Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a sophomore at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

Returning to in person debate norms:

• You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
• Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
• During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying

Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk

I have been judging various events for 2 years. I always try to bury any personal knowledge or belief about topics and judge solely on what is presented in the round by the debaters.

I look for well-defined arguments that are educational and don't assume previous knowledge. I prefer hearing fewer well-defined arguments than a litany of arguments that are spoken at a rapid pace to deliver as much information as possible. I strongly prefer a debater to not use spreading as a method of debate, it sounds like jibberish to me.

I look for respect toward opponents. I like a natural flow of speech and a tone that is passionate but not shrill.

My preferences:

• Please speak clearly/slowly (do no spread!).
• I appreciate arguments backed with relevant statistics.
• Make sure you connect your arguments/contentions to your framework.

Background:

Sedrick Brown

Email: sbrown3@unc.edu

I am a junior at UNC-Chapel Hill studying Public Policy and Economic. For all four of my years in high school, I debated for Massey Hill Classical High in Fayetteville, NC. I did PF for almost 2 years, and LD for another 2.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

1. Anything said that is inherently racist, homophobic, sexist, etc will result in an instant loss. As a person of color, I believe that debate should be a safe space for everyone, and I refuse to tolerate any discriminatory behavior. Period.

2. I will not vote for you if whatever argument you are going for (link and impact) is not fully extended in summary. Frontlining is not extending. If neither side is properly extending then I'll intervene

3. I'm a flow judge. Anything above 300 wpm is too fast, and I won't get it down (which will probably not bode well for you).

4. I vote off the weighing debate first. whoever wins the weighing debate tends to win the round. If there is no weighing or the weighing is a wash, i vote for the cleanest piece of offense. If there is no offense, i presume first speaking team. If you want me to presume differently, tell me why.

Other Stuff:

1. Please collapse in Summary and Final Focus, it makes judging much easier. Collapsing strategically will boost your speaks. Don't go for everything.

2. Please weigh, and start as early in the round as you can. In the scenario that both teams weigh, I would like some sort of metaweighing or comparative analysis between both weighing mechanisms.

3. The second rebuttal should frontline, it doesn't have to be a 2/2 split, but I want to see some interaction with the first rebuttal. I believe this makes for a better debate. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal, I will consider them dropped and evaluate them as such.

4. Will generally be tech > truth, but within reason. You can not get away with a blatantly false argument.

5. Make sure you terminalize your impacts in both summary and final focus, otherwise I don't know why I am voting for you.

6. I will evaluate prefiat arguments like theory or Ks. I have a higher threshold for explanations and general warranting for such arguments not because I don't like them but simply because I have relatively less experience with them. That said, I'm pretty confident evaluating progressive argumentation - more theory than Ks but I can handle either. If you explain the argument well, I'll vote for it, just slow down and be a bit more thorough with these kinds of progressive arguments.

Speaker Points

- Be as funny/savage in crossfire as you want (More entertainment = Higher Speaks)

I care most about students being effective speaker. Spreading or cramming in as much information as possible will not be the reason you win and will most likely inhibit your ability to win. Being an effective speaker that effectively conveys their arguments, points out flaws in their opponent's case, and is a persuasive speaker with strong rhetoric skills will bode well.

For debate: I consider myself a flow judge, I did PF debate in high school and went to NSDA and CFL nationals a couple times.

I do put emphasis on the flow because of what it represents - the ability to track arguments and build upon them in each case, as well as the ability to combat your opponents points. Note however, the purpose of the flow isn't to just tally up arguments at the end and vote on whoever has the most arguments, rather to track arguments made so they can be weighed. How arguments are weighed depends on how well you communicate their impact in round, as well as how well you explain causal links. Frameworks are important as well, as how an argument is viewed depends on the lens with which you decide to view it.

Any racist, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. comments or arguments will be penalized. Please be respectful of each other and be kind, the goal of debate isn't to showcase how smart you are but rather how well you can communicate your ideas and convince others that your ideas are right. Discourse is a key aspect of this, and you cannot have fruitful discourse while disrespecting each other.

My email is acloud@rthighschool.org, please feel free to reach out to me after the round with comments or if you want to see my copy of the flow.

Clash is king. I am a parent judge, but open to whatever style of debate you choose to run, traditional or progressive, just communicate it clearly and connect it to your opponent's case. I can connect dots, but I might not connect them the way you think they connect, so do your best to draw the lines. Signposts and structure are helpful. Spreading is fine, but I prefer quality over quantity. may request to see your evidence, especially if you and your opponent disagree on its interpretation and implications

For LD, framework is important. If morality is on your side, use morality. If logic is on your side, use logic. If evidence is on your side, use evidence. If feasibility is on your side, use feasibility. If you have nothing else, make me laugh or tell me a story.

For PF you must have hard evidence to back up your claims, I may request to see it.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

I’m Michael (he/him). I am in my fourth year debating PF at Durham Academy as part of Durham HH. Add me to the chain: hansendebate@gmail.com.

If you have any questions about ANYTHING (including term definitions) in this paradigm please ask me before the round. I will not discount your debate ability nor will I think differently of you for asking; if you do, I will bump your speaks up 0.1.

Debate should be fun. If everyone is nice, respectful, and chill about the round I will bump your speaks.

If you are _ist or discriminatory in any way I will drop you.

TL;DR – tabula rasa tech judge. Warranting, signposting, extending, weighing, collapsing, ballot directive language are all things I really like. High quality research will be heavily rewarded. I vote on the flow and will evaluate Ks and theory (with caveats, see below). No tricks.

Read smart arguments, be creative, and think through the logic of your opponents arguments. Please do not just mindlessly read cards. Smart analysis > unwarranted evidence

General:
To win a substance argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it

In Varsity divisions, have cut card case docs ready to send in the chain – this should be something you prepare before round (this is what a cut card looks like).

PF speed is fine but you need to be clear. However, real spreading is extremely inaccessible, forces opponents to flow off extremely long docs, and many teams send docs that differ from their actual speeches. For these reasons, I will not flow off doc. I will not flow overtime. Slow down in the back-half.

Number responses in rebuttal. Defense is not sticky. Collapse on one case argument in summary and go for the same argument in final focus.

If you misconstrue evidence and the other team points it out, I won’t intervene but all they need to do is read an IVI and I will give you an L20. Please do good research and read good evidence.

How I evaluate:
I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing. However, you need to be winning the offense into the weighing in order for it to matter.

If you are losing terminal defense on an argument, you cannot access weighing through that argument.

That means that short-circuit analysis (one argument functioning as terminal defense on another/meaning their scenario doesn’t trigger) comes before any other weighing. If both teams have short-circuits on the others’ argument, timeframe analysis becomes extremely important because it determines which teams’ short-circuit triggers first.

Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary.

This includes weighing; for example, if weighing is read in first rebuttal and is conceded in second rebuttal, it is conceded. Second summary cannot make new responses. However, second summary can read their own new weighing and read metaweighing for why that outweighs the other team’s conceded weighing.

On the other hand, if first rebuttal also included meta-weighing that was conceded in second rebuttal, the weighing debate would be over and second summary would not be able to respond.

Link-ins to opposing teams’ framing/impact weighing necessitate link weighing. Link-ins to their argument, absent any other weighing mean that you access both your argument and theirs in which case I will vote for you. However, if you link-in and they win that their link outweighs your link, they win.

I will not evaluate non-comparative weighing. Instead, read comparative weighing; aside from short-circuits (more on them above), weighing ultimately comes down to two things: probability and magnitude.

An argument’s probability is determined by defense. If their argument has no defense on it, it has 100% probability. Likewise, if their argument has terminal defense on it, it has 0% probability.

I will not evaluate new responses as “probability weighing” if they were not made in rebuttal. However, if they were made in rebuttal and implicated in the back-half as mitigatory defense I will evaluate them as reducing the probability of an opponent’s scenario. But, if your opponent is winning weighing, they will still have some offense into said weighing and they will win the round. “Our argument is more probable than theirs because _____ (their argument will never happen)” is a response, not weighing.

This includes arguments like “our argument triggers first” because the only reason that would matter is insofar as it affects probability because intervening actors mitigate their case, but that would be a new response so I won’t evaluate it.

Magnitude weighing encompasses a large variety of weighing, including scope, severity, dev world analysis, long-timeframe; any piece of weighing that claims that the impact you are preventing is worse than the impact they are preventing is magnitude weighing. Either extinction or structural violence will probably win the magnitude debate but I won’t intervene.

Carded weighing is fire.

Progressive Debate:

Theory
I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments. This means that if the other team has read theory before, disclosed interps on the Opencaselist PF Wiki, or have gone to a nat circuit tournament before, they have demonstrated that they can engage with these arguments. On the other hand, if this is their first varsity (octas bid) nat circuit tournament, do not read theory on them.

With that established, a few preferences:

1. Interps should be read ASAP in the speech immediately following the violation; counterinterps should come in the speech immediately following the interp.
2. I default text over spirit of the interp
3. I default no RVIs in the absence of yes RVI warrants. However, if they violate your counterinterp and you win that it is the better norm, I will drop them to promote that norm and you don’t need an RVI.
4. I default competing interps > reasonability but will vote on reasonability if you win it.

I’m neutral tab ras on most theory but threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous (shoes theory, font size theory, etc.)

Topical Kritiks
I like topical Ks and think they are good for the activity, and if you want to read them I will evaluate them.
1. Please write them yourself using high quality research. Treat it like a research project and an opportunity to learn something new. PLEASE do not just steal a K from LD/Policy and read it, because you likely will not understand it and neither will anyone else. I think that critical literature encourages academic curiosity and the exploration of important ideas and assumptions that underlie much of policymaking.
2. Explain your K well. This means explaining both the implications of your K (how it interacts with the arguments the opposing team has made) and the role of the judge/role of the ballot. If I don’t understand your K I won’t vote on it
3. Disclose your K open-source w/highlights (on https://opencaselist.com/hspf22) so that other teams can engage with your literature and research rather than auto-losing every round. These Ks are very complicated and not very well-understood so I wouldn’t worry too much about anyone stealing yours.

K-Affs
I’ll evaluate them, although I believe that while many aspects of debate and the debate community are very problematic, these issues are best addressed when not tied to a competitive outcome/space such as the ballot. However, I will not intervene. In these rounds, it is imperative that both teams are respectful of each other and avoid personal attacks.

Again, anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped. I might not catch something discriminatory; if I didn’t catch something, let me know at any point. There are no frivolous requirements here/you don’t have to read theory to do this. You'll probably get a W30 if what you're saying makes remote sense. If I notice a male debater talking down to a female debater in cross I will point it out. This stuff is unacceptable.

Post-rounding is an educational practice. That being said, your post-round should focus on improving your prep, strategy, and execution in future rounds, not in changing my decision (I will not change my decision after I have submitted it); both teams should ask any questions they have, not just the team that has lost.

Some of my favorite judges: Anna Brent-Levenstein, Bryan Benitez, Emma Smith, Gabe Rusk, Charlie Grabois, Zayne El-Kaissi.

Hello,

This is my first year as a judge. I've been judging speech and debate events this year, though it is my first time doing PF.

Some things to get me to vote for you:

1. Speak at an understandable, preferably slower pace. If I cannot understand you, I will not evaluate your information.
2. Keep track of your own speech and prep time.
3. Respect your opponents.

Hi! I'm Alex and I'm a senior at Durham Academy where I've debated for four years. In that time, I've gone to 60 tournaments (I counted to write this paradigm) and won a good number of them, so I would consider myself pretty experienced.

For novices.

I think DSDLs are a fantastic opportunity to learn and I want to help y'all do that to the best of my ability.

So ask questions! Probably not during the round, but before and after the round definitely.

And most of all, be nice! We're all just here to learn and have fun, so help me do that, help your opponents do that, and help yourself do that.

This is how you win my ballot:

Collapse - There is not enough time in summary and final focus to talk about every argument in-depth, so please choose one of your contentions to focus on (collapse on, or "go for). This should be the one you extend.

Extend - Make sure in the back half of the round (the summary and final focus speeches), you re-explain the argument you are "going for" and collapsing on. Tell me in detail what will happen when I negate/affirm, and why that's a reason to vote for you!

Warrant - Tell me why. Make sure you give reasoning for all of your arguments and responses! It will be very difficult for me to vote for you if all I have to work with is "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession." So tell me why it will cause a recession, e.g. "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession because ____ which means _____ which causes ______ because of ________.

Implicate/Interact - I know from experience that often times while debating, it is very clear to me how all the arguments relate to each other and respond to one another. However, that doesn't mean it is clear to the judge. So make sure you go the whole nine yards and be very explicit in explaining to me how your arguments fit into the round. This means telling me why your responses take out your opponents argument, why your opponents argument doesn't take out your argument, and why I should prefer your responses over your opponent's.

Signpost - Piggybacking off of the implicating explanation, your responses and speeches might be super organized in your head, but that doesn't mean it will be organized to me, the judge. Instead, please signpost, i.e., tell me what you are talking about before you talk about it. If you are talking about their argument, maybe say "on their argument," but then say "now on our argument," when switching to talking about yours. Also, number your responses, e.g. say "on their argument about _____, we have four responses. first, _____, second, _____ etc."

Weigh - Compare your arguments and tell me why yours is more important! To do this well your weighing needs to be warranted and comparative. It will be difficult for me to vote for you if you just say "our argument is more important on magnitude." Instead tell me something like, "our argument is more important because it results in deaths, something that cannot be recovered from, whereas their argument only concerns an economic downturn, which the economy can bounce back from."

Experience:

• Started judging in 2023 and have had the opportunity to judge a few events
• Have had prior experience competing in Speech and Debate events though in a different country

Background:

• Undergrad in Engineering and Graduate degree in Management (MBA)
• Work in one of the largest Financial Services Company as a Vice President
• Lead multiple teams developing Artificial Intelligence based products

What Am I looking for:

• Will appreciate contestant sharing a little background and context before delving deeper into their contentions
• Diving into the argument without the basic context will make it hard to appreciate the additional points you are making
• Try not to be too repetitive – if you feel in your prep or presentation you are repeating your points and are not adding anything new, chances are, I would have observed the same. It diminishes the value of the points you have already made
• I realize you have spent a lot of time preparing and want to convey as much information as possible but I appreciate quality over quantity so please take the time to make your point and potentially highlight a new dimension to the argument instead of rushing and presenting all the ideas you have prepared
• Respect – yes this is a debate and it is important to counter and negate another person’s argument but doing it respectfully both verbally and through body language is something I value

Delivery:

· Being able to deliver content without the use of an aid will be what I value the most. I am fine if you would like to use a notepad, prompt cards or your electronic device for clues or key points. However, I would urge you to avoid reading off from a laptop, phone, iPad, any other electronic device or notepad.

You have put in a lot of prep and getting the opportunity to present at this forum is a gift and privilege. So, please do enjoy your experience and good luck !

Tech judge. Run whatever you want - I will vote off of the flow. I have topic knowledge. Be clear. Weigh.

Be nice but assertive in cross - I don’t flow cross but concessions are binding.

EXTEND CASE in summary and final focus or I can't vote on it. If I can't vote on case I will find something random to vote on and chances are you won't like it. Also frontline case in 2nd rebuttal.

Most importantly, tell me WHY I am voting for you in this round. Tell me why surveilling the southern border is good/bad, why this is true, why you are winning it, why it is important.

Good luck and have fun!

add me to the email chain: adamlevin71@gmail.com and caryjldebate@gmail.com

I'm Ryan, and I graduated in the Apex Friendship High class of 2023.

I debated PF in high school for two years, but it's been three years since I have competed, so I'm a bit rusty.

I will flow the round. I value logical link chains, the extension of evidence through the round, clear impacts, and most importantly, WEIGHING those impacts (as long as they have not been dropped and then revisited). It is not my job to evaluate which side outweighs the other. You should be the one explaining that to me.

Don't run theory. PF is not the place for that. I will be confused, and you will probably not win the round.

I don't mind if you speak quickly, but your goal should be to make a logical argument, NOT to cram as much information into four minutes as possible. However, if your opponents cannot understand you, then slow down.

This is an educational activity, and I want everyone to feel comfortable and safe in their environment so they can bring their best selves to the round. Be respectful to each other and me. Basic manners go a long way, and then I won't have to dock speaks and we can all go on our merry way.

This is my second year as a parent judge. A few things about my judging preferences:

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

- It’s important during a debate to allow the listeners to understand your argument and points, so it’s better to speak slowly and to be heard, rather than quickly (clarity over speed)

• I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument, but demonstrating the ability to modify your argument and rebut your opponents’ ACTUAL argument is very important (dynamic arguments are very effective)
• Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!

Debated in policy debate for the University of Kentucky (2013-2016), before moving to NC for my PhD. Currently working at UNC. She/her.

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

My paradigm was written in 2017 for policy debate, so know that I've been out of the judging game for a while. I won't have in-depth topic knowledge, so when in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument. In general, I think debate is pretty cool, but I think it gets a lot cooler when we all treat each other like human beings. You can be competitive in your speeches and CX, but try to treat each other with basic levels of respect. There’s no need to be rude when someone’s emailing their speech.

Yes, I want on the email chain: ava.vargason@gmail.com

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing has zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated.

Theory:

Conditionality is infinitely good and it will be difficult to get me to vote on it.

Most everything else is a reason to reject the argument & not the team. I like counterplans about the affirmative with net benefits that have real links.

I will kick the counterplan unless given a compelling reason not to. Just because the counterplan is a bad idea does not mean the affirmative is better than the status quo.

Critical Strategies:

I am fine for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading framework. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

Other:

I won’t evaluate a clipping ethics challenge unless there’s a recording.

I will disregard evidence that doesn’t say anything.

I am expressive when I really like or dislike something, so you should pay attention to that.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.