Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Columbia specific: I have basic background information on section 230 but avoid topic-specific abbreviations/jargon without clarification

lay judge (paradigm was written by someone else)
no spreading; speed is okay
collapse & write my ballot for me
truth > tech
avoid debate jargon

Hi! My name is Aditi and I will be your judge today:

Just a basic summary of what I like vs. dislike in a round

Tech>Truth= My personal opinions are completely compromised in a round. I will not vote for someone because I have a personal opinion that agrees with the points made by their team. Instead, I will vote for a team, if they were able to effectively defend their points while attacking their opponent's: meaning I am looking for weighing and strong arguments. I will use personal judgement to look for/detect false/weak arguments, but if your opponent fails to understand flaws in your argument then I will not hold it against you.

Spreading is fine, I don't really care but just be mindful. Don't compromise clarity for speed and send over speech docs if need be.

Please don't forfeit time in your case/rebuttal. Nothing gets on my nerves more than a debater who forfeits time during a constructive. Not speaking that whole time makes you seem unprepared. If you run out of content before time runs out in the rebuttal, you've probably lost the round. Just kidding, but please make sure that you are flowing and blocking out arguments so that you are prepared to speak for that time.

Flow, don't drop arguments, and keep them organized in chronological order. Ex. your case should go my contention: C1, C2, C3; rebuttal should go: opponent contentions: C1, C2, C3; my contentions C1, C2, C3; and so on.

I also prefer old fashioned debate round structures vs. progressive debates:

Please don't run Ks, they are a waste of time and aren't really substansial. You can run them if you see a benefit in your argument, but unless it's really solid, your K will likely not sway me to vote for your side at all.

That being said, I really like frameworks. A good framework that properly ties into your case is something that could win you a round. Personally, l love frameworks; it not only gives judges an idea of what key words to look for in your case but also is a really convincing front that makes your case a lot more solid.

Running Theory, PICs and other nontraditional arguments are not reccomended, I'm not really educated on running theory so please don't. You'll just confuse me.

I WILL MOST LIKELY GIVE THE ROUND TO THE PERSON WITH THE STRONGEST LINK CHAIN:If your case is too hard to follow, I likely won't vote for you. This also is the same for running progressive debate arguments.

For novice debaters:

Just have fun, I give out ballots to the team who is using their alloted time completely and enjoying themselves.

Although for novice rounds, they are a bit less Tech> Truth and more Tech=Truth

That's all from me; Good luck with this round and all future rounds!

Hey yall,

Add me to the chain: Kyrabergerud@gmail.com

I did Policy debate at Edina High School for 3 years reading mostly critical arguments on both sides. I love nuanced debates and I'm fine with anything you want to read.

Topicality: I like a good T debate. I will say that I have pretty much no topic knowledge, so you should flesh out violations and the limits of the topic more. I prefer education and exportability impacts rather than things like fairness.

DAs: I like DAs when they tell a nuanced story and debaters get into the gritty analysis of evidence presented. I don't need a counterplan to vote on a DA, but I won't judge-kick it for you.

CPs: fine, just make a clear distinction about why the aff and the CP can't exist in the same world. Affs: I prefer more offensive aff CP strategies like solvency take-outs.

Ks: I enjoy watching good K debates. On the neg, make sure you are fully articulating impacts, and why they matter more than the aff's fw. The link debate is important to me on both sides. If you read a hard right aff the framework and alt-takeout debate is probably a better place to spend your time than the perm.

K affs: Good with me. Neg: I enjoy a good framework debate - don't underestimate offense on case. Affs: explain your methods, explain what the world of the aff looks like, and why it matters.

Happy debating:)

(Side note - My judging record was deleted when I updated my paradigm last time - I've judged about 40 rounds in varsity policy and LD).

Hey!

I'm your chill judge. I evaluate anything.

Speed: As long as you're not going like 250+ per min I don't need a speech doc.

Tech>Truth.

I like to see evidence indictments but don't wanna spend the whole debate on this.

I like good frontlining and clash.

Debate is chill so have fun! I don't doc anybody for anything so speaker points are baseline high but if you are especially good that's a 29+.

mostly flow judge, debated 5+ years in national varsity pf

tech > truth

signpost

collapse + extend

weigh

don't spread unless ur cracked at it

no prog pleaseee

I don't flow cross

keep track of time yourself

add me to the email chain (ask for my email)

don't be racist/sexist/ableist/etc.

It is my first time judging on this topic!

Pronouns: She/Her | Debated Policy 4 years & Public Forum 3 years, Experience coaching @ NOVA Debate | NYU Stern '24

- I consider myself a flow judge and score speaker points starting from 28 and going up or down from there

- Please sign post!

Public Forum

- Fine with speed as long as it is clear but I recommend slowing down online and much prefer quality>quantity

- You do not need to extend defense in summary unless it's frontlined in rebuttal (sticky defense)

- Be civil in cross, I'll intervene if I think it has gone too far.

- I do not flow cross fire, if you want something from cross say it in speech

- No new arguments in final focus

- Calling Cards: I'm fine with it and if gets to be an important issue in the round tell me to call for it in a speech, please have evidence ready to send

- Theory/progressive arguments: I'll vote on it if relevant but I have a low threshold for responses

- Weighing: Start early in second rebuttal, continue throughout the debate, and comparative weighing

- Please collapse!!!

Policy

Aff:

- Add me on email chain: irenedo2002@gmail.com

- In debate I typically ran a policy or soft left aff. I know some K affs relatively well, but you need to be really clear since it has been a while.

- Performance: Fine with it! Just be clear!

Neg:

- I personally ran K's (Cap, Neolib, Setcol, Ableism, Fem, Queer Pessimism), Politics, DA, and sometimes theory

- If you want to run a K (not the ones above) I'll need a clear overview/explanation on it

- Politics: I'll vote on it, but make sure you're winning the link, I find that the faultiest in most politics debates

- DA (general): Fine

- CP: Fine with it, but the net benefit should be really clear

- Theory: I know most of the common theory arguments (T, Plan Flaw, Disclosure), if it's not one of those just make sure to be clear

In Round Details

- Keep track of your own prep

- Don't be rude - I will lower your speaker points

Extras

- Feel free to email me with any questions or for extra feedback: irenedo2002@gmail.com

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 28 - 30.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

Name: Tom Fones

School Affiliation: SPA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 33

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 6

If you are a coach, what events do you coach?

What is your current occupation? Retired Teacher and Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: Need to be understandable, prefer slower than most.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big Picture. Prefer collapse to major issues.

Role of the Final Focus- Show voting issues and weigh.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches- Need to extend arguments to impact them.

Topicality- If needed.

Plans Not explicit plans in PF.

Kritiks- Will listen

Flowing/note-taking- Of course flowing, but the content is important, so a drop is not fatal without significant impact.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Don’t require, but think it’s generally good strategy.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? No

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

I greatly appreciate civility and clear analysis of issues. There is no need for an off-time roadmap in PF.

What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must

Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!

Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.

Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.

Public Forum- Clarity is important, why your reasoning is most logical, impact/advantage magnitude, weighing

Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.

Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great

LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation

Hi!

Add me to the email chain: awemazinga@gmail.comand aagup27@icstudents.org (please add both to the email chain). I prefer speech docs to be sent before round since it makes evidence exchanges so much easier, but that's not something I will require of you.

Here are resources to get better at debate (mainly compiled by my coach).

Important stuff is bolded.

PF Paradigm:

I am a FLAY JUDGE, I have some experience on the national circuit and do well at locals.

I debated the February topic (single-use plastics) at one tournament so I have some background information,please explain abbreviations at least the first time you say them.I haven't debated the April topic at all so please avoid abbreviations or confusing topic language (obviously you can say things that are common knowledge like calling "United Nations" the UN).

For the Iowa City middle school tournament -- don't worry too much about the stuff in this paradigm. Just do what you do and you'll be fine :)

Tech > truth

If you tell me the moon is pink WITH WARRANTING then the moon is pink until it's responded to. However, I will feel better voting on an argument that makes sense rather than a blippy squirrely contention

Evidence Stuff:

Evidence exchanges should not take more than a minute or a few minutes MAX.Miscut evidence is an automatic loss.I'm not going to say that I'm anti-paraphrasing but I will say that if you do paraphrase at least be able to point out where in the article you got your information from. If I have to read an entire article I will be very unhappy and your opponents can probably convince me to strike the card of my flow fairly easily.

I do not listen to cross.

PLEASE WEIGH. Also, please do comparative, warranted weighing. I like frameworks but they need warrants and weighing.

I want you to write my ballot for me. The more you tell me what to do, the less I have to think about my decision and the less likely it is for me to intervene and make a mistake. If you don't tell me where to vote, I will vote off the least mitigated argument that is weighed the best on my flow. Absent weighing I look at the argument with the least defense.

Please SIGNPOST and give off time roadmaps because they help me flow the round. I will not extend offense/defense for you and I expect good extensions (reiterate the parts of your argument in a concise manner) in every speech for any argument you want me to vote on (barring rebuttals).

I love good analytics.

Good card + good warranting > good analytic w/o card > good card w/o warranting

Frontlines should be in second rebuttal. Collapsing is always a good idea. My pen goes down at 10 seconds over time and your speaks go down if you're over 15 seconds over time.

Please preflow and set up email chains BEFORE round if possible (I understand that tournaments can get delayed but try your best).

My wpm is 225 or less, if you go faster you should able to produce a speech doc for me to follow along with. The faster you go, the less I can flow. I prefer slower rounds over fast rounds. I am an emotive judge, you will see if I am confused (except if it's online because my camera can get blurry). I will yell clear if I do not understand you, and if you do not slow down/enunciate more then I will probably not have a very good flow and you will probably lose.

Please project your voice and enunciate. Funny rhetoric/Taylor Swift references are good for your speaks.

Progressive Debate (if you're competing at a potomac intramural you can ignore this):

I am not the ideal judge for a K/Theory round. I will try my best to evaluate any argument you present but your chances of getting screwed are pretty high if you decide to read any sort of prog. I feel somewhat confident in my ability to evaluate a disclosure/paraphrasing round, but that's about it. Spark, dedev, etc is fine with me but probably send a speech doc.

For LD, Policy, etc -- I am a lay judge.

If you ignore the things in this paradigm, don't be surprised when the round doesn't go your way.

To quote tabroom, "be mature, and good people"

My coach for the past two years has been Sophia Gustafson so if you want more info, check out her paradigm

I am totally cool with giving a verbal RFD and answering questions before/after round if you want me to! Post-rounding is fine with me as long as you are respectful (complain about me when I can't hear). Good luck and have fun!

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• Making intelligent remarks or a good joke
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Making the round easy to evaluate

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

Jeff Hou

Potomac Debate Academy

SMCS Poolesville HS Class of 2026

Add jeffhoufc219@gmail.com for all email chains to exchange evidence and speech docs. This is non-negotiable!

To introduce myself, I am a public forum debater and have debated for almost 2 years. As a debater, I understand what it is like to have a judge that doesn't fully tune in and give illogical decisions. Thus, considering the arguments of both sides carefully is imperative to me and I want to make sure my decision is as rational, reasonable, and productive as it can be. I want every round I judge to be clean, educational, and purposeful.

Pre-Round + Constructive Info:

• Please create an email chain before round and add me to it. You don't need to ask me if I want to be on it; yes, I want to be on the email chain.
• Send your cases to my email before round. If you fail to, I will doc your speak points and if it's a close round, I'm voting for the team that did send it compared to the team that didn't.
• Arrive early, start on time. In the words of my Earth Science teacher Mr. Kingman, "stop burning daylight."
• If you intend on spreading (>280 wpm), give me a notice before doing so. Your speak points will suffer if otherwise.

Rebuttal:

• If you're first rebuttal, your job is to respond to your opponent's case
• If you're second rebuttal, you have to frontline. I prefer that you frontline first and respond to your opponent's case second.
• In terms of offense, you need to implicate it and turns need to have an impact
• In offensive mechanisms, I do have a preference in terms of what holds the most weight. Turns are the biggest; the rest are as of followed: delink, prereq, invalid, non-unique.

Second Half Debate + Other Stuff:

this is sorta unorganized but js read and synthesize it

• If you don't weigh don't act surprised that you lose the round lol
• Weigh as early as possible to maximize your chances of winning.
• Please, please, please metaweigh tbh; debaters love throwing out random terms to weigh on but there has to be some clear distinction and in most cases there are none. In most close rounds I've debated in, metaweighing was the key to winning so please metaweigh.
• I'm going to be honest; probability weighing is stupid lol but if you can justify it go for it.
• No new weighing mechanisms in final focus.
• Don't bring up new arguments in final focus. It's annoying, against the rules of debate, and pointless. Just know that you are wasting time running arguments that I will not vote for. Also, your speak points will suffer.
• I vote on warrants and clean extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim, the warrant of the card, and the implication of the card. Name of the card is the least important part of extension; as long as I know what you're referring to we're chilling. A clean extension is when your opponent has nothing to respond to on your card and you continuously bring it up (you'd be surprised how many people need to know what a clean extension means lol)
• For the love of God, collapse in summary. The speech times get shorter for a reason. Once you collapse on an argument, YOU CAN'T JUST COLLAPSE TO ANOTHER ONE IN THE NEXT SPEECH. You are going to lose the round if you do that (cough cough D'Silva).
• Defense > offense especially when it comes to final focus. Make this debate about you and your position and why I'm voting for you. You need to re-explain your key points in summary and final focus; if you don't, I don't have a big reason to vote for you.
• Defense is not sticky

Theory and Ks:

• Don't run theory. Don't be a coward and try to squirm your way out of debating the topic. You chose to be a debater so debate the topic like you're supposed to. The moment you run theory is the moment I stop the debate right there and announce that the other team won.
• I don't like Ks either but at least you're debating something of substance so if you want to run a K, go for it, I'll evaluate it.
• If you run Cap-K, you better be creative enough to think of an economic system that is not communism or socialism as your alt. Otherwise, you're going to have to convince me that communism/socialism works. In that case, your chances are the same chances that a snowball has in Hell.

How to Not Lose Your Round + Other Stuff I Didn't Know How to Organize:

• DON'T LIE. DON'T LIE. DON'T LIE. I WILL DROP YOU ASAP AND GIVE YOU THE LOWEST SPEAKS POSSIBLE (cough cough Nathaniel D'Silva)
• Don't be racist, sexist, etc.; just be a good person. If you're acting like a POS, I will treat you like one by dropping you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.
• I'm a history nerd so don't be stupid and lie about history in round; I'm going to realize that and refer to point 1 of this section.
• On prep time, don't steal prep time. If it looks like you're stealing prep time, I'm running the clock and docking speak points. If you're taking a long time to pull up evidence or a document, the clock is ticking cus I'm running your prep time.
• You should have cut-out cards; I will drop you if you don't
• I will call and evaluate cards if a) it sounds too good to be true, b) a team calls for me to evaluate it, c) it genuinely intrigues me.
• I prefer evidence not being paraphrased but do as you wish; just be careful of paraphrase theory.
• If round is boring or incredibly close, I'll presume neg.

• In crossfire, just make sure it's coherent; anything else is fine with me. I listen to crossfires because it can get interesting but I don't flow cross.

Truth vs Tech

Debaters get wrapped up in the convo if a judge is "truth over tech" or "truth over tech" but in an activity of debate, it's impossible to fairly categorize it in either. If you're completely a "truth > tech" judge, you're interfering as a judge when it's not your place; the role of providing arguments are the debaters not you. If you're completely a "tech > truth" judge, you're making debate an obsolete activity because truth be told, realism needs to be considered if debate is going to be more than just a competition. Thus, my philosophy is that you bring a balance of reasonability and realism with debating on a technical level on the flow.

Ask me if you have any other questions before the round begins.

bye #lol

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

Add me to the email chain: mkirylau@gmail.com

Background

I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). I judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate, unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (aka tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

4 years of pf, 6 years of debate. rmhs & pda

flay judge leaning flow. tech > truth

add me to email chains: graceliactive@gmail.com

i can handle some speed, but over 225 wpm im annoyed

if you want to win, you prob shouldn't run theory or ks bc i hate them

time yourself or we can do timing your opponents

signpost or i will literally stop flowing

judges are lazy, including me. write my ballot for me in your ff, it helps

good luck!

INTRAMURAL: OPEN TO ALL PROG. if you want to make the round interesting, go for it! but make sure u still know how to win

- topic: i am very familiar with the UNSC topic. feel free to run wacky and unique arguments

- what will win you the round: CLEARLY collapsing --> extending a clear link chain & impact --> clear & comparative weighing. write my ballot for me in summary and FF

- EXTEND the arguments that matter most - many good arguments are made in case and rebuttal but are dropped in the back half which makes the round a lot less clear for me

- fill up all your speech time (especially in rebuttal)

- 2nd rebuttal should frontline AND respond to their case

---

sherrylin1004@gmail.com, she/her, sophomore at RM

tech > truth to an extent; warranting is necessary + ur args should not be entirely illogical

please make the round fun & also be confident!

-

substance:

second rebuttal needs to frontline, new in second summary is iffy

defense is not sticky just extend it (+ i have a pretty low threshold for warranting defense in 1st summary)

i <3 signposting & numbering responses

-

prog: (ignore @ intramural)

i like theory (+ love open-source disclosure)

meh with K's - i've hit baudi and queer

don't rlly like tricks (presumption is pretty logical tho)

-

don't be any of the -isms

poaks intramural speaks average 29s, usually go up from there

about

• hi, i'm ellen (ellen.liu007@gmail.com) !! she/her, captain @ potomac oak + poolesville'25
• i've been debating on the nat. circuit for ~4 years (qualled to toc, ranked 5th in the nation, & reached outrounds at upenn, harvard, stanford, etc.)
• turn your cams on.. that should be done without saying

prefs

• read/do whatever (as long as its not - ist)
• tech > truth
• please collapse
• signpost signpost signpost
• weigh (comparatively)!!
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline
• be interactive PLEASE.

prog

• i'm more familiar w theory compared to ks
• would prefer neither

speaks

• +1 speak if we finish the round early (please do not take forever to find your cards, preflowing, etc. -- you should be doing that before the round starts)
• +1 speak if you follow me on spotify

feel free to ask any questions !!

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Hey! I’m high school varsity public forum debater. I have debated for about four years now.

For PF

-Don’t Spread (I can flow fast speaking well but if I can’t understand what your saying I will drop the point completely)

-SIGNPOST

-You should be weighing through the debate but I expect explanation

-Only points said in summary can be extended in FF

-Please collapse in summary if you are

-Plus 1 speaker point if you follow me on insta @pankhurimalayanil :)

email for email chains: satvik.debate@gmail.com

i presume first unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls

i will not vote for risk of solvency arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

At the very minimum, you should summarize your argument in a few sentences and make sure you extend your impact. You do not need to extend author names.

If you have any more questions about extensions, pleeeeease ask me before round. Don't just not extend because you do not know how to. I'll be more than happy to help!

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

add me to the email chain- ethanmao691@gmail.com

sophomore at Winston Churchill high school

Make sure not to spend too much time exchanging evidence

I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so you should just debate how you like, nothing super special.

General

- I like well-warranted and well-explained arguments. It makes it easier for me to understand and thus vote on.

- Please weigh your arguments! If you don't weigh, I will have to do my own weighing, which might not turn out how you like.

- Tech > Truth, but the more ridiculous the argument the lower the threshold I have for acceptable responses to it.

- *Important for middle school*: While it may be tempting to try and win on every argument, try to collapse onto 1-2 key arguments by the end of the round and explain them very well.

Speed

-Generally, I can keep up, as long as you remain clear. If you plan on spreading, send me a speech doc before.

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

- You should extend arguments that you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.

- Signpost

- I think it's strategic if second rebuttal frontlines responses in first rebuttal (but it's not necessary if you aren't comfortable with it)

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless its frontlined in second rebuttal.

Evidence

- I won't call for evidence unless I think it's important to the outcome of the round or unless I am explicitly told to.

Progressive Arguments

- If you think there is a real violation in the round, I think you should just explain and warrant it like any other argument, and I will be inclined to vote on it.

Finally,

don't be rude, sexist, ableist, racist, etc.

Good luck and have fun!

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD coach for Peninsula HS

tech over truth - i will flow all arguments and vote on what you extend into your final speeches.

"like many before me I have decided that I am not a fan of cop-out or cheap shot strategies designed to avoid clash and pick up an easy ballot. This means my threshold for an argument that is warranted and implicated is much higher and I feel more comfortable giving an RFD on 'I don't know why x is true per the 2ar/2nr.' If you would like to thoroughly explain why creating objective moral truths is impossible or why disclosing round reports is a good norm then please feel free to do so, but 10 seconds of 'they dropped hidden AFC now vote aff' isn't going to cut it" - lizzie su

i do not feel confident in my ability to evaluate the following debates:

-phil ac vs phil nc

-k aff vs non cap kritik

-phil ac vs kritik

non-condo theory shells are dta unless otherwise justified

convinced by reasonability - affs need a c/i

i tend to read a lot of evidence - spending more time reading quality evidence will serve you well

better for framework 2nrs that go for fairness

i try not to be expressive in round if i make any facial expressions it is probably unrelated

Hello, welcome to my paradigm! I debated PF for 4 years in high school in the National, TOC and State level. I also participated in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, oratory).

Things I appreciate:

A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debaters own words along with a crisp impact.

B. Good manners!

C. Turn on your camera on if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.

D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)

E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.

Things I don't appreciate

A. No counter plans. Not enough time in PF to debate that properly.

B. Have evidence available to provide to the other team quickly. Don’t explain it as you are handing it over. Have your partner give the evidence if you are about to speak.

C. Don’t be rude :)

Well supported arguments that are presented clearly. Arguments should be addressed individually.

I am looking for rebuttals that extend arguments. I like civility, so please don't be offensive, rude and let your opponents finish their thought.

I give weight to impact and good citations. I also award points on how well you present your arguments

I also value the analysis. Use examples or states or qualified opinions and then give me your analysis of the evidence...why does your evidence matter...how does it fit into the topic.

Debate the resolution and make sure to carry through your arguments through till the end.

All aspects of CWAIL is important

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

K

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

2024 update: I haven't judged in a while so just keep that in mind, most of the below isn't too relevant to pf but if you have any questions just let me know

Torrey Pines '19

Pronouns: he/him

Email: williamphong10@gmail.com

General

- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent

- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)

- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it

- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me

Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)

- Neg on presumption

- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi

CP - Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.

DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.

Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Ronak and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.

K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.

Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.

T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.

Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.

Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.

Tricks – 0 experience

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

pasdebate@gmail.com

Subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

Debated at Maine East (2016-2020, TOC Circuit) and the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023, NDT Qual)

I will boost speaker points if you follow @careerparth on tiktok, bring (vegetarian) food/snacks, and end the debate as fast as possible.

I took most of this paradigm from Reed Van Schenck:

Career wise, my arguments of preference were more critical (Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism, and the likes). I enjoy judging clash debates, policy vs critical. Traditional policy debaters should take note of my lack of experience in policy v policy debates and rank me very low on their judging preferences.

The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.

When in doubt, referring to the judging philosophies of the following folks will do you well: Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik

Everything below this line is a proclivity of mine that can be negotiated through debate:

I think that debate is a game with pedagogical and political implications. As such, I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Use examples. Examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and so many more useful things. They are also helpful for establishing your expertise on the topic. All thing said, at the end of the day, I will adapt to your argument style.

I dislike judges who exclude debaters because of what they decide to read in a debate round, I will NOT do that as long as you don't say anything racist, sexist, etc.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals. I will boost speaker points if rebuttals are given successfully with prep time remaining and/or off the flow!

Public Forum Debate

The faster you end the debate, the higher your speaks.

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

My background consists of doing PF debate for a year and LD debate for 3 years. I am a traditional LD debate judge, as I am from West Texas where that is the primary type of debate. I was apart of the NSDA, TFA, and UIL circuits, where I competed in a variety of tournaments at the local, regional, and national level. I currently attend Texas Tech University where I am active within the Student Government Association and various other student organizations.

As a judge in a traditional LD debate, my primary role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine which side made the more compelling case. I will base my decision on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence presented, and the persuasiveness of the speakers.

I believe that the most important aspect of any debate is the clash between the two sides. I want to see both sides engage with each other's arguments and respond to each other's points in a way that advances the debate. I appreciate when debaters demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and the issues at stake, and can articulate their ideas clearly and concisely.

In terms of argumentation, I expect debaters to provide well-reasoned and logically coherent arguments, supported by relevant evidence. I am not swayed by emotional appeals or unsupported claims. I prefer to see debaters engage with the complexity of the issues, rather than relying on simplistic or reductionist arguments.

I also value effective communication skills, such as clear enunciation, good pacing, and appropriate use of body language. I appreciate when debaters are respectful and professional towards each other, and towards me as the judge.

In terms of the format of the debate, I expect both sides to follow the standard LD structure, with clear and coherent introductions, contentions, and rebuttals. I expect both sides to stay within their allotted time limits and to respect the rules of the debate.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to fairly evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine the winner based on the strength of their arguments and their overall performance in the debate.

Hello,

I have been judging and coaching since 2016, before that I was a competitor in high school. My day job is a compliance director and pre-kindergarten teacher . My paradigms are pretty simple. In debate I vote by flow, show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponent. If you provide a frame work, carry it through the round. I do not like spreading and super fast speaking, slow down and annunciation your words. Debate is still a speaking event, show off your public speaking skills . My pet peeve is interrupting opponents and rude manners, such as mumbling rude comments, if you ask a question, wait for a reply before moving on. Keep your comments to the case not other students. In IE events, I am looking for annunciation, smooth pace of speaking, use of gestures and showing a varied range of emotions. Best of luck in your rounds, feel free to ask any questions.

Debate Experience:

[4 years] High school: PF, LD, Congress, World School, American Parliamentary, and more; competed at nationals

[Present] College: IPDA, LD-Policy, British Parliamentary; competed at nationals

Judging since 2019

General Paradigm for ALL debate formats:

I value RESPECT and DECORUM above all. No shouting, being rude, cutting opponents off, making faces, openly expressing annoyance of opponents' arguments, certain body language, and more; these are valid reasons to deduct speaker points. Getting excited about an argument and going full into it does not count as disrespect. I judge based on age group. There is a fine line between firm and rude. If I see you being rude, I will give you low speaker points, but I won't make you lose the round.

I am a LOGIC judge, if something doesn't make logical sense, you'll lose the argument

I love ANALYTICS, analyze the evidence

Be organized

Clear contentions

Spreading or speeding is okay if you are coherent. Policy debaters, refer below

Off-time road maps, please

Follow the flow of the round- don't make my life harder than it has to be

I like jargon, its helpful and I am familiar, except for IPDA

LD-Policy + Policy Paradigm:

Run anything, I don't care, as long as it works. DA, T, CP, K, etc, all work, just make it make sense. I may be educated but I don't know the whole dictionary, so make sure to explain in simple terms at the end, like 2-3 sent final summary. Second, make sure you still attack the general Aff plan and why it does not work. I need both, just in case, to default.

I can not express this enough if I don't understand your arguments, then it's hard for me to vote for you.

Be organized and make sure you upload clean documents after your speech. No shady things, for example, copying your speech twice to make the document hard to navigate...really? Make sure to do this right after your speech ends, so your opponent has time to use the clean doc.

Spreading:

(1) Only do it if you want to relay more information and can speak clearly, if you have not practiced reading your document and are choppy + taking breaths in, do not spread

(2) make sure your opponents are okay, debate is supposed to be fair, equitable, and educational

(3) make sure to explain anything important, if I miss something and you don't explain it, that's on you

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

Just because you read a card doesn't mean you're done. Explain its impact

I flow the cross. Anything important should still be brought up in the subsequent speech

LD Paradigm: Traditional Judge

Focusing on the V and VC

Clash is important

Links + Impact + Solvency - without it you won't win

I don't flow the cross, anything important, MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

PF Paradigm: Lay Judge

Clear contentions, strong evidence, links, and impacts

I don't flow the cross, anything important MUST be brought up in the subsequent speech

Other:

Have any questions, need coaching, or help?

Contact me @ nuveriat@gmail.com

Need accommodations, let me know

chrisytang2019@gmail.com

tech>truth

send case and rebuttal docs please

postround me if u want (it wont change the decision)

• hi, i'm tiffany!! she/her @ rhhs 27' + i currently compete pf on the nat. circuit

• tldr: tech > truth, i'm fine with speed as long as it's comprehensible + you slow down on taglines, i look to weighing then the path of least resistance, please make your weighing comparative, tell me how to vote (use ballot-directive language, make implications, give me instructions on how i should evaluate your speech).

• finally, the best debate rounds are inclusive and respectful; you can still be skilled and assertive without being rude. good luck + have fun!

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

• If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
• PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
• In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time.

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 30 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment.

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

i’m flay

have a chill round or don't, but be nice either way

send all evidence

aaron.ftian@gmail.com

i enjoy a good k debate but explain things well

i dislike theory but will vote on it

warrants and extensions are essential

i think ivis are fine

cross is binding

hi everybody! this is the first time i’m judging for potomac, but i have judged practice rounds.

i have been a PF debater for three years, and have competed in many tournaments, so, i would say i’m a flay judge leaning flow. i’ve debated a lot on this topic, so i should be able to understand any really techy contentions you have. additionally, i’m okay with spreading as long as you are still understandable. i’ve never judged theory or k args, but i’m open to them. i also honestly like when cross gets a little tense, as long as you aren’t screaming over the other opponent.

last thing, i don’t flow cross fires or final focus but i AM paying attention to what happens during those speeches, and will take them into account when i am choosing a ballot.

other than that though, have fun with the round!

flow judge

weigh

signpost

keep track of your own speech times and prep

Updated June 29, 2024

This was written with judging high-school-level policy debate in mind. Middle and elementary school, as well as non-policy debaters, some of this may not be applicable for you.:)

TLDR

If you have questions before or after round, ask in person or feel free to email me. My email is n(dot)velo2000(at)gmail(dot)com. Put me on the email chain if there is one!

Worldview:
K --------------x----- Policy

Speed for tags and analysis:
Slow---------x--------- Fast

Speed for the body of ev:

Slow -------------------x Fast

Introduction

I have a BA in political science from the University of Kansas with a minor in philosophy that heavily emphasized formal logic (2021). I have a JD from the University of Kansas School of Law with an emphasis on criminal law (2024).

I debated for Emporia HS in Emporia, KS ('14-'18: oceans, surveillance, China, education), and the University of Kansas ('18-'19: executive authority). I mostly read "soft-left" affs, though occasionally read traditional high-magnitude impact affs. Every aff I read defended federal government action. My 2NRs were a lot of T. Don't let the arguments I read determine what you read in front of me.

I try to judge when I can. Trends, community consensus, and topic knowledge are things that I am no longer up to date on. Given that the tournaments I judge are few and far between, my flowing abilities may not be where you'd like them. I often choose to flow on paper, meaning I may not make eye contact.

Deviation from my paradigm =/= auto-loss, following it perfectly =/= auto-win. I can be convinced to evaluate the round by other means than those below. This paradigm applies to other forms of debate where applicable.

Top level: Non-Debatable Rules

Be nice - you have a duty to be respectful and ethical towards everyone in the round. This includes, but is not limited to, not making arguments that could have traumatic implications. A breach of said duty will be met by a punishment I deem proportional to the breach. If being otherwise unethical/hyper-aggressive is your strategy, strike me.

Speeches, CX, prep, winning, speaker points - each debater must give exactly one constructive speech and exactly one rebuttal for their team. Each debater must be available for CX after their constructive; open CX is fine. Speech and prep times are strict. Prep stops once the flashdrive goes into your computer or when you open your email. Compiling evidence into one doc is prep. Don't steal prep. Exactly one team will win. Info on speaker points below.

Filesharing - I would like speech docs. Speechdrop > email chain > flash drive. Microsoft Word documents preferred.

Online chat box - only has been an issue for middle school/novices. Don't abuse it.

Clipping - if you clip and I catch it, you get the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. If you clip and the other team catches it with a recording, I will award you a loss in addition to the "4" rank and/or 20 speaker points. Don't clip. If you need to stop reading a card before finishing it as indicated by the speech doc, you should say "mark the card at [last word you read]."

General/Misc. Thoughts

Tech > Truth - within reason, a dropped arg is a true arg if there is an extension.

Clarity > Speed - slow down for anything that isn't the text of a piece of evidence, especially if the argument isn't in the speech doc.

The less work there is for me to do at the end, the better! Tell me why you win.

No judge kicks unless its explicitly an option. Make it clear that I can judge kick before the 2NR. Conditionality is a prerequisite.

The neg should disprove the desirability or scholarship of the 1AC. I struggle to vote on things that happened before the start of the 1AC or after the end of the 2NR.

I tend to lean neg on framework vs affs that do not defend USfg action. Not an impossible for the aff to win, but much harder for the aff if the 1AC content is not related to the topic.

I consider debate to be a game first and an educational forum second - fairness is an impact in and of itself and not merely an internal link to education.

I generally consider myself a utilitarian. Avoiding unnecessary suffering is inherently good. Unnecessary suffering is inherently bad. Death/suffering good arguments are neither true nor ethical.

Affirmatives/Case Debates/Presumption

The aff should defend a hypothetical solution to a problem.

The aff cannot sever out of the 1AC advocacy.

The content of the 1AC should be related to the resolution. Any aff not related to the resolution should be prepared to justify that decision.

Defense alone is never enough to justify voting neg. Presumption does not exist absent offense. There is always a non-zero-percent risk the aff does something beneficial.

Topicality/FW

The 1NC should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and a reason to vote neg. The block should give a topical version of the aff if there is one.

The standards debate should have at least one warrant. Saying "vote neg for limits and ground" is insufficient without more analysis, and especially so in the block. The block should explain how your interpretation resolves any alleged abuse, why non-topical affs and/or the 1AC advocacy damages limits and ground, and why limits and ground are good.

I default to competing interpretations. Reasonability has never meant that "our aff is a reasonable example of the topic," but has rather meant that "our interpretation of the topic is a reasonable one, so don't vote us down."

Absent clear, egregious abuse, T is not an RVI. If there's any uncertainty over whether that level of abuse is met, it probably hasn't been.

Theory

Generally open to good faith theory arguments, but "cheap-shots" will be held to a higher threshold.

Conditionality is usually good; it's up to the aff to tell me where to draw the line, if at all.

Disclosure is good, but failure to disclose usually does not justify rejecting a team or infinite conditionality. New affs are a valid, strategic aff choice.

Disadvantages

The neg should ideally provide specific link evidence, or spin generic link evidence in a way that relates to the aff. Specific link/no link arguments are stronger than generic ones.

Impact overviews are nice. I think there is a lot of room for nuance in "DA outweighs and turns case" arguments. These arguments win rounds.

Counterplans

If you're reading a "cheating" CP, be prepared to defend the legitimacy of it.

CPs should compete through mutual exclusivity or through external net benefits (such as a disadvantage). Internal net benefits are unpersuasive and lose to the permutation.

CPs should have texts that are specific and written in a similar format to the aff plan text.

Kritiks

If this is your bread and butter, I probably should not be your highest-ranked judge.

Framework debates (fiat not real, weigh impacts of aff vs K, etc.) are important and I like them but you have to slow down. Here, the quality of your arguments heavily outweighs the quantity of them.

Speaker Points

I think of speaker points as a way of grading your speech. To do so, I take the "grade" that I think you deserve, place a "2" in front of it, and move the decimal (ex: 75% = 27.5). In awarding speaker points, I consider both speech delivery and content. The standard for these scores changes with the tournament and division; novices at local tournaments will be held to lower standards than teams on the national circuit.

30 = Perfect.

27.6 to 29.9 = Above average, there are likely one or more small issues you can improve on to get closer to a 30.

27.5 = Average.

25.1 to 27.6 = Below average, there are one or more major areas you can improve on.

25 = Well below average, there are many major areas that need improvement.

20 = You clipped your evidence, displayed egregious disrespect, or created another ethical issue in the round.

Speaks are capped at 29 if you prewrite speeches.

I will disclose my decision after the round.

Hey

tech > truth

> Extend extend extend. Extend until FF

> Weigh. Preferably early enough. Pls do comparative weighing

> Stay on time +/- 10 secs --> use all speech time lol even if you have to yap about something silly

> Unless your opps cards are crazy abusive: don't have card wars!! BTW you can still indict, just stop spam calling for card- esp when it's common knowledge

> ill give you extra speaks if youre funny

I have been judging debate for over a year now. In high school, I participated in the speech team. Although, I wasn't a debater as a high schooler, I have a background in policy and research/presenting research. I believe in coming into tournaments with a objective perspective. I mostly have experience with public forum/policy debate/ Lincoln Douglas Debate/ and the various categories of speech (mainly Dramatic Interpretation). Please keep your delivery at a pace that can be understood. I'm fine with off-time roadmaps for categories that use roadmaps. I also don't mind giving time signals :) In general, I'm relatively flexible and just believe in judging rounds fairly and according to the NSDA rulebook. But please keep in mind, like you, I also have much to learn.

I have mostly judged in Northern Virginia and Chicago!

tech>truth

pls be nice

Anything you want flowed through has to be extended in every single speech unless dropped by opponents.

k's and theories ok, just know i'm not super familiar but I do know the basics.

Im ok with spreading, as long as its not over 350 wpm it should be fine but i cannot guarantee that i will flow everything because its online and stuff might cut out.

Rebuttals

You don't have to weigh during rebuttal, but it always helps. Second rebuttal is always expected to frontline.

Summary

No new arguments should be introduced, I will not flow anything that gets introduced during summary. First summary is expected to frontline second rebuttal, anything that doesn't get responded from second rebuttal in first summary will automatically be flowed through. Weighing is a must and a world's comparison always helps. For second summary your expected to collapse and extend any arguments/links you want to be flowed through.

FF

Weighing is a must, if you don't weigh there is a big chance I will drop your impact unless your link hasn't been touched at all. Weighing mechs in order: Mag>prob>timeframe is the order which i will evaluate your weighing.

Extra Stuff

I do not flow evidence names, so if you want to extend your evidence please just give me the outline/paraphrase what the evidence says.

I'm not going to flow cross, its mainly just a place to set your partner up for the next speech

Email Chains

if you guys are doing an email chain please add me to it.

Email: zhangyix1012844@gmail.com