(a) Paradigm: (aneeladvani@gmail.com)

total points for each speaker/debater: /30

logos (strength of argument, evidence): /10

taxis (clarity, structure, rebuttals): /10

lexis (style, speaking, smoothness, interactions, emotional impact): /10

(b) Specific comments:

• I prefer clearly understandable speed of delivery; if you are spreading rapidly please send me your cases so I can follow along.
• Please speak up so I can hear you

I am a former high school policy debater who judged a few tournaments after I graduated and got back into judging again this year. I don't mind speed and will flow all speeches. I do appreciate sign posting and numbering arguments. I will award the round to the team whose winning arguments have the greatest impact (based on the evidence and analysis they presented). For arguments that are contested, I'll decide who won based on the evidence and analysis that each team presents. Arguments that aren't contested are awarded to the presenting team as long as they are carried through rebuttals. I value the creativity/thoroughness of a speaker's arguments more than speaking style.

I have 35 years of public forum, policy, and LD debate experience as a participant in high school and college and coaching at the college and high school level. My judging paradigm leans towards a stringent emphasis on logical coherence, depth, and respectful communication. My approach encourages debaters to prioritize quality over quantity and engage effectively with their opponents' arguments. Generally, I am not a fan of debate theory arguments. I also believe debate is an oral activity, so no need to exchange evidence and cases before the round.

Key Principles:

1. Note-Based Judging:

• Objective Evaluation: My evaluations are based solely on the flow/notes taken during the round, ensuring impartiality.
• No Knowledge Injection: I refrain from interjecting my own knowledge or opinions into the debate, maintaining a neutral stance.

2. Engagement and Clash:

• Direct Engagement: Debaters must address and refute opponents' arguments directly.
• Effective Clash: Construct your rebuttals with a clear and direct clash, ensuring that counter-arguments are tailored to challenge the initial claims.

3. Well-Developed Arguments:

• Depth Over Width: I prioritize one to three deeply developed, logical, and well-warranted arguments over numerous superficial points.
• Valid Warrants: Your arguments should be underpinned by credible, well-explained warrants.
• Impactful Arguments: Clearly articulate the real-world implications of your arguments to demonstrate their significance.

4. Category-Relevance:

• Format-Appropriate Arguments: Ensure your arguments, including critical frameworks like Kritiks, align with the debate format (e.g., Policy, Public Forum). I am not a proponent of non-topical arguments.
• Maintaining Relevance: Steer clear of diversions and ensure that your arguments are pertinent to the topic and category of debate.

5. Humanistic and Respectful Communication:

• Respect: Maintain a respectful demeanor towards all participants, including opponents and judges.
• Clarity and Pace: Be mindful of your speaking speed to ensure your arguments are fully understood and noted.
• Avoid Excessive Jargon: Use accessible language to explain any technical terms or jargon.

Additional Notes:

A. Quality of Evidence:

• Credibility: Only utilize credible, verified sources and evidence in your arguments.
• Application: Apply your evidence accurately and ensure it directly supports your claims.

B. Strategic Argumentation:

• Consistency: Maintain consistent argumentation throughout the debate, avoiding contradictory claims.
• Strategic Choices: Make tactical decisions regarding which arguments to pursue further based on their strength and impact.

C. Constructive Criticisms and RFD (Reason For Decision):

• Feedback: My feedback will be constructive, aiming to highlight areas for improvement alongside positive aspects.
• RFD Transparency: My decisions will be accompanied by clear, coherent reasons rooted in the arguments presented during the debate.

D. Timing

• Requesting Evidence: Debate is an oral activity. I do not need to see the evidence or cases. We should be able to look up sources. If you request cards, the requestor will have this time deducted from prep unless tournament rules prohibit this. I see this often abused during rounds to gain more prep time, and I am not a fan of this practice.
• Roadmaps: If you provide these, they will be timed. I do not need them and will follow where you go.

Conclusion:

Debaters are encouraged to view the debate not merely as a competitive arena but as a platform for developing and refining skills pertinent to effective leadership and communication. Focusing on depth, clarity, and respectful interaction, my judging paradigm fosters a conducive environment for meaningful, impactful debates beyond mere point-scoring.

Reminder:

While it's pivotal to be strategic and competitive, remember that the skills you hone here – articulation, critical thinking, and respectful discourse – are the real victories, equipping you for constructive engagement beyond the debate floor.

I look forward to witnessing thought-provoking, well-argued, and respectfully conducted debates!

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

***IMPORTANT***LD is not policy, so don't act like it is. Framework comes first and arguments only matter if they are impacted out under the framework. I will not vote on anything that's not clearly tied to the framework.

I participated in LD throughout Middle and High School and am now a coach, so I have a good amount of experience with all traditional rounds. I'm comfortable with any speed as long as it's coherent. Evidence is important, but I greatly prefer reasoning and thoughtful explanations to card-reading in rebuttals. Please feel free to email me at sedabu01@gmail.com with any questions regarding the round, I’m happy to give more thorough feedback.

I've been judging debate (both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas) for about two years now. I was not a debater myself, but my degree is in philosophy, which means I have a strong educational background in rational argumentation. The following list is what I consider during a round, ranked from most to least important.

• I place a high value on structure and clarity. This means a few things. First, I should never be confused about what your contentions are - tell me explicitly what they are. Next, each of your contentions should fit clearly into the overall argument you're making. Each contention needs to tell me what your point is, why I should believe it's true, and how it supports your position. When responding to your opponents, tell me clearly which contention of theirs you are responding to, what your response is, and why your rebuttal weakens their argument as a whole.

• I do not value speaking style very highly, which means if you're nervous or misspeak, that's ok! I won't dock you points for it. That being said, if you speak so quickly that I struggle to understand you, that will cost you. I can't give you credit for an argument I can't understand. Speed is fine as long as you're not sacrificing clarity.

• It's always good to know the rules of the event, but catching your opponent on a technicality (such as introducing a new argument after constructive speeches are over) does not impress me. You should be able to win on the merits of your arguments; if your opponent does something unfair, I will weigh that appropriately.

• Speaking with passion is great, but remember to keep it respectful. You're attacking your opponent's arguments, not your opponent.

• I allow off-time roadmaps, but please keep it brief.

For LD specifically:

• This is a philosophical debate, which students often interpret as necessitating fancy philosophical terminology. I promise that it doesn’t. It is far more important to me that you understand what you’re saying rather than use a piece of vocabulary you don’t really understand.

PUBLIC FORUM: Tabula Rasa ; Policy Maker ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; plans are okay ; Ks are okay, if ran and explained well

POLICY DEBATE: Policy Maker ; Stock Judge ; Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; I'm okay with running Ks, as long as they are well explained and topical

LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Tabula Rasa ; No spreading ; I like voters and an impact calculus at the end of the round ; well-organized cases and speeches are important

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

TFA STATE:

PUBLIC FORM: I'm a Tabula Rasa judge on the surface and a classic debate judge in my core. Progressive debate is okay with me. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. I expect each round to be educational. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues , and my own expertise / knowledge.

I value quality over quantity of evidence -- relevancy (topical) , source , unique , legit

I expect teams to adhere to the resolution. Meaning, arguments MUST be balanced -- you choose how to balance them -- these balanced arguments will be your VOTERS

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own.

Carry all arguments throughout the round.

Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

UIL CX STATE:

I am a policy maker judge who cherishes stock issues and will enter the round willing to flow anything. No spreading. I like debate rounds that have plenty of clash , weighed arguments , excellent speeches , and good sportsmanship. Frameworks and observations are key to the lens of the debate. I expect each round to be educational. SHOW me how / why you’re winning. My ballot will reflect the round's voting issues and my own expertise / knowledge.

PHILSOPHY:

SNAPSHOT: Firstly, I am a Policy Maker ; Secondly, a Stock Judge ; Lastly, a Tabula Rasa mindset

I need Voters and an Impact Calculus

K’s must be explained well, topical, educational, and link

My ballot weighs: magnitude ; probability ; reasonability ; overall solvency ; advantages and disadvantages ; impacts

AFF: I will pay close attention to how you frame your plan text, especially stock issues. If I do not completely understand your PLAN by the end of the 1AC, it will be hard for me to flow you. PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR YOUR SOLVENCY! USE FIAT WISELY.

NEG: I will flow any argument you run against the AFF. Have an even balance of OFF and ON CASE arguments. ALL ARGUMENTS MUST LINK TO THE AFF’s PLAN. Split the NEG block. Be advised: I’m a policy maker who heavily considers stock issues. T’s & K’s must show EVIDENT violations and be educational. I will assume there is nothing wrong with AFF’s SOLVENCY if there aren’t any DAs. I prefer UNIQUE CPs that cannot be PERMED.

BOTH: WATCH OUT FOR DROPS! – use caution when intentionally dropping an argument, even if it’s your own. Carry all arguments throughout the round. Arguments must be weighed based off their impacts , probability , and timeline – this will used to evaluate them as voters.

STYLE & DELIVERY:

ALL SPEECHES MUST BE CLEAR AND WELL ARTICULATED. Bonus points for tapping into annunciation and pathos.

PRIORITZE TAGLINES—this makes flowing easier. It also keeps your arguments, cards, and evidence organized on my flow—you’ll get a better ballot from me.

NO SPREADING

USE YOUR PREP TIME efficiently

UTILIZE SPEAKING TIME WISELY

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

I'm a Parent Judge and I'm new to this. Please speak slowly and clearly. Use evidence and logic to support your arguments.
Enjoy and have fun!

Spreading makes for an ineffectual argument. Off-time road maps are welcome. You may time yourself, but judge timer is official. I look for clear, logical, arguments that address the opponent's arguments effectively.

Hello! Some quick things about my judging style. I am a flow judge, I will vote on what I see in the round and what the flow is. Weighing is your friend, if I don't see you weigh your odds are already lowered. Highlight your impacts and links for me, I shouldn't have to try to find those in your case. I am not a fan of tech debate so please no prog or spreading, ultimately you should be using layman's terms. I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. If you don't address your opponent's contentions, I will consider them to still be valid, so be clear in your speeches. I debated in college and my daughter does Varsity PF debate so I do have some experience in the field. If you could please state your name, pronouns, and speaker order before the round begins it would be appreciated. And finally, be respectful at all times towards your opponents, good luck!

Please add me to the round's email chain (if any) at ohm [dot] j [dot] gore [at] gmail [dot] com.

Background:
I am a former high school debate and speech competitor (mostly Policy Debate, with stints in Public Forum Debate, Student Congress, and International Extemporaneous Speaking) and have judged/coached high school debate for 15+ years. As a competitor, judge, and coach, I have participated mostly in local circuit tournaments in Indiana; Virginia; and Washington, DC. Outside the local area, I have judged at NSDA's (formerly NFL's) and NCFL's national tournaments and a few TOC bid tournaments. I'm familiar with Policy Debate lingo and conventions.

Speed:
I am VERY against speed reading in rounds (both for affirmative and negative teams). I much prefer that teams lay out fewer arguments and clearly articulate them. I will flow spread to the best of my ability, but won’t consider an argument/piece of evidence if I couldn’t understand it or document it within my flow. I will also not vote on an argument that I could not understand/flow, even if the other team drops or undercovers it.

Note: If you are concerned about which content to remove from your 1AC/blocks in order to make it through your arguments at a slower speaking speed, I recommend removing extinction-level impact cards (see below under "Arguments").

Arguments:
I am open to almost all arguments (excluding arguments that demean your opponents/others). I will vote on Topicality, problems with fiat, stock issues, on-case arguments, off-case arguments, generic Disadvantages, Kritiks, reverse voting issues, etc. Admittedly, I am skeptical of extinction-level impact cards (I'd be reluctant to vote for a team if that team's only standing argument was that the other side's advocacy would result in nuclear war). If you choose to run an extinction scenario, you will need to significantly back up your arguments.

I have no inherent objection to conditional negative arguments/multiple worlds/double binds. I will listen to theory, though, on why I should reject those if the affirmative team wants to present that (I recommend focusing on the content of the negative team's arguments, though).

In terms of in-round activity, I want each debater to respond directly to the opposing side's arguments, as well as weigh arguments/let me know why I should vote for the affirmative or negative side. I highly prefer roadmaps as well as signposting (e.g., letting me know exactly which affirmative/negative argument a debater is responding to before reading the relevant cards) within speeches When responding to or extending arguments, note that I find it difficult to follow along when debaters reference cards only by author and date, e.g., "the Smith '15 card." I prefer debaters briefly restate the argument that the author made instead of only stating the author's name, e.g., "As Smith '15 notes in our 1AC Solvency, ...."

Note: I have limited experience with Kritiks. If you choose to run one, you’ll need to explain the Kritik's thesis before you get into the cards (unless the Kritik is made crystal clear by its taglines). You will also need to explain how the alternative can be achieved and why I should view the round using your preferred lens.

I have even less experience judging performative/demand advocacy arguments. If you want to run a performative or similar case, you’ll need to outline the intended action/outcome of your advocacy and how it differs materially from relying on fiat of the US federal government.

I’ve been in situations as a competitor where I had no case-specific arguments against an affirmative case and had to rely on generic arguments. I'm open to generic arguments, including logical arguments that don’t necessarily have cards behind them (e.g., the Plan has a technical loophole that undermines its Solvency). If you use generic arguments, you must make the arguments as applicable as possible to the affirmative case. (For example, I am skeptical of “every use of the state is bad” arguments, but I will listen to "domestic fiscal redistribution is generally popular/unpopular politically, allowing for passage of a harmful agenda item/stymieing an important agenda item." As a corollary, I will be receptive to an affirmative team countering with no-link arguments due to some specifics of their Plan.)

Time:
As a judge, I keep a virtual timer for all competitors’ constructives, cross-examinations, and rebuttals as well as both teams’ prep time. (I will also have a timer for technology time, e.g., emailing or uploading speeches for opponents to view, based on tournament rules.) Once you and your partner stop prep time, please send your speech/cards to your opponents and judges (if needed) and begin speaking as quickly as possible. Please account for time needed to arrange your evidence for a speech, take a sip of water, etc. during your preparation time.

• Don't spread! This is PF, not policy or LD, and therefore designed to be comprehensible to the lay judge. In other words, there is no room here for incomprehensibly spitting out words.
• I expect debaters to provide clear warrants and rebuttals. Complete the thought, finish your own arguments, and don't assume that I'll fill in the blanks for you. I also expect debaters to live in the world of reality re impacts - if you are claiming impacts in the billions, you should think carefully about that.
• All reasoning and no evidence is not a winning approach.
• I don't think you should bother with framework unless it is actually woven into your argument in a meaningful way.
• I expect you to use the crossfires to provide clash, not gather merely information. You are not obligated to trade questions back and forth nor should you necessarily accept an opponent's answer without follow-up.
• I'm looking for structure and strongly encourage sign posting.
• I've been coaching and judging for nearly a decade; don't worry - I know the rules.

I competed in policy debate in high school and for a short time in college. I am an experienced coach in policy, LD, and congressional debate. I have also coached PF and speech in the past. This year is my 12th year of coaching and my 5th year as a head coach. I have been judging off and on since I graduated from high school many, many moons ago and consistently for the past 10 years.

Because I am a former policy debater and current coach, I am able to follow spreading, however, if I cannot understand you because you are not enunciating I will simply stop flowing. Please adjust your speaking accordingly. Having said that, if you are an LD, PF, or congressional debater, I expect that you will adhere to the norms of your debate event and refrain from any egregious spreading.

I keep a complete flow of the round, but also expect you to make connections between arguments for me, not expect me to search for clash after the round is over.

While delivery and speaking skills are important, the round will come down to your argumentation skills. I appreciate off time road maps that give me a chance to organize my flow before a speech. I also prefer debates with sign posting as it makes it easier to find arguments on the flow as a speech progresses.

I am tabula rasa judge, so I am judging the round based only on what is argued in the round. I expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on using impact calc, weighing, and direct clash. I will vote on counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks as well as a good theory argument, but you have to make a solid case for why I should vote for you over the other team.

Most importantly, I have high expectations for debaters’ in-round conduct. This is a competitive event, but I expect everyone in the room to treat all others with the utmost respect and comport themselves with decorum at all times.

Hi! My name is Austin Jung, but most call me AJ. I did both public forum and congress in high school as well as participating in the Washington Society (a literary society) at UVa. I strive to be an equitable/impartial judge and give thorough, specific feedback. I can be reached at the email:

aj5at@virginia.edu

Have a nice day!

Congress:

• you have to speak well and have good arguments, dear god. If you just talk loud and have good power lines, that won't equal a good rank from me.
• make sure you impact out.
• good sources.
• Please clash. If you're not the sponsor, you have to have refs. I appreciate a good crystal.
• It's nice when your questioning leads into your speech if you speak later in round.
• Don't be a bigot.

LD & PF:

My experience is in Congress. I will notice the way you speak. Impacts matter to me a lot. Your stats don’t mean anything unless you can explain why they matter.

- eye contact. Reading off your laptop. You’re less persuasive.

Please do not hinge your entire argument on technicalities. That’s a pointless debate in my opinion. You should engage with the topic on principle.

- stay respectful. Don’t make demeaning or patronizing comments to your opponents.

- don’t spend too much time exchanging cards!

Policy:

• sometimes you have to read out your cards or reference them based on what the argument is, if you constantly just say the Smith card says this! I'm going to be like what was that card.
• If you make a point, please explain the logic behind the point instead of just saying the this card supports it.
• Be clear. If you are spreading, make sure you enunciate. I will shout clear!
• if you say something, you need a warrant to support it. Strong link chains are important as well, especially if you're taking an issue like IP all the way to nuclear war or extinction.
• I know this isn't a speaking event but I am from a sort of speaking event, so I will notice your random filler words or stumbles. Be mindful.
• Don't be sexist. Or a bigot in general.

I look for a clear argument with real, meaningful evidence. More evidence is not better evidence. Talking fast means does not give debaters a victory. If I can't understand what you said because you are talking too fast, then essentially, you didn't say it.

Hi, I'm Ms. Kudukoli. I work in the IT Industry. I have been a parent/lay judge for 4 years now. Here are a few things that I expect during the rounds.

• I prefer that the debaters clearly state their value, criterion, and contentions.

• I try to follow rules whenever applicable, for example if debaters forget to mention a contention in their rebuttal, I will consider the argument to be dropped and it should not be brought up in the following rebuttals.

• I expect debaters to respect each other.

• My preference for the speech delivery is to be clear and moderate level speed.

• As a parent judge, I am most convinced by a good balance of value clash and contention debate. I am not well-versed in Progressive LD so please keep such topics to a minimum.

• Post round if I have any conversations, it will be casual and will not talk about the debate topic or encourage any talks to influence my decision

Overall, I have loved my judging experience so far and expect to see young debaters with a positive attitude and energy in the round. Good luck!

• Revathi

I have a background in PF and Policy and 11 years of coaching experience. I vote based on the flow and won't make any arguments for you (i.e. expect you to extend consistently if you want me to consider something when voting, point out dropped args. and why they matter, etc.).

-If you have a question/want to call for evidence, ask before prep starts, not in the middle to steal 20 seconds.

-If you're going to give an off-time roadmap, it should be specific. "I'm going to go down their case, and then expand on my own if time permits" is completely unnecessary and doesn't tell me anything.

-Summary and final focus should actually be responsive to the arguments made during the round, rather than reading something you've prewritten. Focus on demonstrating your understanding of the topic/your link story and handle to root causes and warrants of arguments in your analysis.

If you're setting up an evidence doc, my email is kelseymmcglynn@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain--feel free to email regarding decisions or any random debate questions or thoughts--I love talking about debate because I'm a nerd and this is my life.

Please add this email to the chain and send any questions here: Jack.A.Seraph@gmail.com

I am a third year George Mason University, a Varsity Debater. I've been a 2A and a 2N. Cleared at two nationals. Still debating. I go for framework and read a plan, but will vote for whatever(no seriously I'll vote for almost anything).

TL;DR: Spreading is literally preferred just don't gargle marbles. I'll vote on anything. Tech over truth. Framework vs. K affs is either way but maybe 55% neg on the question.

Spreading: Not only do I think spreading is fine, I think it's one of the best things to happen to debate. It's a very useful communicative and competitive tool. That being said, don't take this as a green light to be unintelligible. Yes I can flow a clear 450 wpm. NO I will not be able to flow 300 words per minute that sounds like you're brushing your teeth and gargling water.

Policy vs. K:

A few thoughts.

1. My understanding of K debate and respective critical theorization comes from the perspective of answering the K from a policy perspective. This means that what I look for in deciding these debates is assessing what each team needs to win in the context of the strategies that were deployed, and whether those arguments were won by each team.

2. Framework is the most important part of these debates hands down. Many judges usually say something like 'the aff gets the plan and the neg gets the K.' I take objection to this because usually neither team gives this as an option for me to resolve the debate. The logical conclusion to an aff team saying 'weigh the plan's consequences' and a neg team saying something like 'the 1AC is a narrative or scholarship etc.' being debated out nearly equally is not for me to contrive some sort of compromise. Also how can the aff team 'get the plan' and the neg 'get the K' it literally makes no sense and is totally amorphous. If the debate were about a DA vs. Case, I'd interpret risk and competing claims on a sliding scale, whether I should consider the plan's consequences MUST be a yes/no dichotomous choice though. Most important part. It's much harder for me to conclude that a nuclear war or extinction doesn't outweigh something about the status quo being messed up or some of their assumptions being problematic than otherwise. On the other hand, if the neg is killing the aff on framework, I'll vote on a non-unique reps link.

3. This is also about framework but it deserves its own number -- I think if the neg says 'the aff should defend their reps' or 'the aff is a research project' the aff should make an argument that if they win the plan is a good idea and their impacts outweigh, their research project is net beneficial so who cares about these link args that don't turn the case.

4. The neg should make args about how the links turn the case

5. The neg should criticize the aff's framing of extinction or big stick impacts very heavily. Make this plus framework basically most of your position.

6. I can be convinced of anything so long as it has a warrant. That means death can be good.

Framework vs. K affs:

1. I'll vote either way -- I know that debate is a game, therefore it makes sense that affirmative teams might say that it is not in order to win. This paradox does not make me always vote neg.

2. TVA and SSD can be very critical in mitigating aff offense. That being said, sometimes people are anti-topical and you just need to win that they should be topical and defend a topical plan.

3. Fairness is usually an impact either directly or residually. It's a better impact than 'we'll be advocates and save the world' because we all know that's kind of non-sense. Clash can be an impact that turns the case if the case tries to actually forward scholarship/do something.

4. Fairness should always be impact turned by the aff and I am amenable to voting for 'fairness is bad' or 'fairness impossible.'

5. Kritikal teams are usually correct that the negative's debating in framework debates is usually phenomenal on the link and internal link level, and atrocious on the impact level. Everyone keep this in mind.

6. I prefer affs that think debate is good and try to do something productive/forward scholarship/are close to the topic and try to mitigate neg offense. If an aff basically does nothing or is a sort of self-care argument, I will definitely be amenable to voting aff on those impact turns, but the neg's strategy then should just be a hardcore 'be topical, you're anti-topical, ballot does nothing, fairness good.' The aff should just impact turn fairness.

7. If you don't read any of the above or choose not to take my advice, you'll still be able to win just or close to just as easily.

T: Limits and Ground I'm good for both. 'You have ground' isn't a sufficient answer to 'limits DA.' Affs should have contextual ev to their interp obviously. Aff should impact turn the debates that the neg's interp would produce. Caselist important. Don't make caselist too big -- you might link to your own limits DA and that would be amusing yet unfortunate.

CPs: I'll usually judge kick unless the aff argues otherwise. The neg still needs to justify why I should judge kick if the aff gives me a reason I shouldn't. Love advantage CPs. Love PICs if they're actually testing something substantive. Agent CPs are meh -- really depends on who does the better debating on the competition portion of the debate. Textual vs. functional competition or both being necessary is a debate and you should debate it out. I can be convinced either way.

Condo: I typically am good for unlimited condo/negation theory. I think the neg still has to not blow off condo and can definitely vote aff given a great 2AR on it and bad neg debating on the question. 2AC skew is the best argument. Contradictions isn't a great arg 99% of the time because either the neg has double turned themselves, or they're just testing different portions of the aff.

Other theory: Reject the argument not the team answers every other theory arg if you don't plan on going for the counterplan/position.

Style: I love aggression and sass in debate--but be weary for that is a line that can be difficult to tow. Also don't be sassy or indignant if you're losing--that's just painful. Don't be overtly, or covertly for that matter, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Experience: I have coached PF and LD for 3 years.

Delivery: Quality is better than quantity. This is not a race. Judges need to be able to hear you and understand everything you are saying.

Note taking: Argument is primarily judged, however, I do a mix of flow, arguments, and technical thoughts/recommendations.

Persuasion: Those who properly and appropriately use their research and cards will receive higher scores. Your notes must back up your main points.

Conduct: Please be respectful. Do not attack the other team. Do not talk while the other team is giving their speeches.

2024 Paradigm

Experience: I debated and coached policy ranging from the middle school to collegiate levels from approximately 2003 to 2017. I've judged on and off since then. I also have some experience judging PF, Congress, LD, and some Speech events. I served as the Tidewater Debate League President from 2014-2015 and created the Virginia Debate and Speech Judging Facebook group. I have been out of the scene for a few years now at this point. Schools I was directly affiliated with/debated for/coached: Kemps Landing Middle School, Princess Anne High School, Harrisonburg High School, James Madison University.

Preferences: I probably can't flow or comprehend varsity policy collegiate-level spreading as well as I used to, but hope to re-build this tolerance. The same probably goes for technical terminology, especially if it's newer (within the past 5 years).

Note-Taking: Due to my training, my default setting is "flow everything." I could be convinced otherwise.

Argument/Style: Like note-taking, I have preconceived notions of what's important; however, I am amenable to being told what should be important.

Conduct: As I refamiliarize myself with the scene, I will be open and observant to how customs and practices have evolved in my absence.

TL;DR I have experience judging/competing/coaching and am open to many different arguments and styles; however, I've been out of the scene for a few years.

For Public Forum Debaters: Please give me impacts to weigh, even if only in your Final Focuses. I find myself having to make value judgments about how things should weigh against each other after most pofo rounds and you don't want me having to do that.

Email is mgveland@gmail.com

-Lay judge

-No Ks or theory

-No spreading, please don't speak too fast

-Please make your logic clear, provide evidence and reasoning to back up a claim

-Please treat each other with respect

Have fun!

Please focus on speed of speaking so I am not struggling to keep up with your arguments. It will help you relax as well! Remember, clarity is as important as the content you prepared.

Make optimal use of your prep time and do your best to make full use of your allocated time.

Good luck and enjoy!

Hi,

I am Veena Yendapalli, a computer engineer working in IT field for several years. I am a parent judge with experience in judging debates including Princeton LD and several other tournaments .

Email : vyendapalli@gmail.com

Good Luck to all the debaters!!

I will prioritize clarity. Please signpost and slow down in your speeches.

Things I’ll be looking for in the round:

1. Collapse and Weight!
   
   

1. Not all of your arguments should be extended to the final speeches, choose the best argument to go for. Tell me why your argument comparatively is better than your opponents and why your impact matters more. I will prioritize the teams who weigh.
   
   

2. Warrant: evidence reasoning.
   
   

1. Evidence of so and so saying your argument is true is not warranting, please explain it through why it is true with analytics.
   
   

3. Have fun
   
   

1. Debate is a game, enjoy each round and play your strategies to win!