose because they're breaking a new case, I'll probably drop your shell. I'm more forgiving with funny shells tho. I do not care about powertagging, if the content of the card is not blatantly miscut, I don't really care if the tagline is an exaggeration. However, cutting evidence improperly is a lot worse, don't miscut cards or try to. I also don't care much for paraphrasing theory, but if you run it well i'll still vote on it. I personally don't have a problem with paraphrased cases as long as the card links are somewhere in there.

Inclusivity: If you are blatantly rude or offensive in round, you'll probably dip speaker points to below 27, or get dropped. Keep the round accessible, don't be a bum.

Non-PF Judging: I'll do my best to evaluate it off the flow. LD speech times and ethics debates scare me. Somebody please introduce progressive args into MUN.

In evaluating debates, I prioritize the strength of your argument, the veracity of your evidence, and the clarity of your presentation.

Misrepresenting evidence is unacceptable. Integrity in citing and referencing sources is crucial in debate. I will call for cards if there are concerns about evidence accuracy or misrepresentation.

Extreme speed and/or overuse of jargon could negatively impact your performance. If you can speak quickly while maintaining clarity, that's perfectly fine. However, if your speed compromises the clarity of your arguments, I strongly advise you to slow down.

I do not disclose my decision after the round to keep the tournament's pace and maintain fairness across all debates. The ballot will be the sole determinant of the round's outcome.