Hello! I mostly have a British parliamentary background, but have also debated a bit in the worlds schools format (third speeches). Here are just some tips/ things that I am looking for.

Harvard HST (Lincoln - Douglas): Read all of the below under world schools, but no marks for rhetoric. You may speak relatively fast, but don't spread. If you have "evidence" but don't also provide warrants, that means nothing to me. Don't impact outrageously.

Harvard World Schools Tournament:

1. The team that wins is the team that wins the most important clashes in the debate. Debate is all about clashes

2. Teams going for the same impact, with different but unrefuted warrants is (in most cases) not a great idea. Think about it this way, if you say that you get X, and so do the Opp, I have to judge the shift in the world caused by that clash as the difference between the two, instead of just crediting the entirety of the benefits to one team

3. I think that strong rhetoric can heavily impact the weight placed on certain impacts, but you can never win a clash, when the warrants are stronger on the other side, as a result of good rhetoric.

4. Speak slow, or I will not be able to flow (and you'll probably lose style points too)

5. The more unintuitive your argument is to the average reasonable voter, the higher your burden of proof in relation to the claim is!

6. Opp should provide independent reasons to not vote for their side. Most rebuttal, unless you are able to flip the impact to your side is purely mitigatory. This is not enough to count as a positive contribution.

6. Have fun! Statistically 50% of teams will lose the round, but if you enjoyed it/ learnt something, you're a winner 100% of the time!

Harvard '27, Government and Computer Science

4 years PF @ Phillipsburg, 2 years WSD @ NJ

If you have any questions on what is on your ballot, advice, or are adding me to an email chain: jblack0898@gmail.com.

FOR VARSITY: Speech doc for case is required, if your rebuttal is card-heavy then rebuttal too.

Substance:

• 98.9% of the time, if you are evenly matched with your opponents, whichever team weighs better will win my ballot. With this being said, please weigh for the love of God

• Tech > Truth

• If you’re going to spread, send a speech doc. With this being said, you will make my day marginally worse if you spread. Also, if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it. I will flow from a doc as long as you're comprehensible. SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS

• I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. Update: I'll call for evidence if two teams seem to fundamentally disagree about what the evidence actually says.

• I won’t flow cross, but everything said is binding (unless it's obvious you misspoke). If it's important, mention it in a speech.

• If it’s not in Summary, it’s not in Final

• Going for everything is not a strategic way to win my ballot

• Final should write my ballot for me

• If an overview non-uniques both cases and no warrant is read on which side to presume, I'm ignoring the overview
• Feel free to post-round me, but just know, even if you convince me in post-round, you lost because you were unable to make that clear in round
• A claim without a warrant is not an argument. The burden is on you to give me a warrant, not the other team to call it out.

Prog:

• Theory is fine but note two things:

• Don’t make me sit through stupid theory shells

• If you’re a big school running against a small school (for anything except serious abuse), I will judge you fairly but I will tank your speaks

• I’m generally not well versed in other types of progressive argumentation. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on it. Take this as you will.

Other random stuff:

• Your speaks will represent your strategic decisions in the round and not your actual speaking ability. Read smart stuff, get good speaks.

• Generally, I give pretty high speaks.

• I rarely flow author names so just give me a short synopsis as you extend

• Finally, following PF Finals at Harvard, so I can feel comfortable giving a Catherine Liu-esque decision next time: I won't evaluate unweighed competing links to the same impact. Nothing was worse than sitting there for five minutes sifting through evidence trying to conjure up reasons why whatever link was stronger to climate change. In fact, I'll even steal her exact wording:

"Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed."

I doubt this will come up often again, but it helps me sleep better at night.

FOR PARLI: No off-time roadmaps unless there is something complicated. Just tell me where you are starting. Y'all literally give off-time roadmaps to your off-time roadmaps.

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

i dont flow cross, it doesnt rly play a role in my decision

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: do not mention SA in round, any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round- how to do so:

- if you believe an argument could be triggering, default to reading a warning before the speech begins

- if this the content within the speech is explicit, anonymous opt-outs should be sent to everyone in the room via an anonymous google form that can be as simple as an "opt in" vs "opt out" question. this can be easily sent via the google chain

- i am extremely receptive to trigger warning theory ie why a team should have read a trigger warning with a specific argument they are reading in the round

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog args

i like prog (ks + theory)... dont read on novs pls

I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

I am in my second year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

Add (for PF email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach there. Most of my competitive results are viewable here.

I view debate as a uniquely valuable intellectual game that centers communication, research, and critical thinking. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I am persuaded first and foremost by the arguments articulated by the debaters. I dislike dogma and judge more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conduct an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and parsing clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

The Pro and Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are probably counter-plan adjacent.

I like to reward creativity and hard work.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates. I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Err on the side of over explanation. Impact stuff out, like fully impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Hello! I’m a second-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about APDA!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

• first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid

• Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

• I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

email chain: samjones@college.harvard.edu

PLEASE EXPLICITLY WEIGH AND EXTEND LINKS - IF YOU DO NOT I WILL HAVE TO INTERVENE TO DECIDE WHAT WARRANT/IMPACT IS MORE IMPORTANT AND NO ONE WILL BE HAPPY.

Update Harvard 2024: For some reason, everyone keeps reading extinction impacts without internal links and no link weighing. I like extinction as an impact when done well, but it isn't an excuse to not read links and not weigh. "There's no internal link in case" is a valid response. If both teams go for extinction, please give me explicit link weighing. "Our impact happens first" isn't weighing unless give me a reason to care. I'm more likely to vote on weighing over extinction than a sketchy link into extinction. Maybe I'm old, but one person per speech and first/second cross.

Day 3: I have not been getting enough sleep, so the more coffee I get brought the better my decision will be. I'm not going to vote on arguments for which I don't understand the internal links - this is the most likely to be true on conflict scenarios.

tldr: debate is a game, tech > truth, and warrants > cards.

Respond to offense and concede defense as soon as possible. First rebuttal defense is sticky until frontlined. I'm almost always going to prefer a warrant over a card. A round where everyone gets 30s is a round where I vote on high-quality warrant comparison.

Without metaweighting, I default uniqueness > magnitude. I won't flow off docs. If you're reading prog, assume I have no background. I'm open to ROTBs which have an explicitly defined way for your opponents to win under the ROTB. I default fairness > education, i'm truth over tech on most shells, and I will vote on RVIs.

Wear whatever and say whatever you want. I don't really listen to cross, but it makes me sad when people talk over each other. I'll vote on anything.

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

she/her | add me to the email chain: ellykang@mit.edu

competed in nat cir public forum for 4 years at marist

general notes

tech > truth

please preflow before the round

i will always prefer better comparatively weighed arguments

love weighing introduced earlier (especially in rebuttal!)

warranted analytics > unwarranted evidence

can handle speed but will clear you if i can't understand + you should be slowing down on taglines, send speech docs in the email chain if you spread

if you do paraphrase, please at least have cut cards. if evidence is called for and sent in the email chain, it should be sent in cut card format. if you don't have a cut card for key evidence, your speaks and the argument will be dropped.

won't evaluate arguments in cross unless they're made in speeches

rebuttal

must frontline in second rebuttal (at the very minimum, frontline what you collapse on and every offensive argument)

implicate your responses and tell me why they matter in context of the round

summary + final

defense isn't sticky

collapse in the back half. for anything you collapse on, extend every part of the argument (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)

back half should be consistent. everything in final needs to be in summary or i won't evaluate it

progressive argumentation

i do believe reading cut cards and open source disclosure are good norms, but reading those shells is not an auto win. you have to win the shell for me to vote off it

i don't like friv theory that doesn't actually contribute education or fairness to debate + probably won't evaluate it. i consider friv anything that isn't disclosure, paraphrasing, or content warning theory. but note i have a fairly high threshold for what requires a content warning

have judged kritiks several times, but not the most familiar with them. if you read one, i'll do my best to evaluate

other notes

i give speaks solely based on strategic decisions in round

if you are any kind of -ist in round, i will immediately drop you with the lowest speaks i can give

if you have any questions you can always ask! feel free to email me if there are any others after the round

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

I do American and British Parliamentary on the Harvard team but have no familiarity with any other formats so you may want to treat me as a lay judge.

I will not (generally) read any cards and will not flow crossfire. If something important comes up, you must mention it during a speech for me to vote on it. I will only check a card if someone points out to me in-round that the card has been misrepresented.

Talking slightly fast is fine but if you spread, I will not follow your arguments well.

You must be respectful during the debate, I will tank your speaks if you make problematic arguments or disrespect others in the room.

FOR LD:

I prefer traditional LD. No Ks or theory.

Tech > truth but if you can explain why your opponent has made a very unlikely argument or has not illustrated a feasible link chain, I will probably be quite receptive to that rebuttal. Likewise, if you can explain why your argument is most reasonable and probable, I will be happy.

FOR PF:

I am probably biased in favor of the most reasonable sounding team in the round. I tend to dislike arguments where the impacts are massively overblown (e.g. world-ending extinction events) unless you've warranted them really well or given me some good weighing as to why I should prioritize magnitude over likelihood.

I care about warrants more than evidence. I also like to hear explicit weighing.

This is my fourth year as a parent judge. I value clear and convincing arguments, both in the context of debate and my day job as a professor. I want debaters to interact respectfully, and I appreciate it when you don't talk too fast.

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

Fifth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. I think any well-prepared Congress competitor should be ready to flip at any point, and I look very favorably on whomever can save us from multiple Affs/Negs in a row. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

For the NSD tournament: If you run theory on kappa or lambda, I'm dropping you.

I'm a first year out, so I can pretty much adapt to any in round practices you're used to. A few preferences:

- tech > truth

- Clear signposting (I vote off the flow so I need to know where to write what)

- Case extensions in summary and final focus

- It has to be in summary to be in final focus

- If it's not in summary, I won't vote on it (...ok revisiting this a year later... I reserve the right to maybe vote on it)

- I don't flow crossfire

- I will go to extreme lengths to avoid voting on presumption.

- Time yourselves (esp crossfire)

- Any speed is fine

- Add me to the email chain please: gnpaulson@college.harvard.edu

Two critical notes:

1. I don't believe in speech docs. Debate is about speaking, so I refuse to read your speech off a document as you read so quickly you're basically just making sounds instead of saying words. Please speak as fast as you'd like and clarity will rely on your annunciation rather than a google doc.

2. I do not like theory; I've found that most times teams run it for a competitive advantage rather than for the sake of benefiting debate. That said I'll still evaluate and vote on it, but I think it's fair for you to know my preferences.

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

--

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position, assuming the abuse story is as stupid as I think many of them are.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Hi! My name is Wasan (she/her/hers) and I am a first-year college student. I was a PF debater for four years in high school. I’m a flow judge.

Preferences:

1. Some speed is fine, but please do not spread
2. Tech > Truth, but I appreciate a good narrative
3. Logic + evidence > logic response > evidence without warranting
4. Please weigh. Try to avoid buzzwords (ex: “we win on magnitude”) and prioritize warranted weighing. Metaweighing is meta-cool!
5. Frontline turns/address any weighing in second rebuttal
6. Warrant responses and properly extend case/impacts
7. Collapse by summary. 1-2 arguments are a good range
8. I am not experienced with theory and I do not want to judge a round off of it

Important: Be nice to each other!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round. Looking forward to it!

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

FOR PF:

1. I prefer warranting > evidence
2. Please no spreading
3. Be realistic with impacts. If the impact of the case is nuclear war but it has zero plausibility, it's really hard to vote on it
4. Weigh your arguments. Multiple things in a round can be true, but they are probably not all equally important
5. I don't understand complex theory, so if you use it, I might get lost
6. Please be courteous and respectful to your fellow debaters!

FOR LD:

1. I prefer traditional LD
2. Please no spreading
3. Please don't read Ks or theory
4. I prefer warranting > evidence

PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY), sophomore at Cornell, coach for Bergen County CM and Awty ZZ

TLDR: pls warrant and if nobody does GOOD comparative weighing I'll prefer the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact. At least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh.

add me to the email chain - vy.debate@gmail.com - send speech docs and I'll boost speaks

spec notes on how to adapt to me:

• "Fast PF speed" is fine - faster then 210wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread at your own risk bc tbh I suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision and be annoyed if you make me do so
• I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow. Bad weighing makes me sad
• Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense
• Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it
• Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, and terminal defense if you want to go for the arg later
• If you want me to vote on an Impact turn or rebuttal disad/adv it also need to have an impact and be weighed
• I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then ill tune in
• not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

my rant about "probability" weighing
If you read new defense in summary or final and label it probability weighing I am docking ur speaks and will be saddened. A lot of probability weighing just isn't real weighing its just defense in disguise- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any "probability weighing" is just some sort of mitigatory or terminal defense so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal.

non-subs debate
Im good to eval any theory or K debate as long as speeches aren't spread (seriously don't trust me to eval a K round if I have to read everything off docs), yes trix are fun but like pls don't in front of me

most importantly, have fun! let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way

hi, i'm irene!! i did pf at sidwell for a few years. if you need help after the round or really anything, my email is irenezhao29@gmail.com (yes I want to be on the chain)

i am begging you to fully extend your offense (uniqueness, link, impact), then comparatively weigh it against your opponents' arguments. also, collapse: you only need 1 piece of good offense to win a round.

the current trend on the circuit of reading 6 billion contentions and dumping seven million incomprehensible responses in the front half and then pretending to "clarify it all" in the backhalf is really upsetting to me. i would much rather you have a narrative from the getgo and flesh it out throughout the round. i will not vote on blippy turns. turns, like all offense, need warranting and FULL EXTENSIONS (uniqueness, link, impact + weighing).

other stuff

a) nothing is sticky, 2nd rebuttal has to frontline

b) read trigger warnings/be tactful - please be nice!!!

c) not the best judge for prog stuff -- of course, willing to vote on any well-warranted, well-explained argument -- i just have very little jargon/bg knowledge. i tend to really dislike jargon-heavy theory debates + k debates where people are clearly just reading off backfiles.

d) there's nothing wrong with slow debate! i despise flowing off docs. LIKE ACTUALLY FLOWING OFF DOCS MAKES ME SAD