1. I am a lay (parent) judge.
2. I listen well and won't tune out when the speakers talk at a slow to moderate pace.
3. I have a strong affinity towards logical arguments and a strong dislike towards emotional arguments.
4. I classify myself as a true skeptic and I am used to questioning every new idea or information that comes my way.
5. I have a strong aversion to loud voices and harsh tones.
6. I appreciate eye contact throughout the conversation.

Please speak at a normal conversational pace. Be clear on the argument and respectful to your opponent. Enjoy the experience.

3rd Year Debating at BASIS Peoria

Contact for email chain and questions - rejul.guru@gmail.com

General Stuff

Tech>Truth

I probably won't be paying attention during cross. If anything important is said, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

Speed is fine, ill say clear if its too fast

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., please just be a good person in round

You have to extend in summary and final

Frontline in second rebuttal, defense is sticky

Everything needs a warrant

Let me know if you have any questions at all before round or need me to clarify my paradigm

I'll most likely be disclosing depending on the round

Post-round me as much as you want, I think it is educational. But I only disclose after I have submitted the ballot.

BQ Stuff

First, I expect some definitions of how you define compatibility. It's a vague word that needs some clarification and different definitions can be used to argue both sides. If you don't provide it, I don't know how to evaluate the round because I don't know what compatibility means in the context of the resolution.

I want you to avoid debates where aff gives an example or argument and neg gives an example or argument, and the entire debate has no clash or discussion of the other side. This makes it nearly impossible for me to give a win cause there is no clash between the arguments. So this means, you need to have responses to each other arguments and interact with the opponent's case.

It is key to tell me how to vote. You need to explain how your argument is the reason you show compatibility or incompatibility. I expect in the consolidation and rationale that you use phrases like "this contention shows compatibility/incompatibility due to ..." Without me knowing how your argument leads to a vote for aff or neg, I can't give you the win. If both sides fail to make those links, I will have to do it for you, and you shouldn't leave it up to the judge to make their own connections because sometimes it may not go for you.

Evidence Ethics:
Do NOT misconstrue or misrepresent evidence. This will lead me to drop you as the debater or the argument depending on the severity. Be sure to call out your opponent if they misrepresent evidence, and I will take a look at the evidence after the round.

***Parts of these paradigm were stolen from Sudeep Vattikuti and Yuvan Senthil. I agree with both their judging philosophies in general, so if you need anything more in depth, check their paradigms.

Hello
I am a debater in highschool currently, so I would say I am a tech/flow judge and am generally fine with anything you guys run.

General things:
Don't spread(speaking fast) because your opponent probably won't understand and won't be fair to them
I want to see signposting and good organization in the speeches.

Have actual arguments against your opponents as I don't want to see debate rounds where both sides read contentions and then don't have any clash, so I don't have anything to vote off of.
Make sure you use up all your time
Also I would prefer if you guys keep track of your timings for speeches and prep time, but if you can't, I will do that.

I copied this from Ishan Dubey's paradigm, as its really good at explaining things
Tech > Truth:I tend to believe truth islargelydetermined by the technical debating in round.Debate is a game about persuasion. You still need toconvince me.The goal of my paradigm is to give you the necessary information to effectively do so.Treating me like a stereotypical policy-leaning flow/circuit judge isusuallya safe bet, though not a lock.Most of my preferences/biases can be overcome by good debating, though not all.

Judge instruction is very, very helpful and underutilized. Tell me how to evaluate the round: ballot directive language, thresholds I should establish, when and/or whether I should grant new arguments, if I should err one side or another, gut-checks when appropriate, how I filter what is about to be said, etc.Putting stuff into perspective simplifies the debateand makes my decision more predictable.

Extensions are a yes/no question. Extend, yes, but it's not as important to me as it is to others. I would much rather time be spent on actual debating. A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended." However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with a shallow extension. I won't go fishing for details nowhere in the last speech but present in previous ones. If something is conceded, my threshold for extending drops significantly (though, again, effort could be useful). Nit-picky details only become relevant if there is clash (e.g., if there is impact defense then extending a specific internal link is important). However, tactfully detailed extensions of the uniqueness, link, or impact that leverage the nuances of evidence and/or arguments more broadly can be very strategic and sometimes necessary for frontlines, weighing, and breaking clash. Basically,there should be a purpose to what you say: if it's not advancing the debating or clarifying something, it's not affecting the outcome of the round.



BQ:
I want incompatible to be defined as generally, this is where most arguments come to.

I also want a clear link about how your arguments either show incompatibility or compatibility as if there isn't a clear link to the resolution, then either its untopical or I will have to make the link for you, which you don't want to happen.

PF

Public Forum Prefs:

1 - Theory/Tricks (Just because it is fun to judge, read below on what I find acceptable in PF)

2 - Policy/LARP Args (Plan/CPs) and Topical Ks

3 - Traditional PF

Everything else below this (Philosophy and Non-Topical Ks)

However, I am chill with plans and counter plans in PF to some extent. This is due to NSDA's new rules for PF that were introduced recently ("Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."). Don't make it explicitly a plan or cp and I will evaluate it (I like policy args too much).

I am of the opinion that theory is important for the category of PF. PF has a lack of evidence ethics which makes it an abusive space. Personally, PF needs a mechanism to combat abuse, so I am fine with theory in PF.

Weighing Mechanisms:

Default to Timeframe >= Magnitude > Probability > Reversibility

Meta-weighing is advisable if you want to change my opinion

*For MS BQ debaters: read the general, evidence, BQ, and MS BQ sections of my paradigm

2nd year PF debater for BASIS Peoria

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: jaymoon377@gmail.com

General Stuff:

Tech > Truth

I can handle some speed, but if you are going 250+ wpm I expect you to send speech docs—please be clear if you are reading fast

Give me an off-time roadmap and signpost

I will stop flowing after my timer goes off

I don't flow cross—I'm fine with stuff like skipping grand cross for prep and flex prep

card + warrant > warrant > card

Feel free to ask if you have any questions about my paradigm

Evidence:

Please have all cards properly cut with sufficient citations for any pieces of evidence you read

I have a very low tolerance for paraphrased cards; I believe that paraphrasing has no place in the debate space, but if your opponents don't call it out or you win a paraphrasing counterinterp, I won't vote you down for it

Stealing prep is fine; it encourages people to send cards faster (don't abuse it though)

PF Specific:

I default util, but I am familiar with common frameworks (SV, extinction, kant)

You can link-in to your opponent's fw, but please weigh it

Comparative weighing is important, don't just say "we outweigh" without ever mentioning your opponent's impacts

Meta weighing is good

2nd rebuttal must respond to all offense made in 1st rebuttal otherwise I will consider them dropped

Nothing is sticky; please extend arguments throughout the round

+0.5 speaks if you correctly label DA's as DA's (if they do not straight turn the link/impact they are not turns)

BQ Specific:

I absolutely abhor BQ debate; I believe it is a stupid debate category that should not exist, and I wonder why anyone would willingly do BQ debate, but with that aside:

Please, please, please, weigh your links and arguments; provide credibility, recency, or whatever, I don't want to have to intervene

Definitions debate is important, explain why your is definition is better (education, fairness, etc.)

Tbh I don't care if you run nontopical arguments; do whatever you want (will still buy T shells)

I'll presume neg if there is no offense left in the round (unless some presumption arg was run)

MS BQ:

Please be loud & clear; I don't want to sit through a round listening to mumbling

I will say clear if I have no idea what you are saying (which means you should slow down & raise your voice)

The easiest way to gain my ballot is to cleanly extend something throughout the round

I'll try to vote flay instead of just presuming neg if there is no offense left in the round

auto 30's if I see an actually good round

Progressive Stuff:

Theory:

Run whatever; I default to competing interps, no RVI's, and DTD

Theory must be read in the speech following the violation, and responded to in the speech following the theory being run

Weigh voters if counterinterp

K:

Be clear in explaining them; if I don't understand it I probably won't vote for it

I'm familiar with common neg K's (cap, anthro, security)

I'm not familiar with aff K's, so run them at your own risk

I default to allowing actual alts in PF, but you know, NSDA rules exist

Tricks:

Run them; just make sure I can catch them otherwise I can't evaluate them

Plans/CP's (PF/LD):

Run them

In PF, the resolution is the aff plan (unless its an "on balance" topic then don't run a plan)

+1 speaks to everyone if I actually see a good plan/cp debate in pf

3rd year PF debater at BASIS Peoria

Email: nagabandir25@gmail.com

Tech > Truth

I coach middle school BQ and am generally fine with anything you run

Let me know if you have any questions

Judging Philosophy: As a new judge, my primary focus will be on the arguments presented by the debaters. I will strive to be as objective and unbiased as possible, evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments and the evidence provided. I will not intervene based on my personal beliefs or opinions on the topic.

Framework: I believe the debaters should provide a clear framework for the round, establishing the key terms, values, and criteria for evaluating the resolution. The framework should be well-defined and linked to the arguments presented throughout the debate.

Value Premise: Debaters should clearly articulate their value premise and explain its relevance to the resolution. The value premise should be supported by well-warranted arguments and evidence.

Contentions: I expect debaters to present clear, well-structured contentions that directly support their side of the resolution. Arguments should be backed by credible evidence and examples. I will evaluate the strength of each contention based on its logical reasoning, relevance to the framework, and the refutation provided by the opponent.

Rebuttal: Debaters should directly engage with their opponent's arguments, identifying the key points of clash and providing effective refutation. Simply repeating one's own arguments without addressing the opponent's case will be less persuasive.

Weighing Mechanism: In the later speeches, debaters should provide a clear weighing mechanism, explaining why their arguments outweigh those of their opponent under the established framework. This comparative analysis is crucial for me to determine which side has presented the strongest case.

Delivery: While I will primarily focus on the content of the arguments, clarity of delivery is important. Debaters should speak at a reasonable pace, maintain eye contact, and provide clear signposting to help me follow the flow of the debate.

In summary, I will strive to be an objective and attentive judge, evaluating the round based on the strength of the arguments presented and the debaters' ability to defend their positions under the established framework.

* Updated for Middle School Big Question for Scorpion Spectacular - If you are a middle schooler, skip to the BQ prefs after reading contact, experience, and general debate details

Hi to whoever is reading this. My name is Yuvan Senthil. I enjoy judging rounds. I also coach middle schoolers and teach my Lincoln-Douglas team. I do Lincoln-Douglas debate primarily, but I have done PF debate. I also have prepped nearly every topic in LD, PF, BQ, and like 1 Policy topic for the past few years. After the round, I prompt you all to ask me questions through email and I can help out with anything.

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

Contact for email chain and questions:

Email - yuvansenthil.la2@gmail.com

Experience:

4 years of Lincoln-Douglas @ BASIS Peoria and Captain

Coaching middle schoolers and some freshmen

Judged too many rounds on the side to count

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

General Debate Details (Read this if you don't read anything else):

It is your round. Do whatever you want to do with it. Make it fun and interesting. The activity is dependent on the debaters that are a part of it.

Tech > Truth
I will accept any type of argument that you provide and evaluate it fairly. If the opponent calls out a stupid argument that has no warranting, expect me to take their side. If an opponent fails to respond/call out a stupid argument, I will evaluate the argument face-value (assuming it has warranting).

I can handle general speed. If I can't, I will let you know during round with a fist.
I always prefer speech doc, but above 175+ wpm, I request it.

I will most likely not pay that much attention to cross-examination as I believe that cross-examination is non-binding unless brought up in the next speech (or you convince me otherwise). This means there is a likelihood I am playing Tetris during cross-examination, but I am still listening and will give feedback on it.

If you want a troll round, make sure your opponent and you both agree before the round. I am down to judge it. Check my troll prefs down below.

------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln-Douglas Prefs:

1 - Theory

2 - Policy/LARP Args (Plan/CPs)

3 - Traditional LD and Topical Ks

4 - Tricks (Cause its fun to judge) and Non-Topical Aff Ks and High-level Philosophy

TLDR: Lowkey, I am chill with anything. Run whatever you want. However, for some obscure K lit and philosophy, you have to be a bit more clear and make sure I actually understand. I know some philosophy literature, but not that much, since I never ran it much. Most likely for some types of Ks I am familiar with the literature and can understand it.

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

Policy Prefs:

Will update soon

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

Public Forum Prefs:

1 - Theory (Just because it is fun to judge, read below on what I find acceptable in PF)

2 - Traditional PF/Policy/LARP Args (Plan/CPs) and Topical Ks

Everything else below this (Philosophy and Non-Topical Ks)

No tricks in PF. It's not meant for the category. But if you run them, I will still evaluate them, but expect me to side with your opponent if they call you out.

However, I am chill with plans and counter plans in PF to some extent. This is due to NSDA's new rules for PF that were introduced recently ("Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions."). Don't make it explicitly a plan or cp and I will evaluate it (I like policy args).

I am of the opinion that theory is important for the category of PF. PF has a lack of evidence ethics which makes it an abusive space. Personally, PF needs a mechanism to combat abuse, so I am fine with theory in PF. Be clear on voters.

Weighing Mechanisms:

Default to Magnitude >= Timeframe > Probability > Reversibility

Meta-weighing is advisable if you want to change my opinion

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

Big Question Prefs:

IF YOU WANT TO WIN, READ IT - NO TLDR (Too Long Didn't Read) FOR YOU :)

(I will give you time before round starts to read my paradigm)

I am kind of forced to judge flay for 90% of the rounds (or I would vote neg on presumption due to no offense), but if there is a tech evaluation for the round, I will do it.

Okay maybe a short TLDR: I will be flowing on my computer, and occasional notes on paper. I will be probably doing something else during question segment (playing tetris or something) and question segment won't affect my ballot as question segment is non-binding unless brought up in next speech for me. After round, I will give you the option for a verbal RFD and/or disclosure (who won).

This is updated for middle schoolers cause I was asked not to scare you all. Here is what I want out of this topic.

First, I expect some definitions of how you define compatibility. It's a vague word that needs some clarification and different definitions can be used to argue both sides. If you don't provide it, I don't know how to evaluate the round because I don't know what compatibility means in the context of the resolution.

I want you to avoid debates where aff gives an example or argument and neg gives an example or argument, and the entire debate has no clash or discussion of the other side. This makes it nearly impossible for me to give a win cause there is no clash between the arguments. So this means, you need to have responses to each other arguments and interact with the opponent's case.

It is key to tell me how to vote. You need to explain how your argument is the reason you show compatibility or incompatibility. I expect in the consolidation and rationale that you use phrases like "this contention shows compatibility/incompatibility due to ..." Without me knowing how your argument leads to a vote for aff or neg, I can't give you the win. If both sides fail to make those links, I will have to do it for you, and you shouldn't leave it up to the judge to make their own connections because sometimes it may not go for you.

Evidence Ethics:
Do NOT misconstrue or misrepresent evidence. This will lead me to drop you as the debater or the argument depending on the severity. Be sure to call out your opponent if they misrepresent evidence, and I will take a look at the evidence after the round.

the role of the ballot or the role of the judge as a BQ judge (unless specified in the round) is to vote for the most progressive argument - this is a joke of course, but I would find the round very entertaining if you do so...

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

Speech Prefs:

No one ever looks at paradigms for speech, but I lowkey have no idea how to judge speech. Consider me a parent judge. I have some knowledge of technical speech from peers.

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

Troll Prefs:

Make sure your opponent and you both agree before round for a troll round and tell me. Here are some ideas:

- Parent judge: I will evaluate the entire round as parent judge.

- Impersonating judge: I will pretend to judge the round like a person you specify. For example, a celebrity.

- No prep: Both you and your opponent don't take any prep time

- No docs: Both you and your opponent don't use docs and debate from memory

- Ignore evidence: You can make bs evidence and I will pick the most reasonable evidence

- Theory only round: You can only run theory

- 1-minute speech: You only get 1-minute speeches

- Different topic: Pick a random resolved and debate it

- Different category: Just don't do the category you are debating

General Paradigms:

I will be keeping time, but you should be timing yourself, as well.

I expect you to also keep your prep time but I will be keeping it just in case as well.

Please be friendly, respectful, and professional.

Debate Paradigms:

A little bit about me, I have been debating for 4 years and I went to nationals in BQ debate. I am currently attending college and I help teach middle school debate on the side. I think the most important thing about this event is being persuasive. You can tell me a million cards but if you don't explain their relevance or how it helps you I don't have a reason to believe it. Logic can also play a big part in the resolution so it would be advantageous to use it.

For construction speech be clear so I can hear what you are saying and write it all down. I am good with speed but do not spread.

I will be timing you and I'll allow a 5-10 sec grace period for all speeches but if you go over I will stop listening.

In rebuttal please address everything and make sure to sign-post so I know where you are on the flow. For me, I expect the AFF to rebut all of the NEG's points in the rebuttal speech. For the NEG I expect the same thing along with all the defense (I know it might seem unfair but I extend this responsibility of the defense to the AFF in the consolidation so it evens out).

For cross-fire please ask questions and don't use it as an opportunity to discuss your case. I do not flow this part of the debate so if you think you made a good point then say it in your next speech.

Make sure to flow through everything you deem important in the consolidation or I will not. I am okay with bringing up new evidence in the consolidation, especially for the AFF since this is your first speech for defense. For the NEG not as much unless the AFF brings in new rebuttals against your case (which really shouldn't happen). Consolidation is also a much shorter time so make sure to pick and only extend the main analysis, you should not be reading your case or cards that have been read in previous speeches as I have already heard them and you will also waste a lot of time. THIS IS NOT ANOTHER REBUTTAL SPEECH. I really want to see you responding with the defense and extending the warranting for your case instead of only focusing on attacking the other side.

For the last speech, I'll be looking for closing arguments. It is not enough to repeat your consolidation, please explain your points in the context of the resolution and relate your points back to the burden to show me why you think you should win. Please be clear and concise in your final speech so I can easily make my RDF. If I hear new evidence I will not include it in my decision and it may reflect poorly on you. Note I extend new evidence to include anything in your case or rebuttal that was not said in the consolidation (I am not too concerned if you say rephrase something in a card you extended in the consolidation, I am looking more at if you make an entirely new claim).

I don't think you need prep time to look at cards but obviously, if it takes you more than 30sec-1min then I will start timing you. This also means if you are the side providing the card it shouldn't take more than 30sec-1min to pull up the specific quote.

I'm not very strict about what I look for in speaker points but obviously, in a tie-breaker that could be a factor so if you do everything I asked for in my paradigms, I will give you the maximum amount. If you forget a couple of things or if your speech organization is a bit messy then I will dock some points.

Policy:

I have a very rough understanding of Policy, but I am still a flow judge so I will vote based off of the flow. The main thing I am looking for is solvency but other than that I can pretty much understand anything.

General Dislike:

These are my debate icks. Just don't do them.

please.

1. Yelling your speech when I am 5 feet away from you, pls calm down
2. Talking to your screen so that I can't hear you
3. lying about cards (which could make you lose the round)
4. lying about your opponent (like saying that they didn't respond to your points when you, me, and your opponent(s) know that they did)
5. using debate speech incorrectly
6. debater math
7. saying "I think this is wrong because.." + giving an opinion as a rebuttal
8. personal evidence
9. talking to your partner (or to yourself?) during your opponent's speech
10. leading questions or "do you agree?" questions
11. arguing after the round is over
12. packing up during your opponent's final speech
13. loud pen clicking
14. rolling eyes (try your best to control your emotions even if it is completely justified, and I will know when it is or isn't)
15. texting someone on your phone or laptop (I'm pretty sure it's not allowed as well)
16. angrily typing on your laptop
17. general disrespect to your opponent or to me

3rd Year Debating at BASIS Peoria and I coach on the side

Tech > Truth

Read anything you want on me

Speed is fine, ill say clear if its too fast

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., please just be a good person in round

You have to extend in summary and final (consolidation and rationale)

Frontline in second rebuttal, defense is sticky

Everything needs a warrant

Let me know if you have any questions at all before round

Post-round me as much as you want, I think it is educational---won't affect the ballot tho

Feel free to contact me for questions or anything really: sudeep.vattikuti@gmail.com

Have fun!

I am the Scott Woods who teaches and coaches at BASIS Scottsdale in Arizona. There are others. For instance, I am not the slam poet Scott Woods (although I enjoy his work), so if you try a slam poetry case because you think that your judge is a pretty famous slam poet, you will probably be disappointed by the ballot.

About me: I teach middle school English and high school speech and debate. I competed in interp and platform events in college. I'm a Scoutmaster, a Republican, and I go to church regularly. Many people who know me don't believe that I am as conservative as I think I am.

I want the debate round to be for the benefit of the debaters. I have been coaching and judging debate for several years, mostly in PF, but some LD. I also judge policy rounds occasionally. I've judged at the TOC four times and at NSDA Nationals three times. When I judge on a panel, my decision is often different from the majority, possibly because my judging skills are so refined and subtle, or maybe for other reasons that escape me.

I think of debate as an educational game that should be fun, challenging, and life changing for the good. I don't like sneaky approaches to debate, tricks, or unsporting behavior. I especially don't like anything that attempts to achieve an unfair advantage over an opponent. Among the behaviors I don't like to see are spreading, because it seeks to gain a time advantage by squeezing more content in the given time, forcing one's opponent either to spread or to be disadvantaged, because it makes debate into a ridiculous exercise (and I consider making good things appear ridiculous in order to achieve personal gain to be bad form), and because it is aesthetically unpleasant (and I consider intentional ugliness inflicted on others to be bad form). Also, if you spread I won't flow as much, won't understand as much, and won't believe you as much. If both teams spread, then I'll just have to guess at who won, which is very likely something that you don't want me to do. Please speak in a clear, persuasive voice at a reasonable public debate speed, and be sure to point out when the other side is spreading, show the harms, then show why they should lose on that. I'll probably buy it.

If your debate strategy includes using tactics that have the effect of giving you an unfair advantage over your opponent, your chances of winning will go down. Your arguments should give you the advantage, not your sneaky approach, your hidden claims, your abusive framework, or your tricky wording. Again, call out your opponent's sneakiness. This is especially fun and elegant in an LD round when your opponent values morality, justice, fairness, etc., and you call them out for violating standards of morality, justice, or fairness.

I prefer clear, well-reasoned arguments that are logically valid and well supported by warrants and evidence. I also value impacts. Show me magnitude and probability. I will evaluate these by taking on the stance of an intelligent person who is well educated, open minded, and not a fool. If you read a card but don't put it into the context of a clear argument, then I won't care about it. You have to use evidence to support your warranted arguments. Your cards are your evidence. I hear many LDers giving lengthy quotes of dense philosophy, without contextualizing the quoted speech. I would much prefer that you summarize the entire argument of the philosopher clearly, briefly, and accurately, rather than quoting some paragraph that seems to support your interpretation. I almost never buy appeals to authority. If you say that Philosopher X says Y, therefore Y is true, I will probably not believe you. Feel free to call your opponent on this.

Since I think that debate is a worthwhile activity that can positively shape the character of youth, I value having fun and being nice. I don't want to spend an hour or so with people who are being mean to each other. Let's have fun and enjoy the round.

I won't leave my knowledge, training, or prejudices at the door, mainly because I can't (if I were truly tabula rasa, I would be an infant or an imbecile). Instead, I'll try to be aware of them and limit the impact of my own opinions or knowledge on the debate. If you don't make the argument, I will try not to make it for you. You must do all the work in the debate. I will, however, apply my knowledge of effective argumentation and the "reasonable person" test to the arguments in the debate. If you give me a weighing method and a clear path to signing the ballot for you, your chances of winning the round go up. Please understand that I will fail to leave behind my biases, assumptions, prejudices, etc. This is a feature of being human. We can't control the processes of our thought very well, and we are largely unaware of what guides and controls our thinking. Your job as a debater is to make these biases, assumptions, and prejudices irrelevant against the overwhelming power of your arguments. Good luck.

Please understand that I will likely be judging you after having taught children all day or having traveled a long distance and slept poorly. I will probably not be at my best. This is true for many of your judges. You should consider taking this into account when you write your cases and make your arguments. After you lose a round that you think you should have won, don't complain about the stupid judge. Instead, consider what you could have done differently to compensate for that judge not being at his or her cognitive best. That's your responsibility. I don't want to think during a round. Thinking is hard. It's not my job. I often disappoint debaters when I am required to think. Your job is to pre-think the round for me, better than your opponent does. The team that does this best will win.

It's up to the round to decide on the framework. If your framework is abusive or unreasonable, I'll drop it and favor your opponent's analysis, especially if your opponent calls it out as such. I prefer realistic frameworks that generously look at the resolution as though the debate were really a public forum (even in LD) for discussing an important issue. I also prefer realistic arguments that are accessible to the public.

It bothers me when debaters don't know their case because someone else wrote it, they haven't researched the topic, or they are just using the cards that came with the briefs without trying to understand the bigger picture. This become a problem when debaters misinterpret cards or philosophers they don't understand. If your opponent calls you on your card and disputes what it means, then I will call for the card at the end of the debate and make my own judgment. I don't want to do this for a number of reasons, mainly because I don't want to do the work that you should be doing. That being said, I know a lot about many subjects, so if I think that you are misinterpreting a card, I may call for it, even if your opponent has not called you out on it. I don't like to do this, but I also don't like misinterpreted or false cards to affect a round, and I don't expect high school students to have comprehensive knowledge of the world. If I think that your card was misinterpreted, then I will drop the argument it supports.

Please do the work for me. Make it easy for me to decide who wins. Tell the story of the round. Be organized on the flow in your rebuttals.

If your opponent calls for a card, they may continue to prep while you search for it, without that time counting against their prep. This is the procedure at the TOC, which I particularly like because it encourages teams to provide their opponents with the cards they ask for in a timely manner. If you don't have the card, and the context surrounding it, then I will drop the argument that is supported by the card. If your card clearly says something other than what you say it does, I will very likely vote for the other side. Please don't misrepresent your evidence.

Regarding policy debate: Every round that I have judged in policy debate has come down to judge adaptation. Whoever adapts best to my limitations as a judge (see above) will likely win the round (or, if you prefer, my ballot). My recommendation is that policy debaters should have two cases: one that they normally run and another that they write for judge adaptation. Debaters should also practice adaptation whenever they can, making sure that their arguments are comprehensible (at a minimum) and convincing (this should be the target) to normal, educated people.