I don't care what you wear in round or how you adress me

Did Nat circuit LD/PF for five years read whatever you want (pomo/Ks/policy/phil/theory/tricks)

Email: maryabikaram@gmail.com

^^^for bad spreading and post-round feedback

Hello! My name is Stuart Blessing, and I am the head coach for the Cary High Speech and Debate Program. Although this is my first year coaching and I am new to the NSDA circuit, I have been teaching speech and elements of debate for over a decade. My background in education, coupled with my fresh perspective on coaching, shapes my approach to judging.

Philosophy
My judging philosophy can best be described as "Pragmatic Evidentialism." At the heart of my evaluation is the effectiveness of argumentation. I prioritize debaters who can robustly defend their points. I try to employ a non-biased stance and assume the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the topic. Clarity, coherence, and the ability to argue convincingly are paramount.

Argumentation Style
I have a strong preference for evidence-based argumentation that weaves together into a compelling narrative. Arguments should not stand in isolation but should interlock to form a cohesive whole that supports or opposes the resolution convincingly.

Accessibility
Please note, I am partially deaf, which makes it challenging for me to follow rapid speech ("spreading"). I value clarity and the quality of arguments over sheer quantity. A clear, well-articulated argument will always stand out to me.

Decision Criteria
My ballot reflects who has constructed the most comprehensive and persuasive argument throughout the round. The rebuttal phase is crucial in my decision-making process. Effective rebuttals should not only counter opponents' arguments but also crystallize the debater's stance, demonstrating why their position is more valid.

Concessions and Attack Strategy
I respect debaters who can tactfully concede certain points to strengthen their overall position while adeptly highlighting the flaws in their opponent's arguments. Attacking the premise of the opponent's argument and justifying your victory is a skill I highly value.

Feedback
I believe in providing constructive oral feedback at the end of each round to explain my decision. Further detailed critiques will be available in Tabroom, focusing on observed weaknesses in argumentation rather than hypothetical alternatives.

Roadmapping
Given my hearing impairment, roadmapping your arguments is incredibly helpful for me to follow along. This practice not only aids in accessibility but also ensures that your arguments are received and understood as intended.

Conclusion
I am passionate about debates that are rooted in solid evidence and present a clear, complete picture of the issue at hand. Whether arguing in the affirmative or the negative, the key is to construct a narrative that compellingly justifies your stance.

I look forward to engaging rounds that challenge us to think critically and argue effectively. Let's make this a learning experience for us all!

I am a lay judge and have not debated, though I have a basic understanding of PF concepts and how the rounds work. I have a business degree and have worked with public presentations.

Please time your own speeches and prep time. I will try to keep track, but I appreciate you doing it for me. I appreciate some level of moderate pacing of speeches as well.

Thank you

Hi! I'm Fiona!

Add me on the email chain: xfionaxhux@gmail.com

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

I need you to implicate your assertions --- PLEASE I BEG OF YOU!!!!

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

Ks

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

Hi, my name is Aamer Husain. I graduated last year from Durham Academy and have participated in Public Forum, Extemp, and Informative Speaking.

For Extemp, I value highest a clear and logical argument that utilizes signposting and a variety of sources and analysis. However, it is also very important that you engage me as the audience with delivery, but I will not be impelled to rank you high if I don't buy your argument.

For debate:

no progressive debate - strike me if u plan on doing this.

I don't flow crossfire so anything you want me to flow should come up during speeches.

Here are a few things I like:

1. Warranting and Responsiveness: If you just read cards don't expect to win my ballot. Give me some sort of analysis and warranting behind your arguments. I like clash in round. Make sure that the responses you make are specifically responsive to case. One again, don't just read cards, give me how those cards specifically take out their argument. Also, if I believe your evidence is miscut or you fail to provide sufficient evidence in a card that is central to the argument in question, that argument will not be flowed.

Lastly, in the later speeches, it is not helpful for me if you just say "they concede the turn, or don't acknowledge a delink, etc." If the point is crucial, make sure to reiterate/reexplain the actual turn, delink, disadd, etc. in ur later speeches so I can better understand it in terms of the entire debate.

2. Signposting: Please signpost it helps me flow and gives structure to your speeches.

3. Comparative Analysis: I see that in a lot of rounds two people will have cards saying the opposite things. At that point you need to prove to me why your card is better (warranting, postdating, etc) otherwise you leave it to a 50/50 where I have to decide which card is better.

4. Extensions: Your final focus should just bring up the same topics and cards as summary. New arguments in final focus will not be flowed. If you drop an argument in summary, you concede that argument no matter how bad their argument is.

5. Weighing: Make sure to weigh impacts and links at least in final focus. It is the main way you are going to win my ballot.

6. Be Respectful: There is a difference between being assertive and rude. If you are being disrespectful in any way I will drop you and give you very low speaks. Make sure to have respect for your opponents.

7. Speed: I am good with speed, but not too fast or spreading (200ish words/min is a good benchmark)

-Adapted from Aryan Nair cuz I’m too lazy to write my own

Tech after lunch

add me to the email chain: ayanjung@gmail.com

I am a lay and relatively inexperienced judge. I will listen closely to your arguments and keep my opinion on the resolution out of the debate.

Please refrain from speaking fast or spreading or using any complicated jargon. Keep the volume up and speed low. If you don't see me taking notes, you're probably going too fast.

Signposting is really helpful - "Moving to my second contention, my opponent says, but we contend..."

Please impact your arguments and weigh. I want to do as little mental processing myself as I can, so spell everything out for me. If neither team weighs, I have to weigh the arguments myself, and you might not like the outcome.

Please do not run any progressive argumentation (theory, Ks, etc). I will not be able to follow it.

Please absolutely no discrimination or rude behavior of any kind. That will result in automatic speaker points drops and a loss.

Lastly have fun, as an amateur judge, I will try my best to adjust to your style of debate and learn from you!

General

I am relatively new to this, my first year and I’ve participated in 3 tournaments

• Please speak clearly and try to maintain eye contact as best as you can
• Be respectful and polite. Try to remember that cross is not for arguing but rather to further understand each other's positions
• remember to have fun and stay positive

- my background is in real estate and commercial development

- I DO NOT TOLERATE RUDENESS/RACISM/SEXISM

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

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

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

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

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

Hello! I am a parent judge and this will be my fifth time judging PF debates. I prefer a presentation style with clear and concise arguments and counter arguments that focus on content quality over quantity (speak at a normal pace and be deliberate).

I do my best to use a flow framework and will reference it to assist in determining the winner. My scoring includes confirming that main points are countered the other team. A summary in closing is value added, let me know if your opponent missed an argument and affirm that you have successfully countered.

It is important to be respectful to everyone in the room including your opponent, partner & judge.

Above all have fun!

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.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

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.