This marks my inaugural year as a member of the debate team, and I approach my role as a judge with an open mind. My voting criteria are straightforward: I favor arguments presented in the rebuttals that are clear, concise, and logically sound. While I may not possess a deep understanding of certain critical arguments, if they are adequately explained to me, I am inclined to cast my vote in their favor.

Hello!

I am a freshman at Columbia, and I debate primarily in APDA. My pronouns are He/Him. I did east-coast Parli in high school for 4 years, so about what you can expect from that applies to how I will judge any form of debate:

1) I am tabula rasa and will flow creative arguments so long as they are warranted

2) Avoid speed, I will be much more impressed if you can say more with less words and/or focus on the arguments that matter and weigh them

3) I am a traditional/lay judge

4) I have very little experience with theory/progressive argumentation. I won't tell you not to run it but you probably shouldn't. If you do, pretend that I have no idea what you're talking about and explain the arguments fully (because I don't).

Hello,

I’m partial to good public speaking skills. Concision, clarity, and specificity will shine the best light on the content of your argument. While I am open to progressive arguments, (i.e., introducing political jargon that is tangential to the subject), I’m not particularly familiar with them, so your best bet is to stick to the basics.

A winning team will address the strongest counterargument to their position, representing it comprehensively, accurately, and compellingly, and refute it nonetheless. Refuting this counterargument should involve demonstrating some kind of internal contradiction: (the argument is deficient by its own standards, or contains conflicting priorities) or a critical oversight: (an argument’s evidence warrants doubt, or it overlooks a relevant aspect of its subject).

In essence: be clear and specific, and demonstrate an understanding of your opponent’s position.

Looking forward to it!

My name is Alia Bonanno I am a freshman at Columbia University. I compete in the APDA circuit and do not have high school debate experience. As such, I am a lay judge and have few preferences besides slow speaking and good signposting.

1st year lay parent judge: I am a practicing attorney with a background in moot court. I have judged numerous tournaments this year and can keep up with your flow. I do judge cross.

truth>tech

While I understand the temptation to pack in as many arguments as possible, avoid speaking so quickly as to be unintelligible.

If you believe the other side has dropped a contention, I encourage you to point that out.

Be respectful. One note of caution -- I am familiar with NSDA rules. Please be certain of the rules before you decide to cite the rules as an objection.

I will award high speaker points to both sides, if such are earned.

Most importantly have fun!

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I have never judged Public Forum debate before, but have judged Lincoln Douglas semi-regularly over the last few years and also debated LD for several years in the past, including at a variety of national-level TOC tournaments.

I will flow your arguments and generally will not intervene on arguments. However, your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated (ideally with evidence). I will judge the round and reward my ballot based on which side made stronger arguments, refuted the opponent's arguments, provided stronger evidence with clear reasoning and/or empirical data, and clear communication.

I also heavily appreciate when debaters explain to me why their arguments are superior and ought to be weighed more heavily than the offensive arguments offered by their opponent.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Mission San Jose High School (CA) from 1999-2002. I competed at various local and national TOC bid tournaments, sometimes breaking to elimination rounds and occasionally earning a TOC bid. Since graduating in 2002, I have only been minimally involved in the activity, which was mostly limited to judging at the Berkeley and Stanford tournaments during my first couple of years in college. I am returning to the activity now that I have a child that is involved in the activity.

In terms of judging philosophy, I try to be Tabula Rasa and am generally open to all arguments, although claims should be substantiated with evidence or logical reasoning -- blips/assertions without any warrants will carry significantly less weight with me, even if dropped by the opponents. I generally prefer debate on the merits which rely on more conventional substantive arguments, although I am also open to off-the-run arguments, kritiks, and theory arguments. On theory, I view it mostly as a check on abuse, and when I was debating, did not view it as an independent voting issue. However, I will consider it as a VI if the opposing position is extremely abusive.

Kritiks should be very well explained, with clear links to why they should lead to winning the ballot.

In terms of speed, I can handle a moderate amount of speed, but will struggle to understand full-on TOC-level speed. I will try to indicate when I am struggling to keep up.

In terms of speaker points, I follow tournament guidelines. I reward clarity and good logical explanations. I also don't like jerks, so unnecessary animosity towards opponents will likely lead to speaker point deducts.

Respect is extremely important in the round, no ad hominem attacks, and don't spread—if you speak to quickly I will not be able to flow your argument effectively.

I have been judging debate since September 2023

1. I prefer debaters to talk slowly and concisely and not to speak with anger. I give points for proven points that have been published. I like eye contact.
2. I mark positive points when arguments and claims are supported.
3. I note when key claims are supported. I give points when the opposing team hears and counters the argument with supported evidence.
4. I value argument support and flow style. It is valuable for the two teams to hear their opponent and not only reiterate their own argument but debunk the opponents with support.
5. I consider calm rational clear understanding of the argument. and presenting in a calm manner.
6. I expect respect and clarity

I am a freshman at Columbia University studying environmental biology and public health. This is my first year doing debate, and I am primarily involved in APDA, so I am not very experienced at judging LD and PF. In high school, I did Mock Trial and Poetry Out Loud, among other things. I don’t mind if you talk fast (as long as you speak clearly!), since I’m used to listening to fast paced speeches, but I do prefer for people to signpost their speeches clearly to make each part of the speech easy to follow.

As a judge, I come in as a blank slate. I will avoid making helpful inferences from statements you make, because that can create bias in the judging process. Only what is directly, clearly explained to me by the competitors will be considered in the judging.

Hi! My name is Grace, and I’m in my first year of college debate (APDA). I did parliamentary debate in high school. A few things:

No spreading. I will not be able to give your team the argument if I cannot figure out what you are saying. I am not flexible on this, and will give low speaks for spreading.

I am not a fan of debate jargon or theory arguments. Please try to keep your arguments straightforward, and avoid overly technical language.

I really prefer debates that stay organized, particularly if they are on the flow. No one enjoys messy debates, and it results in a much more productive debate if points are structured clearly.

The best arguments are the ones that are well-impacted. I especially appreciate speeches that clearly analyze major points of clash in the debate. I love good weighing, especially on magnitude/probability/time frame.

I will award high speaker points to debaters who clearly and passionately articulate their points. I especially enjoy it when multiple refutations are offered to a single point - take your opponent’s argument at its best, and refute that.

I absolutely will not tolerate any offensive language or content, and will give an automatic loss and low speaks to teams who violate this policy. I will also contact equity officials.

Please time yourself with a stopwatch, instead of a timer, so that you're not interrupted at the end of your speech. I won't penalize you for using a timer, this is just a personal preference.

Have a great round! Remember that this is a learning experience for everyone, be respectful, and enjoy the debate. :)

Email: gf2482@barnard.edu

New to Parli; just make sure to weigh and extend your points

Flay for the purposes of judging, competed PF since 2020. I flow the whole round and will vote off the flow, but I value clear explanations and sound logic. Tech > truth, you need to support statements with logic (don't just say things without explaining why). Don't run Theory or K, if you do I am not used to judging it.

Things to remember:

• speak clearly, be confident to the best of your ability
• cross is for you: I don't vote off cross unless it is brought up in a speech
• weigh, weigh, weigh: if the round is messy I will be voting off the weighing
• establish your world and why it is better/worse than your opponent's
• don't bring up something completely new in FF please - however if your partner did absolutely no weighing in 1st summary I will allow it if you weigh in 1st FF bc your opponent has time to respond to it in 2nd FF (you cannot bring up completely new arguments in 2nd FF EVER, just interact with old ones)
• be respectful, don't worry too much, and have fun!

Btw I don't really believe in sticky defense (the idea that if your opponent didn't frontline an argument in first rebuttal, you don't have to mention in in 1st summary and can just bring it up in 1st FF -- the defense is sticky and is automatically extended bc they didn't respond to it). If they didn't frontline it you should just be mentioning important tags/the bare bones of the argument so we understand what you are going for/how the round will narrow. This makes the round cleaner and shouldn't take much of your time, you only need to really fully explain a rebuttal if the other side attacked it anyway.

Please lmk if you have any questions/tech issues!

if you reference a studio ghibli film I'll consider it when assigning speaks

I am a freshman at Barnard and my email is ig2507@barnard.edu (She/Her)

I didn't do debate in high school but I've been getting more experience with APDA.

I am a first time judge and I am not comfortable with spreading.

I have little experience judging so I may take some time to decide.

I judge tabula rasa and don't consider intuitive cross-applications to be new arguments for rebuttal. That said, I won't do the work for you, and if you have to spend more than 30 seconds explaining a new way one argument interacts with another, you're probably adding some new warranting.

Make sure to weigh your arguments explicitly. You should tell me why you won.

Run principles well with clear weighing relative to pragmatic impacts or don't run them at all

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Nice to meet you! I have been debating over 4 years (1 year in PF) and would be an honor to judge you. Here are some of my preferences.

1. Do not spread. But as long as you are clear, talking fast would be okay.

2. Adequate weighing is critical in the later speeches.

3. Good reconstructions usually lead to better weighing at the end.

4. Collapsing is totally fine.

5. I would not flow words that are said after 10 seconds grace period of time.

Enjoy!

This is my first time judging ever. Please don't use any jargon. Speak slow and clearly. I am a very lay judge.

BACKGROUND:

BRMHS 23' Reed 27'

Did policy debate in high school, some congress. Attended 2021 Dartmouth and 2022 RKS labs for policy. I ran almost nothing but kritiques the whole time I debated. Some authors I enjoy are Deleuze, Guattari, Fanon, Bataille, and Said.

HOW I JUDGE:

Any questions email me at prrsh004@gmail.com

Tech vs. Truth is meaningless

T is not a voter

I decide the outcome of the round off the flow, but so does almost everyone else (if you want me to analyze the round in some other manner I'm totally open to that, argue it).

If there is a framework sheet, that's what I'm going to look at first.

I mostly look for offense when going over my flow at the end of the round, even your defensive arguments should not only seek to defend your case but undermine your opponent's. Impact calculus is important here. You should always connect back to the hermeneutical lens you're arguing the round should be viewed through and why when viewed through such a lens, that argument matters. I should also note I find myself less and less persuaded by nuclear war impacts, I find most of their link chains to be pretty weak.

Signpost clearly, especially when virtual. I would also like to be on the email chain so I can refer to evidence and (ideally) speech docs.

Just make sure that you did all of these

• Articulate your points clearly, and exude confidence to the best of your ability.
• Cross-ex is solely for you; I don't base my vote on cross unless it's raised in a speech.
• Emphasize weighing throughout the debate, especially in messy rounds.
• Establish your world and articulate why it is superior or inferior to your opponent's.
• Avoid introducing entirely new arguments in the Final Focus. However, if your partner neglected weighing in the 1st summary, I'll allow it in the 1st FF, provided you engage in the 2nd FF without introducing new arguments.
• Maintain respect, don't stress too much, and most importantly, have fun!

flow judge

didn’t read theory much but i’ll evaluate it

near 0 K experience so read if u rly want

typically do not feel like flowing off a doc, but it depends on the day

be nice

Hii! I’m currently a freshman at Columbia University majoring in Political Science-Economics (at least I hope so haha). I competed primarily in World Schools, with a side hustle in Extemp. I was ranked #10 in the nation for worlds and was part of the Texas Debate Team.

WSD

I’ve competed in every speaker position so I understand most norms/expectations in this format. With that being said, these are what I value in the round:

• Clear argumentation and impact (i.e. link chain, warranting, examples are all reasonable and well-explained). Do not assume why your argument is important. Explicitly explain why I should care. I also need rational reasoning as to why your argument is realistic and applicable to the world. However, this doesn’t mean an excess reliance on examples. You just need to explain why actors/stakeholders usually act that way.

• Sign-posting (Organization is a crucial element in elevating your style and content. Signpost makes sure that we’re both on the same page.

• Crystallization and Weighing. The hardest part of the RFD is deciding the winner (in most cases). To make my job easier, you must engage with your opponent’s argumentation (through refutation or clash). When weighing, you must be charitable (i.e. you can’t compare your highest ground to their lowest ground; it doesn’t help my decision). The latter half of the debate should be spent on crystalizing clashes and explaining why your side outweighs them.

• Consistent Narrative. Crafting a central narrative around your bench is crucial to elevating your content and strategy. Please do not contradict/throw your teammates under the bus. Make sure you guys communicate team strategy before the round.

• Engagement in the debate. This isn’t just offering POIs and accepting them. It’s being respectful towards everyone in the debate. I also encourage bench communication (but don’t be excessively loud).

On the other hand, I will dock speaks/get very annoyed at any of these:

• Framing debates. Models and definition disagreements should be resolved by the second speech at the latest. I am a rational judge and will accept the fairest interpretations for both sides.

• Barricading with POIs.

• Unengagement. Please make sure you clash with your opponents. Also treading the middle ground to co-op your opponents’ arguments makes the debate incredibly hard to adjudicate and doesn’t lead to fruitful discourse. There are some instances where the middle ground can be used, but I will need explicit clarification on what is your uniqueness.

Besides that, have fun and be nice to each other. My email is chinh.le@columbia.edu if you have any questions.

I was a varsity public forum debater and have since graduated. It's been a while since I debated though, so speaking fast probably isn't in your best interest if you want me to understand your arguments. I also tend to lean more toward truth over tech. Here's what I expect during rounds:

First and foremost, please be respectful to your opponents and partners. Not showing respect is the easiest way to lose speaker points.

The first rebuttal doesn't need to extend contentions from their own case. In fact, they shouldn't, but the second rebuttal does need to respond to their opponent's case while also frontlining (answering responses made by your opponent on your own case). Neither side needs to start weighing in rebuttal, but if you have time left in your speech, try to use all of it.

Summary speeches should begin weighing (comparative analysis of each side's arguments that tells the judge how they should evaluate an argument over the other). Condense the round: DO NOT go for all the arguments in your case. Choose the most important ones on both sides. I want to see clash between aff and neg. Of course, summaries should extend all of their contention's uniqueness, link chain, and impact. If you do not extend your offense, I can't vote for you.

Final focus speeches should condense the round further and extend the arguments made through summary. There shouldn't be any new analysis being made at this point. Weighing is going to be super important. Don't forget to give a brief extension of your case! I can't emphasize this enough: if you don't extend your offense, I have no reason to vote for you.

Additional Notes: I can handle slightly faster speeds, but spread at your own risk. (Novices should not be spreading.) Also, if you're reading this and going, "What the heck is she talking about," you're still in a good place. Ask questions before the round, and just do your best! At the end of the day, we're here to learn and have fun.

Hopefully, you found this info helpful. Reach out by email (tinal6110@gmail.com) if you have any questions.

Parent Judge

Introduction

Hello! My name is Mukudzeiishe Madzivire (he/him/his). I am a first-year student at Columbia University studying Economics and History, with interests in Political Science, Literature and Anthropology. I debated throughout high school in predominantly WSDC format and was a quarterfinalist at WSDC 2023 debating for Zimbabwe. I currently compete for Columbia Debate Society in mostly BP and some APDA, while coaching and judging WSDC. Please feel free to email me at mm6431@columbia.edu for a full debating and judging CV should you wish.

General Information

1. Be nice - Debate as a sport is made infinitely more enjoyable when debaters are kind and exercise compassion with each other. This speaks not only to how you engage with other speakers, but also how you engage with their material. Be charitable in your engagement, and gracious in all other interactions.

2. Be equitable -. Good debating relies on our collective ability to overcome biases and stereotypes, exercising respect for the personhood of everyone in the room, debaters and judges alike. While I do not make equity calls except in the most extreme of cases, I will not hesitate to call out any inequitable behaviour in rounds and report it to the responsible individuals in the tournament.

3. Be clear - Simply, if I cannot understand your arguments (and I will try very hard to!), I cannot credit them. Particularly for formats such as PF, LD and Policy, I expect you to exercise greater care in clarifying how arguments should be evaluated and compared. This is especially necessary if you intend to run theory. If you explain your theory to me clearly and patiently, I will credit it. Naturally, do not spread, do not abbreviate without explanation, etc. Conversational, or slightly above conversational pace, is fine by me.
   
   Additional Information

1. My approach to evaluating arguments is in Truth > Impact > Weighing. This means, for example, that I will credit an argument credited to be true without impacts or weighing over an argument with impacts and weighing that isn’t proven to be true. Truth refers to any combination of empirical proof, revealed preference analysis, likelihood analysis, and any warranting you deem necessary to prove truth to the AIV.

2. I weigh out arguments based on what I am instructed to do in the debate, with the following order of prioritization: Weighing using what both sides explicitly agree on as important > Weighing using what one side explicitly describes as important that isn’t contested by the other side > Weighing using what both teams imply is important > Weighing using what one team implies is important that isn’t contested > Weighing using what the AIV cares about i.e., intervention. In short, tell me, as unambiguously as possible, what to prioritize and why, and I will default to that in my judgment if it is reasonable.

3. For motions requiring highly specialized knowledge of a particular thematic area, I will credit teams and speakers who make a fair effort at clarifying the motion and its associated comparatives to speakers and judges alike. If, by your assessment, the average intelligent voter is unlikely to know what the motion is about and why it matters, do the work to clarify this.

Other Formats

While I rarely judge other formats, I will on occasion. In this case, I will read the format manual before judging - or refer to more experienced judges’ perspectives where a manual is not available - and stick as closely as possible to that in my judging.

Because my background is in WSDC and BP debating, my default judging persona is the average intelligent voter (AIV). When required to, I can judge tabula rasa but will need you to outline to me what a tabula rasa evaluation of your argument and its impacts looks like - tabula rasa is relative - and, if sufficiently warranted, I will be pleased to credit your material.

Additionally, because I have never debated in the American high school circuit, I am unfamiliar with acronyms and jargon such as Ks. Equally, I am unfamiliar with circuit norms surrounding how particular theory is evaluated. For your safety, do not run Ks unless you are certain you have the time, energy, and patience to explain them to me. Similarly, while I'm more comfortable with evaluating theory, I will need you to be crystal clear as to what the theory is, how it works, and how/why it applies in a given round.

I will not evaluate every piece of evidence that you run. I expect then that you will (a) select appropriate references and (b) do not misrepresent or fabricate evidence. If evidence is contentious, I will ask to see it and vote on it, but it is unlikely to be round deciding.

Over time, if I judge more of other formats, I will happily update my paradigm to reflect this.

Public Forum-

Background-

My email is cammays05@gmail.com

I did PF debate all four years in high school so I'm pretty familiar with anything that could come up in the debate. Speed is fine, but I think debate is supposed to be an educational activity, accessible to anyone who watches, so I highly discourage spreading, but if you really feel like you have to spread in a constructive of rebuttal just send the doc.

In Round-

I expect everything y'all are going for in the debate to be clearly extended, especially in summary. With this, dropped points need to be pointed out by each team, I will be flowing but dropped points should immediately be jumped on as a cause for winning. At the end of the debate I vote on what offense is left (obviously), so be sure to introduce voting issues and weighing mechanisms for me preferably starting in summary or rebuttal. Please clearly explain your weighing mechanism don't just say, "Vote on this impact because of scope," incorporate some analysis and explanation with it. Also, extend warranting and link chains not just the impact and its stat. I will also vote on mishandled evidence or faulty evidence, I think those are strong arguments that can undercut a case well. Finally, please do some case defense, don't just reread your case or not respond at all to arguments against it. I really don't know what else to put just be respectful in speeches and questioning and ask me any questions if you have them.

LD-

A lot of the same stuff from PF, don't just extend claims and source tags, but extend the warranting with it. My vote is based on whichever argument better fits under the value and value criterion I buy in the debate.

Post Round-

I'm fine with disclosing and answering questions about my decision and the round and giving feedback as long as a tournament allows it. However, doing this can get pretty contentious, so if y'all are trying to be post-round debaters I'm going to cut my feedback short, like I said earlier just be respectful. I get tournament days can be stressful but just remember I'm trying my best. Thanks.

I am a member of the Columbia debate team. I can be reached at am6286@columbia.edu. I did not debate in high school and primarily have experience in APDA. I am a traditional judge.

First, I will flow and judged based on what is said in the round and will not make inferences on your behalf. When running principles, please weigh them relative to direct, tangible impacts. Also make sure to specify why your case is better than your opponent's.

Second, spreading is acceptable.

And third, I don't care about what the topic is so long as it is well-argued. With that being said, stock arguments without sufficient explanation are rarely good ideas (i.e. arguing that America is good because it is the defender of the shining city on a hill or that capitalism is a terrible system because of Wall Street). But feel free to make them if you can defend them.

Hi debaters! I'm new to debate this year; going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round. I don't have a great understanding regarding this topic, so I expect arguments to be understandable and well supported. Please be respectful to each other and have fun!

I'm mainly a World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, and British Parliamentary judge. I have been judging at WSDC since 2017. As a predominantly parliamentary judge, I look at the debate holistically. Therefore, having consistency down the bench and demonstrating teamwork is important. I also prioritize logical reasoning over scientific evidence. It is okay to have evidence but make sure to always back it up with argumentation. Individually, content, strategy, and style are inseparable and speakers should strive to do well in all three areas. If you have questions, feel free to approach me!

Hi! I debated World Schools format for two years in high school and some BP. As of 2022, I do college debate (mostly APDA and some BP).

I'm fine with most arguments, but here are some basic guidelines:

1. Don't spread–I can't give you the win if I don't understand you. Slightly above regular conversation speed is ok.
2. I've never debated in the US high school circuit so I won't understand any specific technical terms.
3. Be as clear as you can about your logical flow, weigh and tell me how to vote!
4. I'm not familiar with a lot of theory so it's probably best to avoid it unless you can explain it clearly to me in round.

Violating equity (homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc) will result in an automatic loss and low speaks. Feel free to email me with any concerns or issues regarding such behaviour.

Email: sm5332@barnard.edu

I'm new to debate this year; going too fast doesn't help me understand how you are actually debating within the round. Be respectful to one another and have fun!

First Year Parent judge. I appreciate it when you talk clearly and slowly. I like it when you explain your arguments well and when you smile / are kind to competitors.

I’m a senior at Columbia, and can be reached at benjaminascherzer@gmail.com. He/him

I didn't do high school debate but I've done a lot of college parli - APDA & BP.

1% chance of nuke war weighed on magnitude x probability is a bad argument

Don't give off time roadmaps

Be nice.

LD

I can evaluate some progressive debate but you can’t rely on my already knowing the arguments - you need to make them clearly and explain why they come prior to the on topic clash. Or run a trad case

Tell me why your framework/value is better than your opponent’s, not just why it’s good in a vacuum

Email: taabeershah13@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her

Columbia Debate Society (2023-present)

Experience:

High school parliamentary (Worlds School Style) debate- competing & judging
College parliamentary (APDA) debate- competing & judging

Approach to judging:

• I judge tabula rasa. I assess arguments based on their strength and relevance within the context of the debate.
• I prefer a slower speaking pace during rounds to ensure clarity and comprehension of arguments.
• Debaters should strive for organization and clarity in presenting their arguments. Clear, well-structured arguments are easier to evaluate and respond to.

• Debaters must uphold a standard of respect towards their opponents at all times. Any form of personal attacks or disrespectful behavior will be unequivocally deemed unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any capacity. Respectful conduct is paramount and is expected throughout the entirety of the debate round.

• I have a zero-tolerance policy towards any manifestation of racism, sexism, ableism, or any other form of bigotry in the rounds I judge. If I encounter any such behavior during the debate, I will immediately intervene and address it accordingly.

I am a lay judge who is new to judging! Please talk slowly and clearly, and be kind to everyone in the room. I'm excited to judge your round!

I am a parent judge of a first year novice debater. As a judge, I appreciate a straightforward approach that is slow, clear and effective – if I can't follow your arguments, it'll be challenging to vote off of them. Please make sure to weigh your impacts and repeat important, uncontested arguments throughout the round. Last but not the least, be respectful and kind to other team members and have fun!

Updated for the 2024-25 season

Hi! I'm Amy (she/her). I'm a third year LD debater and I compete for Acton-Boxborough. You can call me by my name, or you can call me judge, idrc.

25suna@abschools.org

Add me to the email chain if there is one.

Judging Philosophy:

I lean tech > truth. I´ll vote based on the flow and default to who is ahead on such flow, even if I dislike the argument/think it isn´t a good argument, but in cases where rounds are difficult to resolve I might go for truth.

To me, being "ahead on the flow" means winning the arguments that matter in the round on a technical level; you don't need to win every single argument your opponent throws at you to get the ballot. This means I'm not a fan of someone just spending their entire speeches going THEY DROPPED XYZ THIS MEANS THEY LOSE.
I´m pretty non-interventionist in the way I judge; of course, there are instances where I WILL intervene, but for the most part, assume I won´t. Especially in really close rounds, give me reason as to which arguments matter most, and weighing + voters become really important.

I´ll evaluate nearly any argument in a round, minus anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc and completely new arguments made in later speeches. This also means you can basically run whatever you want, as long as I can ID a claim, warrant, and impact.

I don't come into the round presuming a specific side! If you want me to presume your side, make that argument in round. IF at the end of round there are no presumption arguments AND I literally have no other way out, I will flip a coin on presumption.

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

General:

Signpost and weigh please!!!!

I don't care if you stand or sit during the round.

I don´t like the 3, 2, 1 method before starting a speech. Debaters saying ´time begins on my first word´ is kinda weird unless your timer automatically starts when you start your speech.

The lack of warrants I'm hearing in speeches and cases is something I'm not a fan of. I want to hear warrants in your arguments, don't just make assertions without explaining why A causes B.

idk why y´all aren´t answering the warranting in your opponent´s arguments - just because you hear your opponent say one word that might not apply to your case on the surface doesn´t mean they are making an irrelevant argument. Furthermore, many of you seem to assume that your arg flows through or is better than your opponent's simply because "I hAvE eViDeNcE" when your card just has like one highlighted/cited line in it that may (rhetorically) prove your arg but doesn't expand upon it. In other words, I don´t think unwarranted evidence can be used in place of a warrant to support an argument.

Just saying a random card name isn't an extension.

To further the evidence rant, you don't need evidence for every single thing you say. Of course, if you are saying something like "the sky is red", I'm not going to be very inclined to believe you unless you have good ev to support it, but I'm not going to be auto dropping people for not using evidence, and usually someone's lack of use of ev doesn't factor into my decision that much, if at all. I've won rounds (yes, even with lays) without reading a single card past the constructive speeches; it can be done.

Please don't straw man, lie, etc. - it makes you look bad, and I'm not afraid to give out bad speaks for that kind of stuff. IF YOUR OPPONENT DOES IT, PLEASE CALL THEM OUT FOR IT!

No new arguments in the final speeches unless they are responsive to new stuff.
I do time speeches, but that is only for my own reference. YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN TIME!! This goes for both speeches and prep time. I do not flow new arguments that are said overtime - if those arguments are brought up again, I will ignore them.

Ask if everyone's ready before starting a speech.

I usually flow on paper - if it's towards the end of the day, slow down because my hand might be really sore lol. Also, keep in mind I can only flow as fast as I can write.

Going >200 WPM = I need a speech doc.

I don't flow card authors.

Online debate: it's better to go slower than quicker, especially if you know your internet is bad.

If I´m judging you at a circuit tourney, you can run progressive arguments, but ONLY if your opponent agrees to it first. That being said, in novice, I´d rather listen to some good substance rounds rather than poorly executed Ks or theory. Also, please note that I don't have a lot of circuit experience, so I'm probably not the best judge for prog.

Add trigger warnings to case if necessary; add one just in case if you're not sure. I´m compelled to drop a team for not giving TWs.

CX isn't binding. If something comes up in CX, say it's from CX in your speech (e.g. "in cross my opponent conceded that...")

Flex prep is fine. No need to ask me if you can take prep time, just take as much as you need :)

NO ad homs, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

I have all my debate stuff in one bag, so I´m very likely to be carrying cough drops, advil/tylenol, pads, etc with me - ask me if you need anything of that sort, even if it´s after round.

Ask me any questions you have before round.

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

Speaks:

If you look at my judging records, you´ll see that I give out average speaks most of the time, but I´ve also given out very high and low speaks, sometimes in the same round. This means I am willing to give out 30s, but I´m also not afraid to give 26s (or lower) for whatever reason.
Speaks are determined by a mix of clarity, strategy, delivery, and efficiency, but will be mostly rewarded based on strategy. I will boost speaks a little (0.1 - 0.5) for interesting or well-written arguments if they are executed well. You can give me food / drinks / do something nice for me, but won´t be boosting speaks for this because I think it is an abuse of power and your speaks should reflect the quality of your speeches, not how many favors or bribes you give to the judge.

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

LD specific:

Fw is just a way to filter which offense matters - this means that even if you win the framework debate, you don't automatically win the round, and if you're losing framework, that doesn't mean you don't have a shot at getting the ballot. You can either explain why your framework is better than your opponents, or explain how you can win under both frameworks. If you want a more coherent rant about framework, I recommend checking out Nicole Wang´s paradigm <3

I'm noticing a lot of LDers are putting arguments that don't have any offense under their framework (e.g. putting a deontological argument under a consequentialist framework or vice versa) - cases need to be clear in how your contentions have offense under your fw. Even if you aren't a phil debater, having even just a very very basic understanding of philosophy would do you good.

I really like arguments that are able to completely exclude most/all of your opponent´s offense. They can be really strategic.

More LD debaters should collapse, especially if you´re aff.

I do give the 2NR a bit of leeway for new responses if they are responsive to the 1AR.

If you're going to be running a phil fw, it's in your best interest to overexplain it.

If you want to larp in LD, that's fine - just make sure your evidence is recent and actually says what the tag says. CPs must explain how they compete with the aff, disads must have clear links to the aff. Plan affs need all of the stock issues. Also plz note I've actually never done policy debate myself - all of my knowledge comes from butchered lay policy-ish rounds on my local circuit and some research on the internet.

Substantive arguments that function under TT are very, very underutilized.

1-2 well developed contentions >>>>> 4 blippy ones.

Don't have debates on justice vs. morality. You don't even need to read a value (but you should read a VC/standard).

Debates over definitions are kinda annoying imo and a wash most of the time. Spend more time on the actual case debate.

I have a zero tolerance policy for clipping, paraphrasing, etc in LD. You really should be cutting your cards right.

Voters are cool and they´re super helpful but delinks, nonuniques, etc. are not voters without winning presumption. Also, voters are reasons to vote for you, not reasons to not vote for your opponent; I know many of you know this, but still attempt to leverage mostly/only defensive arguments against your opponent. Putting someone else down doesn't mean you're better.

Quoting Jacob Nails, "a 4min speech followed by a 2min greatest hits album where you repeat your favorite arguments a second time is not a good speech structure. You're basically just forfeiting the last 2min of speech time, the main advantage the neg has." Either end your 2NR early if you have absolutely nothing else to say, or try to go for extra weighing or voters.

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

PF specific:

I was a PF kid in freshman year, but I haven´t really interacted with it since I switched to LD though I do judge it occasionally. That being said, it´s best to treat me as if I´ve never done PF before.

The most important thing is that I want you to debate the way that makes you feel most comfortable. Don't run a progressive argument or even a framework if you don't know how to defend it in front of me just because you think it'll be cool to do so or because you think that's what I want to hear. I promise I'm good for substance debate, and no I'm not aff biased lol (on that same note, make sure your neg cases are really strong! Most negs I´ve judged in PF have been really bad).

idk why so many of you rely so much on subpoints - if you have a contention with one subpoint at the end, it might be better to just remove the subpoint and add it to your main contention in order to make a more nuanced/cohesive argument.

I'm not sure why many of you don't extend your partner's arguments into your speeches (or is that how it's supposed to be? Someone please tell me).
I should be able to draw a line from summary -> FF.

PF is kinda elitist - if you're against a team with less prep or experience and you run a niche argument, please try to walk them through your arguments/strategy if your opponents seem confused, and maybe don't run every single prewritten response your coach or captains made if your opponents end up running a stock position.

Defense isn't sticky.

This might be a hot take, but all of you need to stop using only nonuniques as responses to case. They are literally just defensive arguments and don´t matter without winning presumption.

If everyone wants to skip grand CX, let me know and we can do that.

I won´t autodrop people for paraphrasing, clipping, etc because I did a fair share of paraphrasing myself in PF, but I´m 100% willing to drop a team on evidence ethics - just make the argument in round.

First time judging. Lay judge. No excessive spreading. I will vote on substance, not theory. I will not vote on kritiks either. No excessive jargon as well. I will flow throughout as well.

Hey everyone! The main things that matter to me as a judge are weighing and signposting.

Weighing is pretty self-explanatory (tell me why you win using statistics and numbers, give me the impacts from your arguments in comparison to the other team).

Signposting (ie, telling me what your contentions are and your subpoints) really helps your judge to follow along throughout the round - don't tell me what your contentions and subpoints are in your first speech, but continue to make your points in connection to your specific contentions throughout the round (this makes it much easier for your judge to follow along, so your arguments will probably get across better).

Good luck, and have fun!

Hi! My name is Lynn and I'm a judge with Columbia Debate Society. I have minimal experience with American Parliamentary Debate but I did policy debate for about 3 years in high school through the Urban Debate League.

Some suggestions:

1. I prefer slower rounds. If you don't want to speak slower, that's fine. Just speak clearly so I am able to catch all your arguments.
2. Please be respectful to the other team. Do not flaunt disrespectful gestures, unwarranted passive aggressiveness, and please please please do not interrupt without reason. Do not ask unnecessary questions to throw the other team off (unless it is during crossfire in public forum). Please debate with integrity.
3. Please roadmap and signpost throughout your speeches. Organization is super important, especially to my efficiency in being able to judge.

flow judge

weigh

signpost

keep track of your own speech times and prep

I am a PF debater.

Generally truth > tech but still extend and stuff (in retrospect this is only true if no one is doing tech stuff lol)

Don't go too fast. If you think I might not be able to understand then spend a speech doc.

Don't be a jerk.

Don't lie.

Signpost!!!

I'll evaluate theories and Ks, but I would prefer you don't run them. It's not like I'll drop you or give you low speaks, but I'll definitely be subconsciously harsher when considering whether you won or not. Also I'll suck at evaluating it.

Friv theory is fine but same goes.

No new rebuttals in summary, and no new points in second final focus. Call out your opp on it though in case I miss it.

don't be mean in cross pls

SPEAKS:

General breakdown:

• < 27: actively made the round unpleasant.
• 27 - 28: didn't use up all time on speeches, made crucial mistakes, didn't properly extend, cost the round.
• 28-29: generally good speeches.
• 29-29.5: good speaker. Few to no issues.
• 29.6 - 30.0: amazing speaking.

my email is alyoshavak@hunterschools.org

i don't remember if i finished this paradigm but i feel too cringe to read through it so consider it complete

freshman @ the University of Michigan studying math of finance on a premed track currently competing policy/pf for umich debate

6 yrs in debate, 3 on vpf natl circuit competing for Brooklyn Technical HS (if you know what this is and you say bronx sucks I add speaks)

add me to the email chain (danvi@umich.edu)

General:

i hear an argument, i write it down on my flow.

don't spread

speaks start at 28 and if you say something offensive it goes down but if you impress me it goes up

low point wins may happen in round

i don't flow cross but if you flow it then i flow it

don't run k's, theory, or shells bc ill have a hard time following but if they are run i'll still vote tech > truth

1/2 ac:

do not run theory! I said it before and I'll say it again PF is PF and as a policy debater who did PF people do not want to debate policy in PF. I'll flow but beware I'll look upon it negatively.

rest is self explanatory I said it above

general cx:

make me laugh because that's what makes debate fun but do not be rude

cx is a time to argue, so do it. bonus speaks if you (respectfully) call out and say "judge...this is wrong" obviously within reason

do NOT use cx as a continuation of your speeches and if you drop a new contention I drop your speaks

rebuttal:

cleanly flow because it makes everyone's life easier, don't go all over the place because then my flow is all over the place and it's harder for you to win the round

if you're 2nd rebuttal frontline first and don't go line by line - try to save the best for last

summary:

COLLAPSE

it's OKAY to concede an argument. we can't win everything all the time so emphasize which points you HAVE won to make the debate easier for me to judge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the cleaner the flow the easier it is for you to win

do not repeat your speech in summary, and make sure to weigh

ff:

just regurgitate the biggest points + weigh; you have two minutes, so make the most of it

good luck and have fun! if you say Ohio State sucks and Go Blue you get 28.2+ speaks guaranteed(unless of course you break one of the rules above)

I am a parent judge with no personal debate experience.

You need to talk at a pace that is intelligible to me for me to know whether your points are good or not.

Debate well and I will give you high speaker points.

When all points go unrefuted, I will default to vote on the negative side.

The goal is to have fun during the debate.

Hi there! My name is Andre. I've judged a few debate tournaments, but I would still characterize myself as a lay judge. With this in mind, I'd greatly appreciate measured and clear delivery.

Outside of this plea, I would characterize my paradigm as such:

1. Please speak slowly and avoid abstract generalizations that would otherwise expedite the argument you're advancing. I am still on my flow-notetaking training wheels, so please advance your arguments with a velocity that has this in mind.

2. I'd like to reiterate point one. A debater who has the ability to advance, defend, and respond to a few particular points in clear and succinct terms is much more impressive to me than the bullet-train approach of throwing every conceivable worldly-evil into the pot. Stir thoughtfully instead of spilling all over the place

3. The use of real-world examples will greatly raise your argumentative-esteem. A clash of unsubstantiated hypotheticals is one way to debate, but basic examples put some real punch behind principles. Making assertions as if they're self-evident neither convinces me nor demonstrates your ability to think.

4. Though it won't theoretically influence my vote, stylish uses of language and sturdy syntax always catch my attention.

I’m a junior at Columbia, and can be reached at mew2241@columbia.edu. She/her

I didn't do high school debate and have done college parliamentary debate for the past year - APDA & BP.

I judge tabula rasa, and don't consider intuitive cross-applications to be new arguments for rebuttal. That said, I won't do the work for you, and if you have to spend more than 30 seconds explaining a new way one argument interacts with another, you're probably adding some new warranting

1% chance of nuke war weighed on magnitude x probability is a bad argument

Run principles well with clear weighing relative to pragmatic impacts or don't run them at all

LD

I can evaluate some progressive debate but you can’t rely on my already knowing the arguments-- you need to make them clearly and explain why they come prior to the on topic clash. Or run a trad case

Tell me why your framework/value is better than your opponent’s, not just why it’s good in a vacuum

Please do not spread. I have a hearing disability. If you spread and I miss some of the argument, that's on you, not on me.

I define myself as a Flay Judge, and most of my judging experiences have been in public speaking and storytelling.

Debate Judging background

· 2022 FALL THE 4^th National Invitational Forensics Tournament NIFT

· Public Forum NHSDLC HZ Training

· 2022 NHSDLC Fall Hangzhou Tournament

· Harvard Asian Junior Debate Tournament China National

How I judge

I base it mostly on which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument. I deliberate on the overall presentation based on the arguments presented in the round.

Other specifics about my judging style

1. I don't mind if you speak too fast, I’m not going to say anything until I've been given permission to speak or interfere. It's just that, I won't be able to validate your arguments if I can't comprehend what you're saying, unless you are very articulate, and your pronunciation is clear and accurate. If you spread, I'd still try to take note, however, I’m very fussy with articulation so if I won't understand you, I’d probably just stop flowing. Even though I do signposting, I also use dictator software or an app to thoroughly follow your argumentation, so if you spread and are disorderly, so is my flow or I’d rather just stop flowing. Take note that attempting to win just because your opponent cannot answer all of your points due to your spreading indicates that you do not believe your arguments will stand up during a debate.
2. As judges attempt to dismiss their own biases and experiences when judging, and we may or may not be knowledgeable on the issue, it all comes down to how you present your arguments or reasoning. You may have done a fantastic six-page study but knowing how you compress ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS INTO A TWO-MINUTE SPEECH is what matters. Please do not just say, "So judge, please vote for us," to fill in the gaps between your closing arguments, especially if it is a one-on-one debate. Furthermore, the summary is where improvements are most crucial. In summation, if you don't expound on things, don't bring them up in the final focus.
3. I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I may intervene on behalf of opposing teams. Be courteous, especially in times of conflict. If you're unsure if you should be sassy, don't be. I will deduct points for impolite behavior because this is an educational exercise.
4. Try not to be very scripted, and learn to rephrase your notes. Depending on how much time is left I may or may not provide oral RFDs, as I may also need more time to evaluate my flow.

I am a parent judge.

I prefer arguments be delivered clearly and not too fast.

It is ok to be passionate. But please remember to be respectful and courteous to your opponents.

Please time yourself and let me know if you are going to take pre time.

Your overall performance, including the quality of arguments, evidence, and style, will help me determine the winner of the round.

My email is feiyang007@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chain if there is one.

Flow judge with high school PF experience. Time yourself and speak clearly at a reasonable pace. In other words, don't spread. Don't run Theory or K. I don't flow or vote off of cross. No sticky defense. Remember to weigh and please be respectful to each other. :) If you reference Peppa Pig, I will consider it when assigning speaks.

i prefer a more lay style of debate