Hi there! I’m a new judge!

I'm a typical "some random guy's parent", that already tells a lot. So please address your argument clearly and speak slowly, please DO NOT spread. I will weigh style and arguments equally, and weigh analytics over evidence. Good luck guys!

I am a new parent judge. Please do not SPREAD. Good luck and have fun!

General: Send cases to agbasinger@gmail.com. Trained through NSDA and NFHS. Will disclose through writing immediately after the round.

LD/CX/PF:

Generally speaking, things I like to see:

-Signposting is so important.

-VCV or framework explicitly stated and aligned to arguments and evidence throughout the case.

-a classical approach to debate that values depth of argument over speed and spread. Technical language is okay but should be defined.

-Negative has the burden of rejoinder. No rejoinder, no win.

-CX that challenges to the links between definition and framework, evidence and impact, and VCV and framework.

-Clearly stated impact calculus (probability/substantiality, magnitude, severity, timeframe).

-direct and sustained clash that leads to clarification of positions.

-Voters being mentioned early and often.

Things that I think weaken or sink a case:

-Poor definition work from generalized sources or definitions that play little role in case development.

-Citing specific data as 'common knowledge'.

-Hodgepodge cases: your definitions come from Blackwell's Law, your C1 cards come from 1980's Russian Nuclear scientist, your C2 cards come from The New Yorker, your c3 cards come from an experimental geological research journal and your framework is util and justice. Stick to a lane and work from that lane- legal, scientific, popular theory, something consistent holds more weight that trying to link disciplines that require multiple degrees before you can read the industry material with any level of comprehension. In other words, good cases require continuity of understanding and depth of knowledge.

Kritiks:

-Jargon-heavy kritiks that lack definition work and teams that don't challenge these kritiks.

-Deconstructive kritiks, particularly in their anti-colonialist form, have their place in debate as red flags in our collective conscience, but they do not constitute a counterplan. You must provide an alternative.

-Kritiks are inherently philosophically loaded positions. If your K shifts the debate from policy to values you must define and defend your values. Kritiks require strong linking and framework not just a cut card of implications.

Case sharing and good sportsmanship:

-If your team asks to see a case, you provide the case first.

-You provide the case you are running, not cards that 'you might run'. Unethical.

-There is no rule that says you MUST provide a case to an opposing team. You can provide a framework if you wish, either on-clock or off-clock.

-Agreeing to share cases then sharing your case moments before you compete? Bad taste.

-Frustration and anger are expected but don't let it turn to sarcasm or passive aggressive remarks. How you react to a poor competitor reflects your confidence in your case and abilities.

SPEECH EVENTS

DX/IX

Generally I prefer analysis and sourcing to style and delivery. Clearly structured is more important than having exactly three points. State your question and take a side. Bonus points for setting context and complexity through historical references and present/future impacts

POI/OO/DX/PO

I favor clear characterization and the elements of plot. Creating building tension, owning the stage, and balancing verbal/nonverbal elements of drama is important to me. Filling the entire clock is less important than the art of storytelling, but generally I don't rank sub 5 minute piece well.

I am a parent judge.

No spreading please. Just present your arguments clearly and weigh impacts

I am new to debate judging. I was an immigration paralegal for several years. In public speaking, I look for the flow and structure of factual details that are relevant to the topic at hand. Confidence is key to any presentation. Contestants need to display proper decorum at all times.

Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26

nehapaulina04@gmail.com (put me on the chain please! and reach out to me if you have any questions/concerns/literally anything)

Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. In worlds, I did the ¼ and 3 and I won TFA state in 2021. In PF, I qualified for TFA state in my freshman and sophomore years and I broke at a few bid tournaments. I’ve been judging a mix of PF and WSD ever since I graduated. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Sanjay Shori, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala.

TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary

My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and preferences can be overridden by good debating. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, the ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.

I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.

Things that matter for both PF and Worlds: I couldn’t care less about what you wear or whether you sit or stand, please do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable. Tech > truth but my threshold for tech decreases the more you forgo truth. In simpler terms, run whatever argument you want, but the more ridiculous it is, the more I’m willing to buy responses to that argument. Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system ESPECIALLY in WSD. so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(.if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian: for pfers, auto 30. for wsders, +1 speaker point

-WSD-

Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.

**update for nats: The more I judge WSD, the less tolerance I find myself having for incompetancy. I have absolutely 0 sympathy or patience for debaters who cannot even do the bare minimum. Stop trying to cover up bad argumentation with tacky rhetoric. This is DEBATE for gods sake, if you want to win by speaking pretty, I suggest you go do speech. If you are a spectator who feels entitled enough to mock your teams opponents, I will not hesitate to send you out of the room and have a word with your coach. This is nationals, and you all are very smart and capable students. It is not unreasonable to expect you to engage with arguments and have basic respect for your opponents. I will not be flexible on this.

Content: Like I mentioned earlier, I’m tech > truth, so feel free to run whatever argument you want as long as it’s well-warranted. This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time, so I absolutely love seeing unique strats/cases.

Strategy: This is the aspect of the debate I pay the most attention to since at the end of the day, I am a flow judge and whoever wins on the flow wins the round. I absolutely love seeing weighing, I think it’s a really important aspect of debate that a lot of WSDers ignore. If you win the weighing, and you win your link into the weighing, you win the round. Please be comparative to your opponent’s specific arguments instead of just repeating yours over and over. I also love it when teams make a clear worlds comparison analysis.Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over.

Style: To be quite honest, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that any respectable form of debate would have style make up 40% of the decision. For me, content and strategy will always be significantly more important than style, so don't try to win the round by neglecting arguments in favor of a performance. That being said, I do appreciate humor and seeing your personality in the speech, as long as you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. The main way I award style points is by how organized and easy to flow your speeches are. I genuinely don’t understand why this activity is so bad at signposting, please tell me where you are on the flow or else I won’t know what to do with your argument.

-PF-

It’s been a while since I’ve been involved in PF, so you’d probably best classify me as a flay judge. While I’m not up-to-date on the topic, I catch on to arguments pretty quickly. I can keep up with some speed but if you’re planning on going >200wpm, please send a doc!!

**If I'm judging you in novice: Don't worry about reading this closely at all, I don't expect novices to know the ins and outs of technical debate and will judge accordingly. I will not hold you to the same expectations as varsity, so please feel free to debate in whatever style you like instead of worrying about technicalities just to adapt to me :)

Substance: No new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in second summary. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing unless there's literally no other weighing in the round) in final focus.

Cross: I can’t even put into words how much I don’t care about cross. I’m not voting off anything in cross so if anything important was said, it needs to be in a speech. Please feel free to use cross for prep if you want (#abolishgrandcross), however if you choose to do it, whatever you say is binding.

Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for it. I will not accept “bUt tHiS iS pF" as a response unless your opponent straight up drops it. If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.

Theory: I’m most familiar with basic theory shells such as disclosure, paraphrase, etc, but you would make my life 10x easier if you ran them in shell format. I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. I'm ok with blippy shell extensions in the back half of the round. If you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do strongly believe that disclosure is good and less strongly that paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.

Kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.

Everything else: run them at your own risk just please overexplain

Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.

Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

I am a new parent judge. No SPREAD and speak clear please. Have fun and good luck!

• This is my first time to judge a debate event, but I am eager to be here and judge well
• I value reasoned arguments with objective evidence over veiled sarcasm, volume of voice or gestures
• I value a logical order to your points so a lay person can follow your argument
• I value context and relevance when speaking to ensure the most persuasive argument
• I prefer a thoughtful pause to collect your thoughts over using filler words
• I know you are here to learn and do you very best. I know you will do well!

• This is my first time to judge a debate event, but I am eager to be here and judge well
• I value reasoned arguments with objective evidence over veiled sarcasm, volume of voice or gestures
• I value a logical order to your points so a lay person can follow your argument
• I value context and relevance when speaking to ensure the most persuasive argument
• I prefer a thoughtful pause to collect your thoughts over using filler words
• I understand nerves but credit those who can establish a professional presence during their debate performance
• Rely on your preparation and quick mind and you will do well!

New parent judge!

No spreading.

Don't be rude.

I am a parent judge, and had a couple of years judging experience in various forms including IE, congress and PF. For PF, I appreciate evidence based arguments with supportive details.

please be respectful to each other and manage your time properly since PF is time sensitive.

Please feel free to add me to the email chain at ggan98@msn.com

Have fun and good luck!

• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

No spreading please. I WILL take off points if you do so.

I prefer Traditional LD over Progressive.

Also, as a last note. Don't be rude. Any behavior that is not appropriate will result in getting to lowest amount of speaker points.

Include me in your email chain at: ngurumukhi@hotmail.com

Hi guys, I'm Suchit. I've debated at Coppell ('23) for 4 years, primarily in world schools, but I have some minimal experience in LD. Half the reason I'm involved in debate is that I have fun doing so, so let's keep it that way and avoid being problematic (racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.)

If I'm judging you in PF/LD, I'm not the most experienced with the format, so slow down a bit for me. You don't have to go conversational, but I'm not used to people spreading. I'd probably be best described as a flay judge. I'm willing to vote on anything, but it's your responsibility to prove why I should vote on it/why I should care. If you're running a k, you're going to have to explain it well to make me feel comfortable voting on it.

WSD:

The biggest thing I have is to be fair when you're debating. If your strategy is to straw man your opponents or use abusive models/definitions, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I like to see well-warranted arguments with impacts that are weighed in the context of the round. I'll try not to intervene whatsoever, but typically, the worse an argument is (in terms of warrants, how true it is, if there are any contradictions, etc.), the lower the burden on the other team there is to refute it. That isn't to say that I won't vote for an argument that I don't like/believe; if an argument is untouched down the bench, I'm left to assume that it's true.

I love principled arguments and have found myself voting on them a lot recently, but that's typically because the practical is too messy or isn't explained well enough. I have no qualms with valuing a principle over a practical, but you generally need to do a lot of work explaining why I should vote on it.

Speaking of which, weighing is a huge thing for me. I'll vote for anything (unproblematic of course), but only if you tell me why I should. This isn't just within a clash, but on an overarching level (meta-weighing). Tell me why some arguments matter more than others. Tell me why some impacts are more important than others. If I don't get any of this, I'm left to intervene and choose what I believe is most important, and you definitely don't want that.

If you have any questions about a round or want further feedback, feel free to reach out to me at suchitineni@gmail.com

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: vedaprasana@gmail.com

she/her

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

I am a new parent judge . The following is my paradigm as a congress Judge:

Welcome thank you for having me as your judge. I believe that a fair and respectful debate is crucial for a productive exchange of ideas and arguments.

I. Role of the Judge:

• My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments made by the debaters, determine the order of the winner of the round, and provide constructive feedback.

• I will not show any bias towards any particular debater or team and will judge solely based on the arguments presented in the round.

II. Evaluation Criteria:

• Quality of Evidence: Debaters must provide credible, relevant, and well-explained evidence to support their arguments.

• Relevance: Arguments must directly address the resolution and be relevant to the debate topic.

• Organization and Clarity: Debaters must clearly articulate their arguments and structure their speeches in a logical and easy-to-follow manner.

• Delivery: Debaters must present their arguments in a clear and confident manner, using proper debate etiquette and avoiding any personal attacks.

III. Points of Order and Decorum:

• Debaters should follow the rules of proper debate etiquette and refrain from making personal attacks or interruptions.

• If a debater feels that their opponent has violated the rules of debate, they may raise a "Point of Order" to bring it to my attention.

I would like to thank the debaters for their participation and efforts and I wish you all the best of luck and I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Hello My name is Eric Lee Middle school Debate Coach at Walnut Hill, it is my goal to help students become impactful, educated, engaged speakers. To help them with their future endeavors both academically and professionally.

email for email chains: satvik.mahendra@gmail.com

i presume first unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls

i will not vote for risk of solvency arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

At the very minimum, you should summarize your argument in a few sentences and make sure you extend your impact. You do not need to extend author names.

If you have any more questions about extensions, pleeeeease ask me before round. Don't just not extend because you do not know how to. I'll be more than happy to help!

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

My name is William Mathison. I'm the coach at Colleyville Heritage High School.

I'm the most familiar with PF and LD.

If you spread make sure to add me to your SpeechDrop or email chain. I can flow directly off of the doc but if I can't understand you while spreading, you'll lose speaker points.

Preferences

1 - CP/DA/Advantages

2 - T, Theory (the good kind)

BE ADVISED. RUNNING A K OR NON-T AFF WILL LIKELY RESULT IN BEING VOTED DOWN.

3 - Kritiks

4 - Non-T Affs, Tricks (if the opponent can't understand them, neither will I), Friv Theory, Performance/Identity K's, Spikes

Timing

10-15 second grace period at the end of the speech if you're in the middle of a sentence. Don't abuse this.

PLEASE USE STOPWATCHES. PLEASE LET ME KEEP TIME AND DO NOT INTERRUPT THE OTHER TEAM WITH AN ALARM OR TELLING ME THEY'RE OVER TIME.

Speaker Points:

30: Perfection

28-29: Great with some notes

26-27: Needs significant work

25: Offensive comments were made

Add me to your email chain! mathison.debate@gmail.com or add me on your speech drop.

For TFA State:

Interp: I am a pretty open minded judge when it comes to judging interp overall but there are a few things I look for in performances. Creativity and honesty will always be the most rewarded in my book because it is why we do what we do at the end of the day. Showcasing your own interpretation, but staying true to the core of the story is important to me. Character development and emotional shifts are super important especially over a digital platform to keeping us engaged with the story and showing us the meaning behind the words. Have fun with the choices you make as long as they are PURPOSEFUL, doing something that distracts rather than enhances makes us lose connection between what is happening in the story.

Speaking/Extemp: Big thing is show your own unique style and approach to speaking because this is what separates you from other. I am a big fan of humor, but PLEASE, I BEG do not make it feel forced or this is just awkward for both of us. In terms of depth of the speech, I like more than just surface level arguments and I want to see you get to the higher end issues and core problems effectively. Structure is important obviously to make sure we can connect all of the ideas and know how you are getting to what you are wanting to. Finally, have variation in your delivery, it is important to showcase the different levels and power of your arguments and statements and so we should feel very engaged with how you are saying and what you are saying.

Worlds School Debate:

School affiliation/s : Northwest High School

Hired (yes/no) : Hired for WSD

High School Affiliation if graduated within last five years (required): Northwest High School

Currently enrolled in college? (required) If yes, affiliation? No

Years Judging/Coaching (required) I have been judging for 5- 6 years.

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event (required)

I pretty much started off my first year judging in interp and PF and then slowly incorporated all other forms of debate the following year.

Rounds Judged in World School Debate this year (required): Since August I have judged about 40 world school rounds around Texas.

Check all that apply

__x___I judge WS regularly on the local level

_____I judge WS at national level tournaments

_____I occasionally judge WS Debate

_____I have not judged WS Debate this year but have before

_____I have never judged WS Debate

Rounds judged in other events this year : 75 rounds including PF, LD, Interp, Speaking, and Congress.

Check all that apply

__x__ Congress

_x___ PF

__x__ LD

____ Policy

_x___ Extemp/OO/Info

__x__ DI/HI/Duo/POI

____ I have not judged this year

____ I have not judged before

Have you chaired a WS round before?

I have chaired multiple WS rounds before locally.

What does chairing a round involve?

Chairing a round basically is keeping the round in order and ensuring a productive and efficient debate. The chair is in charge of calling up the speakers, leading the RFD for the panel, making sure people do not ask questions during protected time (which I discuss students should keep their own timer at the beginning so we do not have this issue), and making sure a fair debate is occurring.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

I would describe WSD as a form of debate in which you are arguing ideas and issues to show which side of the motion is the most logical. This is way different than Americanized debate where theory and jargon is utilized more, so it is focusing on the core issues of the debate. Worlds is suppose to make sense to anyone who is listening to the debate and therefore the arguments should make rationale sense to anybody.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in debate?

I am fortunate enough to have a full setup for my computer. I have two monitors and on the main monitor I watch the debate, and the second monitor has my tabroom ballot where I am writing notes over each speech and speaker. I also in front of me use a notebook to flow the debate to make sure I keep up with what is being said in the round.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

This just simply depends on the topic itself. I am pretty open minded when it comes to arguments and do not have a personal preference as long as it is discussed why you chose what to advocate for. This clarity is needed to really emphasize why that approached is needed and it's on the debaters to tell me why it is preferable.

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

I think strategy usually is overlooked in terms of how you want structure arguments. A speaker's strategy is how do you connect the claims you present and how you word things in order to be effective in elaborating on arguments presented by the other side. Picking the right way to argue things and how you say it are definitely things to be aware of for your strategy.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

First, I am glad to have not judged a WSD where someone was spreading, so let's keep it that way hopefully. If someone is just not effective with their speed and tone I usually deduct points from their style.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

As silly as it may sound, I usually vote on simply what makes sense. Since we do not have to have the 20 minutes of calling for cards (thankfully), I simply view whos reasoning and rationale makes the most sense towards the topic and arguments presented in the round. Show me your thought process through your speech and it usually comes down to who can prove their claims in a clear manner, rather than the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I look at how effective and clear some model is to make sure it sets the foundation for your ideas. Make sure you think through your model to answer any potential questions individuals may have about it. I do not think all motions need a model or countermodel, so just make sure if you use one there is a purpose to it.

I am a new parent judge

Whatever topic you're debating, I know nothing about it. Adjust accordingly, like using a full phrase once before you start throwing around topic acronyms.

No Spreading

I will vote on the most cleanly extended and well weighed argument in the round.

Great points with supporting evidence and reasoning

Good and constructive speech with clear structure.

In PFD, I want to see organized cases with debaters directly clashing with opposing arguments. I want to hear sources with dates, in case I want to refer to them at some point in time. I would prefer to hear a few well-developed arguments instead of a dozen arguments that are only mentioned once in the debate. I don't think theory arguments are appropriate for this format. I expect final speakers to sum up why their side won the debate (voters). I expect all of the debaters to speak at a rate in which a normal human being could hear, process, and understand. I coached for a long time, and I really enjoy hearing sound, logical arguments.

My name is Haki Redda. I am a parent judge supporting the PESH debate team!

I am a new parent judge. No spreading. Be courteous and respectful of everyone in the room. I look forward to hearing you debate!

I am a new parent judge. As a judge for speech and debate events, I prioritize effective communication, well-structured arguments, and compelling delivery. I value the ability to articulate ideas clearly and persuasively, backed by credible evidence and logical reasoning. I encourage speakers and debaters to demonstrate critical thinking, creativity, and a thorough understanding of the topic. Respectful engagement with the opposing viewpoints and audience connection are essential components I look for in evaluating performances. I believe in fostering a constructive and inclusive environment where all participants can showcase their skills and contribute meaningfully to the discourse. Overall, my goal is to recognize and reward individuals who demonstrate a combination of analytical depth, effective communication.

I'M A NEW PARENT JUDGE. This is my first time ever judging a debate.

I expect the debate topic to be explained clearly and not too fast. No spreading.

Rudeness will result in low points.

I am the coach of a highly successful speech and debate team in Plano, TX. I am a two diamond coach in the NSDA and coach all debate events. In college, I was a policy debater and still enjoy the nuances of policy debate. Overall, I follow the logic in debate. I don't care about how you look, but I always follow the logic. As such, I always flow every round. If I am sitting there looking at you while you are delivering, that is a bad sign because you are not giving me arguments to flow. I am quite happy to give a low point win if one debater is a fantastic speaker but the other debater had the best arguments. My paradigms for the different debates are as follows:

L/D: I am more of a traditionalist with L/D debate. You can speak fast, but I want to know you can communicate. Don't spread. I enjoy the philosophical aspects to LD, but as an old policy debater, you must back up what you say with evidence. Give me a value and go deep with your framework. Because I was a policy debater, I do enjoy unique cases and actually believe that a K is fun in LD. So, feel free to give a unique perspective on your resolution. However, as I stated earlier, communicate it to me. In Policy, I don't care about the dressing, but in LD I do.

PFD: Show me you can work as a team. I am fine with you dividing up the workload. I am a framework judge. Really explain your FW, don't just say, "Judge, you must vote this way if..." In reality, I can do what I want. If I really should vote a certain way "if.." then explain why fully. For your rebuttals, group your arguments. Kick out what doesn't work. Again, give me something to flow. I want deep warranting. Explain, explain, explain.

Policy: I love policy! Topicality is one of my favorite arguments. Disads need to be bad, really bad. Don't give "might happens" as the fact that they "might not" is running through my mind. Don't whine and call arguments by your opponent abusive, unless they truly are. I rarely agree when debaters call the opponents arguments abusive. This is debate, research and develop arguments of your own and stop complaining that you didn't have time. Your harms need to be significant as do any advantages. K's are fine, but they better be explained well.

Speech: For oratory and Informative speaking, I am looking for a unique perspective on the topic you chose. With Informative, inform me. I don't mind advocacy but I am not looking for a Persuasive speech. I do not want an act, I want to know you care about the topic you are presenting and that this is a speech, not an act.

Interp: I try really hard not to take notes during your performance as I want to give you my full attention. If you can make me forget that I am timing you, that is a great thing indeed. It means, you took me to a new place, time, thought and away from the real world for the moment. That means you hit the mark! I love that. I enjoy all types of selections, those with many characters and those with one. I judge on how well you performed that selection.

Congress: Congress is a wonderful event. I want you to clash with the other debaters in the chamber. If we are in the fourth or fifth speech on a particular piece of legislation, you better be bringing something new for argumentation or your speech will not be ranked high. I judge on the quality of your research.

I’m a new parent judge, i am excited and look forward to listening to you. I have never participated in debate myself but I did my best to familiarize myself with the discipline. I watched the training videos and got my kid to decode the jargon. I am ready, let’s do this!

• No spreading please, slower is better as english is not my native language. I want to make sure I understand everything!
• Do not hesitate to emphasize articulation so that I can easily follow.
• I am a common sense person and I appreciate logic in arguments.

Good luck!

Maude

I am a new/lay parent judge.

No spreading. Go slow and make your arguments clear, concise, and compelling.

Will not tolerate rudeness.

New Judge
Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.
Excessive rudeness will not be tolerated.
Looking forward to hearing you speak!

I debated Public Forum 4 years in High school

All I ask is that you speak clearly and at an understandable pace. If I can't hear you I cannot flow your arguments.

I default to weighing the round off of impacts I suggest making time in your speech for impact analysis especially in summary and final those speeches should be used to crystalize your main arguments not try and extend everything thats been said in the round. Use framing like probability, timeframe, and magnitude to your advantage by comparing directly with your opponents impacts and tell me why your arguments are more important.

Make sure you warrant clearly. Impacts don't mean much if you don't have a solid link chain you can defend and is logical.

I also like hearing unique and niche arguments.

Besides that it's your round debate it how you like.

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

1. In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
2. I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
3. I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
4. I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

1. The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
2. On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
3. On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
4. If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

1. (Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
2. I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
3. Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
4. I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
5. Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
6. Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

1. Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
2. Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
3. You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
4. Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
5. Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Hi! I am a parent judge. Please explain your arguments clearly, and speak at a pace that I can follow. One articulated argument is better than five poorly construed arguments. I will try to jot down the main points of the debate the best I can, but please emphasize your most important arguments in your last speech. I weigh both logical arguments and the evidence in support of your arguments. I emphasize the quality rather than the quantity of the evidence. I will do my best to judge only from what I am given in the round, so please do the work for me and don't make me have to intervene. Good luck!

I am a parent judge with 10 years history. Normal conversation speed will help me get your points and write them down.