My name is Mohammed Abdulmujeeb, and I am a former LD debater and impromptu speaker. I value line by line arguments and signposting very highly. If I cannot follow your flow, I will not understand where you are in your speech/what argument you are attacking/defending. I value good speaking as well, so make sure not to mumble and speak at a pace where I can clearly hear your arguments (whatever speed that may be). Beyond that, do your best and good luck!

Bonus: If you fit in the word Pookie into your speech and ensure that it flows, I will add 1 speaker point.

Former LD and OO competitor. It is more important to me that the debaters engage strongly on the heavy topics of contention than nitpicking at details that do not contribute to the resolution.

Hello! I am an experienced judge and I love judging debates. I value both the content and the presentation in debates equally. It is important that I am able to hear you and understand your arguments clearly, so please speak at appropriate pace. I prefer value based arguments and clarity in thoughts. Please summarize your arguments and rebuttal and voting rights at the end.

Hey everyone! My name is Connor and I am going to (probably) be one of the judges for your rounds! As a primarily LD judge, I really enjoy the value clash, and back and forth of contentions. The value/framework debate is especially important when I'm looking at the RFD, so please do yourselves a favor and let me hear the the clash. Other than that, lets all have some fun!

Hello I'm Jonah

He/him

Email chain: jdaniel1@macalester.edu

I debated four years of policy debate at Baltimore City College and was the 2a my senior year. I am now debating at Macalester College. I have done some policy debating in college

Past K's I've run: abolition, afrofuturism, opacity/undercommons

Depth > Breath & Truth = Tech

Good with spreading but be clear and slow down on tags and analytics, I will say clear.

TLDR: Best for KVK or Policy v. K, OK for K v. Policy and Theory. I can judge policy v policy rounds but haven't debated many. Bad for aff v. 6+ off.

I will be valuing the framework debate above all. Whoever is most effectively able to mobilize their value framework for their side is an effective strategy to appeal to me as a judge.

Other important factors:

• Clearly sign post and stick to them in speeches

• Utilized points in CX or in case must be clearly referenced to be considered (When I asked question B in CX, my opponent said C, which is important because..)(My opponent conceded Y in CX)

• Define and articulate impacts and voters (The impacts for voting aff are…, this is important because…) Articulate voting issues and which one’s you win, articulate why you win the debate. Make sure to WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH!)

• I can only consider points that are brought up by the debater (Such as something conceded in CX)

• First time judging so please bare with me when I adjust my flow between speeches. I would also prefer that speakers do not go too fast.

• If you have any more questions please ask before the round :)

I am a parent judge and have been judging for two years. I prefer logical arguments that support the value and criterion. Additionally, I prefer clear communication over quantity/excessive speed.

Hi Im Noah I did policy debate for 4 years at Calvert Hall

email: noahiydebate@gmail.com

I am an old-school LD judge. I want a good value clash throughout the round. I loathe spreading; if I can't understand you, I will rely on your opponent to tell me what you said. If you call out drops, you must also give me impacts for them to have any weight with me. You can win my ballot with substantive philosophical arguments, and you can lose my ballot if you get mired in policy.

Hey, my name is Jordan Ruit and I am a former LD debater. In LD I highly value the line-by-line and it is important to me that you win the arguments that matter. I value the framework debate, but I find that if you win your line-by-line convincingly, the framework won't matter too much to me. Please signpost so that flowing is easier so that I can be a more accurate judge but I (should) be able to flow anyway. Please be courteous and respectful to your opponent(s) and don't stress out too much.

I have been judging primarily debate events (except for Congress) for fifteen years, first as a parent of a debater and now as a coach's parent. I also judge speech events as needed. I have been judging in the NCFL for fifteen years and in the NSDA for the past four years. For debaters, watch the speed, please -- about 225 words per minute at maximum, and no spreading. Good sportsmanship is very important to me as a judge; please be polite. Good luck with your rounds!

Overview

I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 10 years now). While I am experienced and willing to entertain almost any strategy, do not assume that I am familiar with circuit trends.

I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I would strongly prefer not to hear 15 blippy a prioris or spikes designed to be easy outs. I try not to intervene too much in the round.

I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.

This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.

Speaker Points

My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:

• Don't overexplain or become repetitive
• Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
• Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
• Be civil with everyone in the room
• Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
• Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
• Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
• Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
• Project without shouting
• Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
• Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
• Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
• Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches

I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked--lying in this way is a breach of ethics and I will vote you down). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.

I also have some random pet peeves--while they won't hurt your speaks, but they will make me sad. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.

Argumentation

I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.

• I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
• I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
• I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.

Additionally:

• I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
• I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
• Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
• Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
• I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.

Here are some event-specific comments:

~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~

• I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
• I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.

~~~~Public Forum~~~~

• As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
• Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
• The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
• I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.

Evidence

• Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
• I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
• I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
• If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
• You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.

Speed

• I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
• I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.

Timing

• I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
• Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
• A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.

Cross-Examination

• CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
• I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
• I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
• CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
• In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.

My Redlines

• I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
• I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.

Finally

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!

University of Maryland '27

Calvert Hall '23

Email Chain: ashrestha.db8@gmail.com

I did policy debate at calvert hall for 4 years

please keep your flow/arguments in order (line by line) and have clear overviews at the end of speeches of the exact reasons you win over your opponent

do not read the rest of this, it's a complete joke

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm the best judge so if you think you won the debate - you really lost

here's my method of speaker points

I am the best at flowing so I will copy every single word you say on my paper but still ignore it

If you want auto 30 speaks---use at least 2 of the options below, but if it's the last 1 that alone is sufficient

---Buddhism K

---Bob

---Comic Sans or Other Font PIC

---No prep

---Spark/Wipeout v Soft Left Aff

---One off T-USFG vs Policy Aff (no impact turns either)

2NRs should consist of every flow - definitely never go for only 1 off - that's really dumb

2ARs "if its not new, ew" -- lobo

***theory***

not topical affs are mondo - that justifies infinite condo!

but really - condo is good i will never vote on condo bad

***policy affs***

plan text should be unintelligible

you should go really slow, slower than talking

good counterplans will not solve the 1ac and have no net benefit

***k affs***

spread really fast

don't explain all the theories at all because i already for sure know every single detail about the philosophy

k v k debates shouldn't have any well explained links -- just go for the impact turn (if possible)

***final***

If you have me as a judge, good luck

Baltimore City College (BCC) 23’

Morehouse 27’

RKS 22'

[he/him]

TOC [K] debater w/ 3 bids! (Dont ask my record though lol)

Email is - plzreadcomics@gmail.com

I'll keep this short!

• Im more K leaning (not an autovote) but I am willing to vote policy if the argument persuades me(which is the way I evaluate all rounds) which means... Debate how you want!

• To reiterate the last point, persuasion is key!!! i shouldn't be piecing your speeches together for ya, so tell your story!

• Dont let the last two rebuttals be two ships passing in the night!

• Not a great judge AT ALL for HIGH theory debates

• PLEASE have fun! Boring debates are bad for yall as debaters cause why spend a weekend doing something you’re not interested in?

• OBVIOUSLY... no racism, homophobia, religous attacks, identity attacks... dont be a d!ck okay?

• If you have any questions- lmk in round, shoot me an email, yknow allat good stuff

If you are reading this, you are already more likely to win your debate because you are conscientious enough to take the time to learn your judge’s preferences! Good for you!

So, from most to least important (except #9; that's important for morale!), here are my preferences:

1. Please do not talk too fast. If I miss your point, I cannot give you credit for it.

2. Please do not talk too loudly. I am right in front of you, and my ears work very well.

3. Please clearly signal your contentions and subpoints by number and letter respectively.

4. Please identify the source AND year of each piece of evidence.

5. Please explain how each contention supports both your value and criterion.

6. Please include your voting issues at the end of your second rebuttal.

7. Please keep your number of subpoints and rebuttal responses reasonable; an excessive number of subpoints and responses is a tactic that can undermine your side more than your opponent’s.

8. Please do not spend debate time accusing your opponent of breaking debate rules or norms. Enforcing rules and norms is 80% of my job as a teacher, and I am very good at it, so let me worry about that. Focus on your arguments and your opponent’s arguments.

9. (If you are still reading this, good for you!) Finally, I wish I had been as brave as you are when I was your age! You are courageous for participating in such a challenging event! Now go and make yourself, your coach, your teammates, and your family proud!