Hello, I am Jouseline Alvarez I attend Harrison High School and I quite enjoy the formatting. I debated both my freshman and sophomore year and I am now a junior. Below are my personal opinions and how I look at the round however I will evaluate any argument that has a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Another personal belief is that debate is not a game, but an educational space for people to yes compete but also express themselves. Be respectful if anything and add me to the email chain: jouselinealvarez@gmail.com

Shortcut:

Ks/K Affs/Non-T Affs - 1

Trad - 2

LARP/T - 3/4 **READ THE BREAKDOWN**

Theory - 4 minus

White Phil - 4/5 (Your typical Kant business)

Tricks - nah, strike

Extinction impacts - boring

Ways to make the round good --> good speaks!

1. Clashing with your opponent
2. Having a clear understanding of your case and extending
3. Being clear
4. Time yourself
5. Making the round a little fun and silly

Kritiks: I freaking love Ks etc, I'm more than comfortable evaluating almost any K position as long as the links and alt are well explained. Performance is awesome and probably my favorite form of debate. However, do not just read this because I like it if you don't know your stuff because you might get roasted...

Trad: I prefer trad a lot of styles of debate. If this is what you feel the most comfortable with then go ahead. Although it can get quite boring it might be really fun if debaters use more creative arguments than just the same arguments everyone reads.

Interesting Phil: Complicated stuff Phil is probably something I would not be great at evaluating, and a lot of debaters really don't explain their arguments quite enough for me to feel comfortable voting on this. That being said, I am not an expert in many phil positions, so run these at your own discretion, and thoroughly explain the philosophy, especially if it's dense.

LARP/T: Big fan of the CP-DA game, PICs can be very clever as well. What I do NOT enjoy are long link chains that impact out to util extinction scenarios, especially since util is like kinda racist. BUT, I will evaluate them, just know it's not my favorite thing by far. T is interesting, if there are real warrants for a violation, of course run it and I will evaluate. I'm even somewhat tolerant of clever T shells that aren't frivolous when I'm in a silly goofy mood. But, if you're reading T against a non-T Aff, it's kinda like slapping someone who said they are being slapped. Granted, if the shell is completely dropped, I will evaluate. There's tons of great ways to respond to non-T Affs that I'd be happy to share if you chuck me an email!

Theory: You know when you're reading a shell just to waste time, and so do I, so basic theory shells like disclosure are fine, but once you start getting into frivolous theory shells (or friv th) like shoelace theory, I become less tolerant. While I understand the basics of theory and how it functions on the flow, I do NOT necessarily enjoy hearing rounds that devolve to theory... If there is a real violation then go ahead! I support it fully.

Whitey Phil: I will evaluate any argument I can understand (please pick up on the staleness of this sentence). I had experience hitting these positions, but I never ran them myself, so my understanding is limited. I'm not a fan of a priori knowledge, I don't particularly like evaluating it. I think Kant was racist (probably because he was) and hearing the words of a racist spread throughout debate rounds is not it.

Tricks: Strike me. While I understand and can appreciate how goofy some tricks are, they are uneducational and I will not tolerate them. Additionally, many tricks are ableist or racist, some (if you're lucky) are both! I'll vote for any argument made against them almost immediately, if your opponent reads one please take advantage of the easy W and roast them. If tricks "magically" manage to sneak their way into the round, I will not evaluate them. I won't tank your speaks, but you won't win from them. I say we leave tricks to magicians.

PF:

I'm pretty new to Public Forum (or PoFo, as my West Coast friends like to call it), but I have a lot of experience and success in traditional LD debate, which I've been told has some similarities. I've judged one tournament of middle schoolers, so that's my experience. I suppose to be clear, persuasive, sign post, and give a clear ballot story! Also keep in mind the only PF I have ever judged is middle schoolers.

As a brief underview:

• You get good speaks by being clear and respectful while also demonstrating a clear understanding of what has happened in round
• You will get low speaks and perhaps dropped if you are any type of offensive, I have a low tolerance. Obviously, mistakes are alright we all learn!
• Credits to Charles for the stolen paradigm

Hello, I'm a sophomore at Princeton and primarily debate BP and APDA. Warrant and impact your arguments clearly. Good organization in your speeches is very much appreciated. Also, I appreciate conversational styles of speaking. Lastly, please don't be wildly offensive. Thanks!

I understand that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication. Debaters should articulate clearly and with intention all their points without pressure to speed read or cover a multitude of topics so quickly. Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, counter-planning, and the recitation of interminable quote cards and briefs. I do not tolerate the use of jargon against addressing the facts and rebuttals given in the round. I am not supportive of progressive debate style inasmuch as it limits the clarity of the debate for the sake of endless information with no anchor or goal in providing one's opponent with a considerate roadmap for the debate.

Debate is a respectful and hopeful exchange of ideas delivered at a reasonable pace with clarity of thought. I do not tolerate pointed or hostile, rude, or supercilious attitudes from any of the debaters at any time.

Argue well, speak clearly, and disagree civilly.

Hi! I'm a first year at Princeton and have experience in BP, APDA, Spanish Academic Debating and trad LD. I've mainly done BP & APDA so even in more technical formats, I really appreciate clear warranting, strong and explicit impacting, and more conversational speaking styles. I won't dock speaks for spreading or anything like that, it'll just be less fun for me. Regardless looking forward to see you guys compete!!

TLDR: have fun, don't make it impossible for your opponent to have fun :)

LD:

Tech > truth: I will accept whatever goes unresponded to as true. I will never add my own insights and opinions to an argument in order to strengthen it or refute it (except on disclosure theory: see below.)

I have a good amount of experience in trad LD and tend to at least somewhat know what's going on in a prog round. If you don't mind avoiding spreading it would be much appreciated ???? but if you need to, that's fine, just include me on the email chain. For prefs:

1: trad, LARP, phil, topicality
3: Kritiks: I will vote for them if they're run well, but your link needs to be very explicit
4: Weird theory/ tricks: I'm open to all of this, but you are going to need to spell out for me exactly what you are doing wand why I should vote for you. Don't rely on any prior knowledge you would expect anyone to have about how tricks work. I do not believe that prior knowledge should factor into debate calls anyway, but maybe more importantly, I don't have any prior knowledge on these things in the first place.
5/strike: disclosure theory. I am very unlikely to penalize people for not disclosing: people who don't know how to respond to disclosure theory are likely also people who don't know how to disclose, and as someone who was definitely in this position once or twice, I just think it introduces an unnecessary barrier of entry into the debate space.
General rule of thumb: warrant and impact whatever you are running: if you make me understand it, I'll be open to voting for it. (That being said, if you don't understand what your opponent is doing, don't panic; I probably don't understand either.)

My name is Tasneem (she/her), I am a 4th year debater with experience in both PF and LD. email: tyghadiali@gmail.com

First, have fun! Debate is for learning and meant to be enjoyable! I would love it if you read creative and interesting arguments. Don't stress!

I want CLEAR arguments. If you can't explain it in your own words, don't read it.

Most important to me is comparison: you must tell why your evidence outweighs the opponent's!! Write my RFD in your last speech. For novices, I like hearing

• worlds comparison: weigh the aff world to the neg world and what happens in each
• a list of voters highlighting key issues of the round / why you win this round
• good signposting
• good rhetoric and speech skills
• demonstrating deep topic knowledge -> this is really important to me, make sure you know your case in & out

I will vote off the flow. Please warrant, extend your full link story and impact, and weigh.

I do not flow cross but I listen. If something important happens in cross, tell me in your next speech and I'll flow it. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep.

Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will be an auto loss.

Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. But, if I can’t flow the speech, I will probably dock speaker points.

Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

Feel free to ask questions after the round, I love answering them.

My name is Hannah(she/her) and I’m a 4th year LD debater at Lexington High School. I compete on the local and national circuit.

email: guohannah67@gmail.com

Novice:

-Please be respectful! Give trigger warnings when appropriate, don’t be condescending towards debaters who are clearly less experienced, and anything sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. will likely be an auto loss.

-Any speed is fine with me as long as you enunciate and your opponent can understand you. I will also give reminders but if I can’t flow the speech, I will dock speaker points. Try to signpost often so I can keep track of your arguments.

**If you cannot understand the opponent because of speed, you may tell them to slow down during the speech.

-Spend time on the framework debate! I will usually evaluate it first.

-Make sure to weigh your impacts and explain why one is more important than the other.

-Extend your contentions/arguments with warrants and collapse to a few arguments in later speeches so you can better develop them.

-Remember to give voters in your final speeches and tell me why you’re winning the round.

-Have fun!

Hi! I'm Kate Hankin, and I'm a senior at Bronx Science. I am a 4th year LDer and have competed on the local and national circuit. I also did three years of middle school Parli. If you have questions about anything here, email me: hankink@bxscience.edu.

Tech > Truth

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or ableist.

For Novices:

I was a novice director and now I am a captain and have a lot of experience doing and teaching lay debate, so I will likely give a lot of feedback. Here's a guide to how to best get my ballot and some general advice -

1. Use all of your time! Time yourself!
2. I evaluate offense under the winning framework. If you are neg and the aff reads the same framework as you, don't read the same framework again, just say you concede your opponents framework.
3. For cross, if you usually have trouble coming up with questions, prewrite questions that cause your opponent to concede underlying assumptions in your case (like that companies are greedy or don't care about the environment) or questions that point out the benefits of your case.
4. In every rebuttal speech (1AR, 2NR, 2AR) please start by extending your own case, then discuss your opponents case. I have a high threshold for extensions. You need to explain the claim, warrant, and impact of your contention in two to three sentences. Don't just say "extend my _____ contention," that's not extending.
5. Affs win or lose in the 1AR (usually), so your 1AR needs to be well organized and efficient. The order I recommend you go in is: extend your case, respond to your opponents responses to your case, respond to your opponents case, weigh.
6. I really, really, really like line by line responding in rebuttal speeches, please go down the flow responding to arguments, don't leave any blank.
7. PLEASE COLLAPSE. Do not extend every contention from your first speech in your last one, you only need to win one contention to win the ballot, don't split your time unnecessarily.
8. PLEASE WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS!!!!! In your last speech please weigh! If you opponent also weighs, explain why your weighing in the most important weighing.
9. PLEASE SIGNPOST!!!!! Signpost as much as you humanly can. I need to know where on the flow you are responding to so I can flow your argument. If I don't know where on the flow your argument goes, it is most likely not ending up on my flow, which means it won't go into the decision. If an argument applies to their whole case, say it at the beginning of your responses and tell me it's a general argument.

Here is how you can get a 30:

1. Be confident
2. Be kind
3. Line by line, weigh, properly extend
4. List arguments when responding instead of giving just one
5. Use vocabulary like non unique, link turn, impact turn, magnitude, probability, etc.
6. Organize your speeches well
7. Take notes during feedback
8. Be passionate
9. Make me laugh

For Varsity:

Shortcut:

1 - Theory

2 - Kant and Cap

3 - Larp and Trad (I can of course evaluate it, I just don't find it very interesting) and Common phil

4 - Common Ks (Cap, SetCol, Security, etc.) andPerformance (need to explain to me why it's okay for you to be non-topical)

5 - Super dense phil or Ks (you really need to explain it to me) and tricks

Random Stuff:

1. Please go 20% of your top speed, I cannot really understanding spreading, and am not the best flower, so please don't mumble. I will call clear, if I have to call clear more than three times, it will reflect in your speaks. Do NOT spread through lbl or analytics, I will not catch them.
2. If you have an independent voter, please warrant why it is an independent reason to vote, don't assume I know it's drop the debater.
3. I love a strategic collapse
4. You need a warrant to every argument
5. I want to be on the email chain, hankink@bxscience.edu.

Theory:

1. I am a big fan of theory and run it all the time, I will evaluate any shell that is won.
2. I like well thought-out, specific, creative, interps and well warranted standards. Copy and pasted generics are less fun
3. Please don't do theory debate badly because I like theory, do what you like to do.
4. I would not enjoy voting on disclosure, but will do it
5. Sell me on the abuse story!
6. Explain why theory is first in the round, don't assume I layer rounds in a certain way.
7. I default no RVIs, CI, DTD, norm setting, fairness and education are both voters, Yes 1AR theory
8. I love meta theory

Phil:

1. If you're going to run phil, you need to know it well enough to teach it. Don't run generic phil you don't understand.
2. I know Kant very well and not much else extremely well, so please clearly explain your meta ethic and the syllogism
3. You must have offense under your framework, winning your framework isn't enough

Ks:

1. Just like phil, understand your K really well and explain the theory of power clearly. I know cap very well and little else well, so really explain to me.
2. I would not recommend having a k v k round in front of me

Larp:

1. I like strong Util frameworks and strategically layered Larp.
2. A lot of my novice paradigm applies here
3. I have a pretty low threshold for responses to ridiculous link chains, you need to really sell me on your link chain if it's preposterous
4. Don't run generic larp you don't understand, it makes me sad
5. PICs are probably bad, consult counterplans are cheaty but I'm happy to vote on them

Tricks:

1. I will vote on them if won, but you will have terrible speaks and I won't like you. Please don't.
2. If you run tricks against a novice, I will not vote for you AND you will get terrible speaks. Don't do it.
3. Tricks I specifically don't like are evaluate after x speech, no aff/neg arguments, give me 30 speaks, etc.
4. My threshold for responding to tricks is very low, any response is essentially enough.
5. If you spread through tricks I will not hear or comprehend them and will therefore not know you said them, meaning your "they didn't respond to this trick from the AC" means very little to me, because I don't know if you said it in the AC.

Have a good round!

Hey,

I am Kaustubh, a sophomore at Princeton University. I debated for India at the World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC Format), and now debate for Princeton as part of the Princeton Debate Panel.

1) I value rigorous analysis -- ensure that your arguments have proper reasoning, not just citations. Reasoning supported with evidence is great.

2) Don't spread. Speak at a moderate/moderately fast pace and let me understand your reasoning! I am not trained in PF, so I will literally not be able to get everything down if you speak at 4x. Please don't.

3) Be respectful! You are responsible for creating an environment that is welcoming and supportive for everyone. No personal attacks, no being dismissive just for the sake of it.

I do not have PF experience, but I have extensive debate experience -- if you analytically and logically win the round, you will win my ballot.

NOVICES:

Currently a Senior at Stuyvesant High School who has done LD for 4 years on the local and national circuit. Email: henryji327@gmail.com

+1.0 speaks if you can find both partial derivatives of z=cos(x)·e^y+yx^2+xy^3-x+27

+1.0 speaks if you can prove given c=|a|b+|b|a, where a, b, c are non-zero vectors, then c is a bisector of the angle between a and b

+1.0 speaks if you can find the volume between the xy-plane and f(x,y)=cos x + sin y in the region [0,pi]x[0,pi]

how do i evaluate a round?

i look for the highest layer in the round, determine who has won that layer, and then vote on that. if this fails to give me a reason to vote for one side, i move down the layers until i find a winner or we're at presumption.

if you're confused about anything in the round ask me and ill try to explain. also if you have homework you need help with u can ask me.

if you want to have a progressive round with spreading and stuff you need to have your opponent say yes to it first. if they dont and you go into a spec shell at 300wpm anyways, i won't evaluate it.

you get low speaks if you are mean to your opponent, me, or anyone else

Varsity Paradigm

Quick Prefs:

2-Theory (Any kind)

2-Phil

3-K

4-High Theory K/weird phil

5-LARP/Tricks*

senior @ stuyvesant high school who has done LD for 4 years now

email: henryji327@gmail.com

defaults (easily changed):

no rvis, dtd, ci

p+p negates

I will listen to anything if it's not racist, sexist, etc. The prefs are simply how comfortable i feel in evaluating the arguments based on my past experience. I suck ass at flowing so slow down please-if I can't hear it, I can't vote on it.

LARP: barely did any and never did any LARP v LARP so my confidence in evaluating these rounds very low

Theory: love it of any kind and read it a decent amount

Phil: Read a decent amount (mostly hobbes, levinas, existentialism) and i'm okay with most basic ones like pragmatism, but if it's really esoteric, like heidigger I probably won't know it as well. explaination is key

K: Read Ks a decent amount, mainly cap, orientalism, weheliye, set col, asian.

K-affs: also read this a bit, but I will admit that atp I am a bit biased to T-framework. I'd say like 65-35 so do with that what you will. will try to be as tab as possible but um yeah

Tricks: i'm bad at flowing so you run a risk of just me not hearing them but ill evaluate them if i hear them i guess

Hello! My name is Ellina Koo, a Senior at Half Hollow Hills High School East. I have been competing in Lincoln Douglas and Congressional Debate for all four years of my high school career in various tournament levels ranging from local, state, and collegiate debate tournaments. Thus, I am knowledgeable and have much experience with the way Lincoln Douglas works. Additionally, I have competed at the Princeton Classic during the past 3 years in both Novice and Varsity LD. I made it to Runoffs as one of the Top 20 debaters in Novice LD as well as making it to Semis in Varsity LD. Princeton has been the most amazing experience as a competitor and I am thrilled to have the opportunity to judge as my last year in high school level debate.

Aside from my debate career, I have a few important preferences and things I want to make aware of for all my future debaters.

1. I am a traditional/lay judge thus I would highly recommend debating traditional if you want to be scored high. I'm not saying I won't listen to you if you don't however, this is what I am most familiar with. If I don't understand what style of debate you are doing, I won't be able to flow your points and make a decision so going progressive will put you at a disadvantage for me.
2. Please DO NOT SPREAD!!! If I can't hear what you are saying clearly and at a moderate speed, I will not flow whatever you are saying. I want to be able to flow everything from top to bottom so, I really suggest speaking loudly, clearly, and at a moderate speed if you want to be given high speaker points. Low speaker points for those who can't follow this instruction!
3. Tech > Truth - I care about your argument delivery and how you weigh it. If it’s true that’s fine, but I value your explanation why yours is better. Thus, even if it’s not true but it’s more persuasive, I will vote for it.
4. No K's and no theory - I enjoy the clash more.
5. Have good evidence, clear links to your arguments, and make sure to connect it back to the framework in the end!! Personally, I really like it when debaters can summarize during their last rebuttal why I should vote for them and connect it back to their Value and Value criterion.
6. I would prefer if you could recrystallize and do voter's issues.
7. If you try to post round me, I will decrease your speaker points.

Lastly, please be respectful and have fun! In the end, we are all competing to learn and improve in our debate careers so there's no need to be rude! If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins :) .

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

Hi! My name is Jonathan Lee, I'm a sophomore at Princeton majoring in chemistry. I'm excited to be here and looking forward to hearing your debates! Just be respectful to each other and we should be all good :)

Hi! I’m Sophia (she/her), and I’m a senior LDer at Hunter College High School. Email: sophialeng@hunterschools.org

1. Be respectful and inclusive :)

2. Any speed is fine with me as long as your opponent can understand you, but send speech docs if spreading.

3. Signposting, link extensions, and impact calc please!

4. Tech > truth

5. Weigh, collapse, and tell me clearly why you won at the end of the debate!

6. Feel free to ask me specific questions before the round, but I’m open to most arguments/styles - debate however makes you the most comfortable.

Hi, I am Elizabeth Miani. I am a lay parent judge.

I am fine evaluating whatever you want to present; just do not spread, and if it is progressive, then just explain how I should go about evaluating the argument.

You are best off running a traditional case in front of me as that is what I have experience judging.

BE LOUD AND CLEAR AND SIGNPOST. If you want to run progressive-style arguments, make sure you explain it SLOWLY. For example, if you say, "Impact turn this, cross-apply that," that doesn't tell me what I have to do as a judge, and I will be lost.

The round comes down to clarity. I am not able to properly assess your arguments if you are not clear in your delivery of said arguments.

Give the reason to vote for you!

Please also note I have an accent, but that does not mean I do not understand you perfectly. I do.

Remember, simplicity and clarity will go a long way in winning the round with me as your judge. Good luck!

Hi! I'm Ria, a junior at Lexington High School in MA. I've done LD for 3 years and have competed in LD on the national and local circuits.

TLDR: Debate what you're comfortable with and have fun!

Add me to the email chain: 25stu452@lexingtonma.org

Please be respectful in round; any blatantly hateful comments or sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. will result in you being dropped. If you're plain rude I'll probably tank your speaks. Just be kind, chill, and speak clearly and I'll give you good speaks :)

I won't evaluate any new arguments in the 2AR or 2NR, you should use these speeches to really collapse and weigh- you should spell out my ballot for me. Extend your arguments + cards! I can't vote for you if I don't know what I'm voting for.

Make the round educational- if someone is more inexperienced than you, be polite.

I understand that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication. Debaters should articulate clearly and with intention all their points without pressure to speed read or cover a multitude of topics so quickly. Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, counter-planning, and the recitation of interminable quote cards and briefs. I do not tolerate the use of jargon against addressing the facts and rebuttals given in the round. I am not supportive of progressive debate style inasmuch as it limits the clarity of the debate for the sake of endless information with no anchor or goal in providing one's opponent with a considerate roadmap for the debate.

Debate is a respectful and hopeful exchange of ideas delivered at a reasonable pace with clarity of thought. I do not tolerate pointed or hostile, rude, or supercilious attitudes from any of the debaters at any time.

Argue well, speak clearly, and disagree civilly.

I debated Lincoln Douglas in high school. When it comes to judging, I am more traditional. I cannot flow spreading well. I believe the winner of a debate is the person who has clearly communicated their contentions and done the best job at persuasively arguing their side. I enjoy a good rebuttal, but respect is extremely important to me. I do my best to take accurate notes and will notice dropped arguments. I look forward to hearing your cases!

EMAIL: erinlynn.pritchard@ahschool.com (please just use this if you need to include me on a live doc I will not answer paradigm questions without the other team present.)

MY BACKGROUND: I was a public forum debater on the Houston circuit in high school. I found lots of success in this event and would subsequently attend Texas Tech University on a debate scholarship. I competed in and was a top NPDA (policy) debater, and won numerous national tournaments. I was a k debater, and was most well known for running de-col the mind, witchcraft, rhetoric, and fem rage. I have coached LD, PF, and CX (along with various speech events) for years, and am currently the head LD, and PF coach for American Heritage in Florida.

IMPORTANT:

Do not text or message with anyone outside of the round, during the round for any reason whatsoever.

Be mindful of the opponents preferred pronouns, listed on tabroom.

Read trigger warnings prior to your speeches that may obtain sensitive material.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES (PFers IGNORE, UNLESS YOU GOT IT LIKE THAT):

T - 1

K - 1

LINE BY LINE - 1

TURNS ON CASE AND/OR FW - 1

DISADS - 2

CP - 2

PHIL - 2

PERM WITH DOUBLE BIND ARGUMENTS - 2

THEORY TO CHECK ABUSE - 2

KICKING ARGS - 2

NON-T AFFS - 5

ARGUMENTS READ AS TIME SUCK - 5

LARP - 5

MY JUDGE PHILOSOPHY: You can run ANYTHING you want in front of me. I know this is such a bot thing to say, and I clearly have arguments that prefer over others (as mentioned above) but at the end of the day I am a flow judge who will vote on whichever debater/team is winning on the flow. Tech > Truth. I WILL drop the debater if they engage in any obvious forms of otherization (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) against their opponent(s).

PET PEEVES:

Bad spreading.

Lying about the flow.

Poorly ran/misunderstood representations of K args.

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas debate for two years. This is my first time judging Big Questions. I am a psychiatrist accustomed to listening. I will be able to understand and follow your presentation better if you make your points clearly, maintain good eye contact, and enunciate with clarity and appropriate expression, especially if giving a rapid-fire line of reasoning. Quality vs. quantity is important. I can only judge by what I am able hear and understand well.I find well-formulated and supported arguments persuasive. I respect and appreciate your dedication and hard work. Best wishes!

Hello everyone,

My name is Karolina Rokka, I am a first-year student at Princeton and I’m from Athens, Greece. I love debating and have been doing it competitively for 7 years. I have a lot of experience debating and judging in British Parliamentary and World Schools. I have now gained experienced in ABDA, PF, and LD as well. When judging, I especially appreciate a clear structure in argumentation, effective rebuttal, good impacting and weighing. I am really looking forward to judging and to having a fruitful tournament! I am sure it is going to be a fun, memorable weekend of debating :)

I'm a PhD (Philosophy) and want to hear a coherent and compelling case. Here are some things that I'm looking for:

• Give me sound and cogent arguments
• Refute your opponent’s arguments and objections
• Defend your framework
• Make your case clear and easy to follow
• Don't give me flimsy premises or invalid arguments. Don't build your case on unjustified assumptions, simply assume the correct framework, or commit informal fallacies
• DON'T SPREAD! Instead, I’d rather hear fewer arguments developed at a deeper level
• DON'T RUN Ks!

If you enjoy progressive debating, please strike me. Lastly, I don't disclose my decision in person so don't ask.

May the odds be ever in your favor!

I am a parent/lay judge with little experience. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. LD jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Do not sit down when you are speaking or cross-examining. Keep the volume up and the speed very low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me. Looking forward to judging your rounds!

As a judge, either in PFD or LD , I am looking for a good respectful debate, and please note I am traditionalist - yes circuit competitors you hate seeing this. However, the structure and format is set for a reason.

Please make sure you use sound evidence and impacts should be clear, like in LD your Value should win out, please do not make this a policy round.

Thank you and have a great tournament.

Here is what i prefer in a debate:

Speak slow and clear

Articulate points well

Clarity and revelance in points

Logical and coherent in debate

Clear answers to rebuttals

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format, and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I appreciate sound, well-researched arguments and dislike hyperbolic statements. Additionally, I am okay with fast conversational speed, but not faster than that.

I'm Sean, any pronouns. I've debated 1 year of JV CEDA Policy debate and I've done about 2.5 years of pf and half a year of Parli. I like to think I'm pretty experienced, I can handle whatever speaking speed, if you're going to go fast just send me a speech doc. My general judging philosophy is that debate is a game, there is no truth value when the round starts. Tell me whatever and I will probably flow it unless it's violent to someone in the debate space.

If I see you consuming an item on the BDS strike list or from starbucks I'm giving you 25 speaks.

I love to be included in things, especially things like email chains! sw4641@nyu.edu, and if that doesn't work myndblew@gmail.com

I like Ks quite a bit, especially weirder ones, so run whatever your heart desires.

I like link level debates a lot, and I feel like I see them pretty rarely in pf. Actually interacting with the other team's arguments rather than talking about your own is probably going to be more productive to me and other judges.

When it comes to weighing, I need you to tell me why your impact is better than the other team's, not just why your impact is good. Comparative weighing makes my job as a judge easier. I'm hearing way too many buzzwords like scope and magnitude, let's just cut it with the terms and tell me straight why your impacts matter more than the other team's.

For pf:

Second summary is a little late to be bringing up new responses, I don't weigh these as heavily and I'm really generous for the first final focus frontlining. Other than that, evidence and new stuff in final focus kind of goes out the window for me.

I know y'all are probably not too used to it but please make an email chain and get your opponent and me on it. Evidence ethics are super sketchy in this event and I just do not want to deal with the 20 minutes wasted every round looking and reading for cards. Just send your speech docs, especially if they use evidence, and we'll all be happier.

I'm a first-year student at Princeton in PDP. I've done Parli and extemp speech all four years of high school at mostly national tournaments. As such, I enjoy fast-paced but conversational debates. I also like creative argumentation. I am mainly tech>truth in the sense that an argument stands in the round if your opponent has not refuted it, but more complicated arguments should be given proper (and usually more extensive) explanation. Quality > quantity.

In terms of refutation, do not straw-person your opponent's case. refute the version they presented, and weigh it against your own points. Respond to your opponent's argument even if you think it is "bad" or "not important".

I can follow spreading, but would prefer not to. Your opponents and I will understand you better if you speak at a somewhat normal pace.

Be kind to your opponents. Attack their arguments, not them as people.

Hey everyone! My name is Danielle Williams (she/her) and I competed for Teurlings Catholic High School (in Louisiana) in NLD and PF. I currently attend Princeton University.

General Notes for Debate:

• Huge fan of clear weighing and voters.

• Please signpost!!!!

• Link extensions and impact calc are super helpful

• I’m probably unfamiliar with the topic so refrain from jargon.

• Would prefer if you didn’t spread. Clarity > speed

• I'm pretty generous with speaks, usually give somewhere in the 28-30 range.

• Be respectful!

• It's been a while since I’ve been in a debate round. Treat me as you would a lay judge. Explain your case clearly and be organized!

As a judge, I appreciate the dedication, hard work, and passion of every individual participating in speech and debate events. For debate, I am looking for a framework which provides reasoning and evidence to clearly define arguments with logical construction tying all of the relevant pieces together. The understanding of the opposition’s arguments should be inherent through effective and thorough cross and rebuttals. For speech, I will utilize the normal judging criteria depending on the type weighing each criteria piece and the impact on the overall effect of the performance. In summary, I expect individuals to be confident, respectful, and assertive during the events while challenging their colleagues in a spirited competitive nature. Thank you for the opportunity to judge you. Best of luck in your pursuit of greatness!

Please focus on speed of speaking so I am not struggling to keep up with your arguments. It will help you relax as well! Remember, clarity is as important as the content you prepared.

Make optimal use of your prep time and do your best to make full use of your allocated time.

Good luck and enjoy!

yuharry000@gmail.com

Strath Haven '22, Penn '26

Did policy debate in high school.

I do not debate in college and I do not know much about the topic, so bear with my lack of topic knowledge.

Line by Line preferred.

I will be voting based on the flow.

Big fan of counterplans, disads, impact turns.

I'm not great for the K.

Please have debate etiquette, be respectful.

I am a lay judge.