Hi! I'm Caleb, a senior at Durham Academy. I've been debating for like 3-4 years on the national circuit and I've had some decent enough success so I'd like to believe I'm pretty experienced.

Paradigm:

IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT. PLEASE EXPLAIN, WARRANT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IMPLICATE EVERYTHING WELL

Copied from Alex Huang: (Alternatively, you can read Ben Hodges or really any other Durham debater's paradigm I think we all think about debate relatively the same way)

For novices.

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

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

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

This is how you win my ballot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make a Basketball Reference for Boosted Speaks!

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

LD & PF

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

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

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

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

Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carded weighing is fire.

Progressive Debate:

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

With that established, a few preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I'm Ben, and I'm a senior debating for Durham Academy. I've done debate for three years on both the local and national circuits.

He/Him Pronouns

add me to the email chain - benjaminshodges@gmail.com

TLDR - Flow judge, tech > truth, a little tired of the blippy state of flow, WARRANT PLEASE I BEG YOU

Be nice and respectful. Being rude and condescending will not make up for you not knowing how to make winning analysis and I will drop speaks. I understand debate can be stressful but try your best to make it fun. If you make me laugh, I'll boost your speaks.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

I evaluate rounds by first seeing what argument or impact the weighing being won is pointing me to and I see who has links into that weighing. I will not vote for an argument that has 100% conceded weighing if you aren't winning the link into the weighing. If both teams are winning links into the same weighing, I need link comparison, uniqueness comparison, etc. to break the clash

With that being said, I think weighing is overrated and prioritized way too much by judges. That's not to say it's not important. If both teams win substantial offense, I need weighing to evaluate the round, but if you are not winning a substantial link into your weighing, you can't just win off of weighing.

Everything has to be warranted and implicated in every speech and extended in the back half for me to vote on it. I will not vote for something that does not have a warrant regardless of whether it is pointed out. I'll only do this if it's egregious, however, so I'll still vote for something a little under warranted provided the other team doesn't point it out.

Basically, read any argument you want. If you win the argument and weigh it well, I will vote for you.

Technical Stuff and Preferences:

No new arguments after 1st summary and you cannot add parts of an argument that were missing when you first read them. If an argument didn't have an internal link in case or rebuttal, it can't suddenly appear in summary. I'm quite picky about having parts of arguments when it comes to case. If you do not have a warrant in case, I'm not letting you materialize it out of thin air in rebuttal (assuming your opponents point it out).

I'm okay with speed. If you're going over 1050 words for a 4-minute speech, I'll need a doc to flow off of. Go faster than that at your own risk but I should do fine provided I have a doc. However, I reserve the right to clear you if you go to fast. I think the doc in pf is increasingly a tool for people to spread badly and be unclear and expect the doc to make up for it so if I can't understand you and you don't slow down, I won't flow what you're saying.

The state of evidence in PF is really really bad. I won't vote off of evidence that is bad or unwarranted over a good, thought out analytic

Progressive Debate:

Not a big fan of theory but you are more than welcome to run it. I'll objectively evaluate most procedural theory like para and disclo and have experience debating it. I have a high threshold for theory and likely will not vote off of friv like shoes so don't be mad if I drop you for running that.

You can read Ks. I have a good bit of experience debating against them but not running them so please explain your literature and WARRANT it. So many K rounds I see have negative warranting and just devolve to the K team out spreading under warranted claims and attaching the word epistemological or pedagogical to different arguments without ever explaining to me the judge how I should be voting. Please give the issues Ks discuss the quality discussion they deserve, because when done right these can be some of the best debates.

Speaks:

I will try to make my speaks determinations based on your technical decision-making, organization, sign-posting etc ---- essentially how easy you make it for me to follow you and know how to vote. I will not make my determinations off fluency. As someone who struggled with stuttering, I understand how speaks can punish people with different abilities and will try to stay away from that.

That's it. Have fun!

Hello,

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

Some things to get me to vote for you:

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

I am a parent volunteer judge. I dabbled in high school debate in the pre-internet era, and carried around a brief case full of evidence, pouring through “reader’s guide to periodical literature” and microfiche. My day job is as an infectious diseases specialist. I am heavy on civility and logic.

tech after lunch (bring me food for speaks boost)

你好，我是 alex（他/他），卡里学院 2025 届毕业生

如果您在回合前有任何问题，我很乐意回答

把我放在电子邮件链上：aldaman636@gmail.com，尽量不要花超过一分钟的时间来寻找你的证据，一旦事情变得令人震惊，我很可能会开始进行你的准备工作

技术 > 真相，发送文档 >200 WPM，清楚

确保你扩展了所有的参数（uq、链接、内部链接、影响）并请权衡（如果你是新手，我会给你更多的余地）

运行 prog 需要您自担风险

推定缺席犯罪或其他推定依据

我的评分很高，最低的评分大概是28，除非你做了一些坏事（种族主义、性别歧视、-主义），在这种情况下你会被insta-dropped

如果允许的话，我会在回合结束后披露并提供反馈，请随意进行回合结束，但要保持冷静

hey, i’m alex (he/him), class of 2025 at Cary Academy

if you have any questions ask prior to the round ill be happy to answer them

put me on the email chain: aldaman636@gmail.com and try not to spend more than a minute looking for your evidence, if it gets egregious ill dock speaks

tech > truth , send speech doc > 200 wpm, be clear

make sure you extend everything (uq, links, internal links, impact) and please weigh (if ur a novice, ill give you more leeway)

run prog at your own risk

presume neg absent other offense

speaks should be pretty high, floor is probably 28, unless you do something bad (racist, sexist, -ism) in which case you'll be insta-dropped

ill disclose and provide feedback after the round if allowed, feel free to postround but be chill

Ama Mensah-Boone | They/them pronouns

i debated for durham in public forum for 4 years but dabbled in world schools & congress. i like to think that i'm funny so if you make me laugh in round i'll give you 30 speaks.

+1 SPEAKS FOR SENDING YOUR CASE TO ME BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS. add me on the email chain and include your team code of [school] [you and your teammates last initials], ex. Durham MK is my team in subject line --> amensahboone@gmail.com

if i'm judging you, feel free to ask me for detailed feedback! the role of judges is not only to evaluate the round but also to help you get better at debating.

my evaluation of the round will be 60% content, 20% style, 20% strategy

how to win content

i will vote off of my flow and the first thing i'm looking for is weighing. no weighing = no ballot for you! if arguments aren't extended in summary, i won't vote on them even if you bring them up again in final focus. keep track of your defense and offense! extend your warrants as clearly as possible!

i value analytical responses! don't misconstrue evidence, but you are welcome to make counterarguments without 55 cards lined up. walk me through your thinking, and if it's logical, i'll vote on it. if you just read cards in rebuttal and don't warrant, implicate or explain anything, it will be hard for me to convince myself to vote for you

i'm a flay debater who thinks flay is the best form of debate. however, there's a 75% chance that i can follow along with tech stuff what you're reading. feel free to read whatever you want, but if there's any technical elements (including T, theory, Ks, etc.) PLEASE send me your doc before the round (and rebuttal doc if necessary) and assume that i don't know the jargon. pf speed is okay, but if you're reading case faster than 235 wpm (950 word case), your speaks will be bad. i strongly believe that spreading is inaccessible and it does not make you a good debater! TLDR: err on the side of caution

framework debate is awesome. tell me why to prefer yours over your opponents'. if you don't read a framework, i'm assuming util. your weighing should make sense in the context of framework

how to win style

(novice only) i will give you higher speaker points if you use all of your speech time!

speak confidently. confidence is half being good at debate. fake it until you make it, especially in crossfire. however, be respectful of your opponents, i have a very low tolerance for rudeness in round, especially if it's clear that you're demeaning your opponent. male debaters, be mindful of how you are perceived in the debate space, especially when your opponents are part of the gender minority

how to win strategy

i will be timing everything, especially prep time. don't go more than over the 10 second grace period i'll give you. it's rude. also, have your evidence ready to send; don't waste everyone's time.

i am not going to let you get away with trying to pull a bait and switch (collapsing on things that weren't extended in the back half). if i hear something new, i'm not voting on it (unless it's in first summary, then i'll consider it)

i don't really care that much about cross if you don't use it to call out that the other team conceded stuff. save the important stuff for your speeches

although i understand a lot about debate, treat me like a parent judge. explain your reasoning clearly. why do your arguments matter at all?

bonus

if i notice any abusive behavior, i will not tolerate it. this includes misgendering, racism and sexism (and any other _ism), which i already experienced plenty of in my debate career. if i don't call it out or notice it right away, all debaters in the round should feel free to do so whenever you want. I WILL PROBABLY GIVE YOU 30 SPEAKS FOR IT. i will eval an IVI if it's done well and not a waste of everyone's time

finally, debate is supposed to be fun. make it fun for me too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a former debater and I've been coaching debate for 6 years. I'm a more traditional judge, in that I generally dislike super progressive arguements. I would describe myself as a flow judge at heart, though and I am always careful to make sure that the round is fair and my decision is unbiased.

My involvement in debate began 4 years ago when my daughter started in the club. I have a very numbers based and analytical background. Using numbers that you can back up will be the thing that most sways my thinking. I don't mind a fast talker but you need to be clear. If I cannot understand what you are saying you can't convince me of your arguments.

Ashton Swinney, Senior Intelligence Analyst - Fort Bragg, NC

Background:

I am an Intelligence Analyst that works for the US Military. I have spent over 10 years in the role. My job has made me very familiar with public speaking, albeit within a military framework.

With that in mind, while I am adept at picking up jargon pretty fast, I am not familiar with the colloquialisms/slang of this organization quite yet. So I would ask that you keep that in mind.

I expect all arguments to remain professional and respectful. You may speak at what pace works best for you, as long as you are speaking clearly and concisely. I am used to listening to my audiobooks/podcasts/videos at 2-2.5x speed, so I don't expect speed to be an issue unless what you are saying is said poorly enunciated. Please do not test how much you can say in one breathe though.

I don't care if you sit, stand, or talk with your hands.

If the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision at the end of the round after I have submitted my ballot.

I’m Jack (he/him), a 4th year pfer at Durham Academy (class of '24)

General Stuff:

My email is 24vail@da.org for email chains or questions.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misgender anyone, etc. It’s an L and minimum speaks for anyone who is discriminatory.

If we’re in round early feel free to talk/ask questions. Same with postrounding, I’ll always answer questions about my decision (time permitting) but the ballot won’t get changed.

Speed <250wpm is probably fine but if you plan to go that fast send a speech doc. I will not flow off a doc so I have to be able to understand you. The more I can clearly hear and process what you're saying the more likely I am to vote on it. I will clear you.

Time yourself and your opponents for prep and speeches, I usually do too but might forget.

Substance:

I'll vote on any topical argument, but that doesn’t mean you can’t warrant (the less true the argument, the lower my threshold for a response).

Extend the whole argument (with warranting) for me to vote on it in both backhalf speeches. This is non-negotiable. I don’t usually flow evidence names so explain what your evidence says in the extension.

You should collapse by summary, please don’t make all our lives difficult by going for all your case arguments and four turns, just pick a few things you’re winning and win them.

When I vote I look to weighing first and then whoever best links, so do good weighing and meta-weigh (tell me why your weighing is better than theirs). I will not vote for an argument with 0 risk just because you win weighing however.

I listen to cross but bring up important points in your next speech. Let your opponents speak and don’t lie.

Evidence:

I won't vote on misconstrued evidence that is either called out or that I read myself (note: misconstrued evidence is different from bad evidence).

If something violates NSDA evidence rules I’d rather you challenge it than read an IVI or shell about it.

Please be able to share evidence quickly, it's really annoying to sit around and wait for someone to find/send a single piece of evidence. Similarly, please only ask for evidence you need and don't call for excessive evidence to get extra prep or throw off your opponents. It makes it easier to just send docs before speeches but I don't require that.

If evidence is important to my decision I’ll call for it, otherwise I probably won’t unless you tell me to.

Theory/Ks:

I’m definitely not the best judge for these rounds, I have some experience with both but not a lot and am not particularly familiar with critical literature. I can flow these arguments but will make no guarantees about my ability to evaluate them correctly, so if you go for them make sure to explain everything really well and slow down. The more complex, the slower and more explained everything should be.

If you don't understand the argument/can't make me and your opponents understand it by final focus, I won't vote for it. If you're reading a K I expect you to understand your literature/arguments very well and you should be able to convey that understanding to myself and your opponents.

You should have really good norms if you read theory.

Interps should be read in the next speech after the violation.

For theory I have no strong preference for yes/no rvis or counterinterps/reasonability. I default text over spirit and that will be hard to change.

I don't have a strict rule about when to/not to read these arguments, but I don't think anyone gets anything out of a round where a newer team is just shelled with progressive arguments and will be receptive to arguments about that.

I won't vote for tricks or theory I think is frivolous.

Speaks:

My speaks will probably be higher than other judges. I reward good debating (strategy, partner cohesion, etc.) and don’t particularly care about presentation (sitting vs. standing, eye contact, fluency, etc).

I like humor and won’t tolerate rudeness towards your partner or your opponents.

Random Thoughts:

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline what you plan to collapse on and turns, anything not covered is conceded.

Defense isn't sticky, you have to extend everything you want in your final through summary.

There shouldn’t be anything new in final focus.

I will not evaluate any arguments made in round from AI.

I would rather start early.

If you use a beeping timer hold yourself to the same standard as your opponents and let it beep at the end of your speeches as well.

Experience:

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

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

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

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm currently in my fourth year of PF at cary, email for chains is ella_zhang@caryacademy.org.

Tech>truth run whatever you want

Responsiveness: go line-by-line and interact with your opponent's arguments. second rebuttal answers first rebuttal. signpost please!

Weighing: give me all the voters and tell me why you win. terminalize your impacts!! comparative weighing is super important. the earlier it's done, the better.

Extensions: extend links and impacts into summary and final focus. please please collapse in summary. if you are going for a turn implicate and weigh it.

Evidence: paraphrasing is fine, but send cut cards if evidence is called. do not spend 10 minutes finding evidence.

Progressive debate: i can vote off of any prog except for tricks cause i don't get them. i've run k's (fem killjoy, yellow fever, fem IR.), theory (para, disclo, friv), ivi's, and other non-T args, so i probs can evaluate it. "idk how to respond" is not a valid response in a varsity tournament. i'm unlikely to vote for TW theory and i like identity k's but have a pretty high threshold for how they should be run.

Speed is fine but send speech docs if you're gonna spread.