ONLINE: you must send docs. I am asking that you don’t spread. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

I only listen to CX to hold you accountable and to potentially gain context on something I'm confused about. If you want it to be flowed you need to say it in a speech.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

I am a parent judge in my third year of judging. I was a trial attorney for 20 years. I judged policy all of last year.

Don't spread. The more informative and understandable the better. I want to be able to listen to you and understand the subject and your argument. I don't want to read your argument, this isn't a writing competition, so speak clearly so I can flow out the the different arguments and responses.

I am familiar with the more technical rules thanks to a year of watching and judging the best in the State. i also try to keep the time flowing so be ready to move on after each speech.

Hi! I am a parent from Basis Peoria who is fairly new to debate.

Policy:

Please speak slowly and signpost, otherwise I will not be able to follow your arguments and I will not vote for you. If there is something in the round that you want me to consider, bring it up very clearly so that I understand. Keep your case organized and don't use any complex debate terminology without defining it. Also, dont be condescending or disrespectful to your opponents :)

Good luck!

I have been involved with Policy Debate since 1981, when I debated in High School in Arizona. I debated NDT for Arizona State in the late 80s, and have been coaching High School debate teams in Arizona, Wisconsin & California for a total of 23 years (off & on) starting in 1986. I coached Policy Debate most recently at Lowell High School in San Francisco from 2012-2016. I worked the 2001-2003 Stanford & Berkeley debate camps. I am Tabula Rasa, but default to Policy Making-I enjoy all aspects of the game, The K, The Counterplan-Disad debate, Case Turns, T whatever, it's all fair game. I do have a higher than average likelihood to pull the trigger on theory arguments if you develop them and win them (conditionality, pics, international actors etc.). Ultimately I think that virtually everything is debateable including the nature and function of the activity itself-that being said you will have an uphill battle the more aggressively anti-norm you get with me. I.E. I think that the affirmative should defend the Resolution, not attack it. Affirmatives without plans are fine, but not my preference. If you read an Aff without a plan I think you should read some Solvency cards for whatever performative experiment you are conducting. Speed is fine, be as loud & clear as possible. I prefer longer, more highly explanatory cards than a slew of 1 line cards, but also understand the tactical utility of the short card in high school debate-just be aware that I do tend to read a few cards after the round, so if you have a crucial argument that you need to win, read the long card. I love to see integrated strategies that are coherent and well-evidenced-love aggressive (but not obnoxious) smart, fast debaters. If you have any specific or more nuanced questions please let me know pre-round and I will answer them. Email chain to gerardgrigsby@hotmail.com

I did speech and debate throughout high school, my experience mainly being in PF and BQ.

Please make it easy for me to understand what you are saying, I don't deal with spreading. I'll judge off what I flow, so if you speak too fast for me to understand/flow your speech, I won't weigh it into the ballot. Even if you give me a speech doc, I will likely miss some things if you spread. Speak quickly at your own risk. I don’t care about when you sit and stand, and I usually give a 5 second grace period. I also ask that debaters time their own prep.

PF: As I said above, I'll judge off what I flow. I want to think as little as possible during the round and when making my decision. That being said, try your best to organize your speeches and make your warrants/impacts clear. That makes it a lot easier for me when deciding what to vote on. The framework you run will also weigh in on my decision, so make sure to fulfill your burden and tell me why I should vote based off it. If you and your opponents have different frameworks, definitions, etc. make sure to argue why I should buy yours rather than theirs. Also, I don’t accept any theory in PF debate. If you run it, I will drop the argument.

BQ: Similar to the PF paradigm above. Take special note on my comment regarding frameworks and definitions. This is especially important for BQ, as I find rounds often come down to a definitions debate.

Hello! First and foremost, thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm. If you have the time, please read the sections that are important to you. My paradigm is broken up by events, and each section will include my preferences and general thoughts on how the round should go. Each section will include a TLDR if you don't have time for whatever reason and it's right before the round, but otherwise PLEASE read the entire thing!

VERY GENERAL OVERVIEW; TLDR

I competed for three years in Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, extemporaneous speaking, and Impromptu speaking. For two of those years, I personally coached many in extemp, impromptu, and public forum while also helping others in congress. If you have me for any of the ad libs events, congress, or pf, these are my strong suits and I hope you like me better than your average parent judge who has never competed themselves. I as a judge will work to accommodate you while maintaining the integrity of the round and the sprit of speech and debate. i.e - If you need a minute before the round starts to take a breath or get a drink of water, please inform me and feel free. I was there not too long ago myself. Finally, speech and debate is about growing your skills as a speaker, a debater, and growing yourself as a person. Not winning. With that being said have fun, and just be respectful of others!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

TLDR; I know what congress is (for the most part).

Full version

I was in house finals at nationals.

PUBLIC FORUM;

TLDR; I know how to flow tech debate, but I like it when you make good arguments that are backed by a solid logical link chain in a more of a lay appeal style. DO NOT SPREAD. I can understand spreading (mostly), but I can understand your speech better if you do not spread and you explain everything in a logical manner, not just trying to spit out as many words as you can in a minute. If you start speaking too fast, I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Just rhetoric won't get you very far either, actually interact with your opponents arguments and WEIGH them against your own.

Full version

Speech and debate is meant to make you better at debating and speaking. I do not like spreading at all. I understand speaking slightly faster than normal in order to get all of your points in (more so if your in summary or FF), but you should not spread. Public forum is supposed to be PUBLIC FORUM, it was originally a "laymans" form of debate, in which someone off the street should be able to judge your round with reasonable competency. I am well aware that the debate space is all about inclusion, however spreading in public forum if anything makes the debate inaccessible to those who can not understand spreading (either opponents or the judges). If you start spreading too much I will simply put down my pen and stop flowing. Same thing goes for theory, don't do it in PF. If it's a local tournament, 99% chance there is no reason to be running theory in PF. If you really feel you have to in pf, in my round, my understanding of theory is minimal in comparison to someone who spent three years doing LD. Chances are I won't be able to understand it for the most part, and if it comes down to a technical level I probably won't weigh/vote on it. If you have to read theory, first ask me if I'm okay with it in the round. If you just start reading it off, especially in the first or second speech (without asking me), I'll just drop it. In crossfire look at the judge so things don't get heated. Be respectful of each other, but also be assertive. I don't weigh crossfire unless you get a concession or have an important point to make, however you have to bring it up crossfire in speeches for me to weigh it. In general, if your respectful, there should be zero issues. Next, I want to see actual interaction in the round between you and your opponents arguments. Simply giving me endless rhetoric or restating your case won't get you far if you don't respond to the uniqueness of your opponents arguments and how they WEIGH against your own. PLEASE WEIGH in summary and final focus, and if possible do so in rebuttal. Make the vote for me as a judge easy to make, tell me why your side should win the debate comprehensively. I go off the flow, I'm mostly tech over truth unless you straight up lie. Lastly, have fun! Time goes by fast, and debate is something that should be fun and propel you in your future endeavors.

Extemp. (to be updated very soon)

Impromptu (to be updated very soon)

All other debate formats, and IE events will be updated very soon!

I place emphasis on clarity of speech and effectiveness of your delivery. If you are talking too fast and I can’t follow what you’re saying, then it will be difficult to understand and judge your presentation effectively.
As a physician scientist, I pay particular attention to the effective use of evidence and proper reference to sources as well as the impactful use of evidence to optimize reasoning and easy to follow conclusions.

My name is Sujatha.

I am a first time judge for Policy debate. My judging will be based on logical approach and impacts presented in the round.

I ask that you speak with strong confidence and with clarity. As for speed, I ask you to speak at a conversation pace.

Be respetful during your rounds and act kindly.

Good luck

Email Chain

Add me: dgpaul8@gmail.com

Please include tournament and round number in the subject line of the email.

T/L

Tech > Truth always - There is a lower threshold for refuting an "argument" that is clearly untrue, but it is your burden to clearly explain why it should be evaluated as false

I will make the least interventionary decision, meaning:

1. T is the highest layer - the rest is up for debate
2. What's conceded is true, but will only have the implications as argued by you
3. More judge instruction - Communicate the locus of your offense and defense clearly. If the final rebuttal is thoughtlessly extending and answering arguments without a unified argument, your likelihood of winning is low. Have intent - I will not grant any logic or rational to you if not explicitly said.
4. My vote is always influenced based on how the round goes down - I have no preconceptions

DAs

U/Q is up for debate - my vote is influenced based on how you debate

No preference over specific links vs. generic ones - just tell me why your link is relevant

Don't drop straight turns, and don't double turn yourself - that being said, you have to tell me they did it for me to evaluate

As the affirmative, if you drop a disadvantage, I'm still willing to hear weighing arguments from the rebuttals as to why you outweigh, but I will assume 100% risk of it happening

CPs

I think sufficiency framing is a valid argument - that being said, you must explicitly make it, and if you can't defend it, I won't buy it

'Judge kicking' the counterplan is merely to evaluate the disadvantage against the plan, in order to test whether the plan is in fact better than not only the counterplan but also the status quo. The ONLY burden of the negative is to disprove the desirability of the plan. The desirability of the counterplan should be irrelevant if the status quo is better.

• I will assume judge kick, but if presented with reasons not to, it's up for debate

T

The threshold for winning against frivolous T-interpretations is lower, but you better be sure that it really is frivolous

Won't vote on RVIs

I'll view your standards however you debate them - ie. show me why fairness o/w education

T v. K-Affs

The negative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why being topical is a good thing. Consequently, the affirmative needs to have good reasons, argued effectively, why it's not - I'm not preconditioned to vote either way

Ks On the Neg

I'm fine with all kritiks - whatever you want to argue, argue it - my only brightline is that you argue it better than the other side

Argue whatever framework you want to - the team that wins framework decides how I view the kritik debate - doesn't equate to an automatic win or loss - just depends on the framework interpretation

Extinction o/w is a good debate - show me why it does, and show me it why it does not - I'm open to swinging either way

What matters most is that you make your point - these debates boil down to a battle between positions

Theory

No preconceptions on whether conditionality is a good or bad thing - A good affirmative can explain why it's bad, and a good negative can explain why it's not - if it is completely 50/50, which I personally do not believe it, that means the negative won on conditionality - the affirmative is burdened with proving it is bad (51/49).

Most condo 2ARs are new - if you really want to go for it, make sure your 1AR sufficiently covered it - blowing up a a little blip in the 1AR is a hard sell

Debate the standards - don't just read down blocks

All other theory arguments are fine - exception to incredibly frivolous theory arguments - even if dropped, if they hold no arguable, serious, realistic weight, I'm not going to vote on it

Cross-Examination

I do not flow cross-x

It can be fun to watch

Bring up anything you would like me to evaluate from cross-x in your later speeches - I won't automatically assume anything

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being engaging to watch, being smart, being clear = higher speaks

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making bad arguments, not being clear = lower speaks

30 = best debater I've seen

29.6 - 29.9 = top debater at the tournament

29.1 - 29.5 - break deep into outrounds

28.6 - 29.0 - capability to break

28.0 - 28.5 - solid team, some learning to do

< 28.0 - some work to do

Ethics

Being racist, sexist, or violent in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate is bad.

Role as an educator outweighs role as a disciplinarian - I err on the side of letting things play out and correcting ignorance after the fact - This ends when it threatens the safety of round participants

You should give this line a wide berth

I'm a college student and did debate in high school. Nothing is off-limits, but I do ask you guys to be civil and courteous towards one another.

Debates:

Where do I even start? I'm not gonna start with the usual talk about how judges don't want to weigh in on the debate and intervene....but, throughout my judging experience, I'm forced to be an interventionist so... Yes, I will be dropping/weighing arguments if things are unclear. Yes, I will be asking for cards. And no, I will not use my knowledge (tech > truth) to refute your ridiculous contentions but you might get a very angry ballot.

The quality of your argument is BETTER than the quantity of your argument. Don't lazily extend your arguments without explaining WHY IT MATTERS ON THE FLOW. This is very important to remember to obtain higher speaks.

Slow down your speech. Idc if you have 100 sources to read in your 1AC, 2NC, slow down and explain your arguments clearly. Fast is cool but If I don't type, I'm not listening. And don't ask me for a wpm MEANING NO SPREADING. I can understand fast reading and will flow your arguments to the best of my ability, but zero tolerance for spreading.

Run tech stuff (DA/plans/counterplans/theory/Ks) if you think it's genuinely interesting and not a gotcha against your opponents. (I can tell if you really know your things/just doing it to win). For Ks in particular, bonus speaks if you show effort. Pls no spreading.

And uh, no friv and tricks. Zero tolerance.

Do the weighing for me. If your impacts are numbers and statistics, compare them to your opponents'.

If your impact is nuke war/extinction stuff, tell me why it is LESS PROBABLE to happen on your side. NOTE: Nuke war impacts without comparative analysis will get you a very frustrated judge.

You should be combining great rhetoric with great arguments and evidence. Consider me a parent judge. Lead me through your positions and point out why I should vote for you (insert key voters). Just Debate 101. And some miscellaneous things:

Time yourselves.

Do whatever with your cross. I will probably not pay attention.

I'm fine with disclosing after the round.

Prefer speechdrop for evidence sharing (if need to). No emailchains. But don't rely on the evidence-sharing to be lazy in your speeches. I have a very low tolerance for this.

And pls don't run prog in PF, lol.

Hi there!!

I am a parent judge - this is my first year judging. I have done judge training - both online and in-person, and also have had an opportunity to shadow some other parent judges to understand the process better. Timing - If you can keep track of your own time, it will provide me more time to provide feedback. But, for Speeches, I can do the warnings you want.Here is what you can do to make this work for you.

Policy

My son has always wanted me to judge policy so here I am. Reluctantly though - Policy is super hard. He has taught me policy - so my paradigms are influenced by what he has told me.

• Clarity and Speed - If I don't understand the argument, I won't buy it. So, pl. be clear. Don't spread, talk fast if you want but keep the taglines at a fully understandable speed just because if you don't emphasize your taglines which probably have the key info that I need to vote off of, I am not gonna vote off of it
• Tech over Truth - I'm reluctantly tech over truth, like if your entire arg hinges on something that's point blank wrong and your opponents don't call you out on it then i guess i have to vote on it no matter how stupid it is, but if they do call you out on it, then i will easily prefer their refutation of the argument.
• No Lying - Don't blatantly lie or misconstrue evidence.
• Time yourself - Gives me a chance to focus
• Cross - I will not pay attention to Cross - will instead focus on refining my notes.
• Disads, Ks, Topicality etc... - Since I am new If you are doing one of this - better to let me know, so I know what is going on. Don't expect me to understand policy terminology, completely explain and label the link, impact, alt, and framework if you have one.

Points:

• 30 - best debater i've ever seen
• 29.5 - best debater at the tournament
• 29 - Really good
• 28 - solid
• 27 - meh
• <27 - you probably didn't speak coherent english sentences, were a horrible person to everyone in the round, or dropped some slurs that you prob shouldn't be saying

If you use the phrase "Samsung smart fridge" during round, +.5 speaks - my son helped me write this paradigm and he'll be happy that you read it :)

LD Debates

• Speak at a normal conversational speed. Do not spread.
• Clearly list your contentions. Do not try to go back and forth between your contentions.
• I would like to see continuity in your arguments and clear evidence connecting claims. Don't try to connect A to Z directly.
• Pl. summarize why your arguments hold good at the end.
• I will generally vote based on who won overall argument and who had the most undefeated contentions.

Speech Events

• I will rank each person for each of the 3 rubrics with a score of 1-5 to ensure an objective ranking.
• I will attempt to provide comments for each rubric.

Wishing you the very best and looking forward to hearing your speeches and debates, and providing feedback.

If you ever have any questions about how you performed in your round, ballots, or can use additional feedback from me, pl. reach out to me at vijay.sreekantan@gmail.com

Vijay

Hello I am a first-time parent judge
lwlingwang@gmail.com

Some things I don't want to see happen:
1. spreading or even just talking fast, I am a non-native English speaker I won't be able to understand your arguments
2. I won't pay attention to cross ex
3. please don't read T, theory, or Ks I won't understand them and will just not consider them

Again I am a parent judge so please make sure to explain your arguments and not just read a ton of cards which I won't read
-Also please add me to the email chain so I can see your evidence

Please time your own prep time

Please don't be rude to each other! :)