For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

Debate background: I did parliamentary in middle school and I do PF as a current high schooler. I've judged before and have an adequate understanding of debate rules.

How I judge: I'm somewhere in the land of flow judges, and my ballot will be decided based primarily on the probability of impacts (I much prefer solvency and probability over magnitude) and who wins the flow.

What I like: I love de-linking and crazy cases. My probability rule has less validity when it comes to fun things like aliens, I'm mostly just against nuclear war impacts because I think they're boring and overdone. I won't give you a win automatically if you run something crazy, though. I'll love it if you win with a framework (a real framework) and clash. De-linking is fun, I want to see you destroy their arguments link by link. A successful takedown of their links can make a win for me, even with a weak case.

What I don't like: It shouldn't have to be said but don't attack someone's character at any point, and do not misconstrue the rules of debate. I will dock your points if you do. Keep your own time and do not say "My time starts now/on my first word." Nothing crazy though, it's just unnecessary because you know when to start your timer and so will I (I won't dock points though).

Parliamentary specifics: Do NOT abuse heckles and POIs. It is frustrating for both teams and me. I believe a well-timed, informative POI/heckle can be very useful but they are so often mishandled in parliamentary. Heckles should be ~five words max and should not have follow-ups regardless of whether the speaker asks for it or not. They should be limited to two (MAYBE three) per speech. If you abuse these I will dock your speaker points. POI's follow the same rules of frequency.

Other: I literally couldn't care less if you sit or stand or how fast or slow you talk.

junior at mclean hs (lms alumni). debated at gtoc if it means anything to you. add me to the email chain lisahu.kaboom@gmail.com

generally tech>truth though mickey args = will believe equally mickey responses

No prog experience, run at ur own risk

spreading/card dumping/docbotting will tank ur speaks

please EXTEND and WEIGH and fill up ur speech time pls!

dont be rude or obnoxious

tl:dr try ur best, hf and be sensible

if u have any questions, dont hesitate to ask b4 the round

MSPDP:

haven't debated this in years so the rules r rusty. although im p chill as long as u try ur best

assume i have zero topic knowledge

if frameworks are read there better be top level clash otherwise i'll default the aff fw

will evaluate counterplans on neg although you will have burden of proof to explain why ur counterplan is likely to happen

i love love love good pois so try to make some though its ok if u cant answer them (dont pull a sneaky on protected time)

my speaker point range is generally 10-14 (with exceptions on both ends). i'll usually be pretty generous.

PF:

extend anything you want me to evaluate through second half. if its not in both summary and final i wont be looking at it

please please please weigh and do the impact calculus for me otherwise i'll have to do it myself which may not end well for you

defense is NOT sticky please frontline in 2nd reb

i wont flow cross xd but i will up speaks if ur funni

default 30 speaks in bubble round for both teams

Extra:

debate is fun, don't stress too much

+0.5 speaks if u spin in a circle while reading a turn

flow, 2 years Ms debate & 2 years hs pf debate

I haven't done much research on the topic, so I expect debaters to explain their evidence + link

Middle School Debate

Some Important Points I'm going to be judging on:

1st:

Speech: Good, fluent speech with eye contact

Time: I'm not too concerned about going over time, just make sure to not get over by too much

2nd:

Responding to opponent's arguments with reasonable responses - Please Signpost (Telling me what point your responding to)

frontline your argument

3rd:

Compare the two arguments, explain to me why your impact is more important

Crystalizing the Debate for me (Finding the main points of clash in the debate)

Tell me why you won the debate (Weighing and flat out just saying it.)

McLean '26 | Coach for Longfellow

Questions & Evidence >> ryan.jkg10@gmail.com

I believe that it is my responsibility as a judge to adapt to how you debate. After all, I can't even think of all my preferences to write down on this one page. Debate is a cool community and I sincerely hope that you continue participating in this activity. Debate gets really tense sometimes but, it can be fun (trust me). Please be respectful to both me and others.

My RFD’s are normally short so please feel free to ask questions afterwards.

PF

Flay, Tech > Truth

Win Offense, Win weighing, Win round

No response means conceded

Hi! I'm a freshman at Langley High School, where I do PF, LD, speech, and I coach the Cooper Parliamentary team. I'm relatively new to judging debate, but I'm familiar with a wide range of debate formats and arguments. I try to remain as impartial as possible, and I will vote for the most convincing team.

Judge preferences:

• No spreading unless you can speak faster than 12 syllables per second

• No progressive args/kritiks/k's unless you specify before round

• For parliamentary and LD I emphasize lay over tech; I want to see that you have advanced debate skills but also that you're able to explain the internal links of your cases, get to the root cause of your opponents' cases, and respond effectively to rhetoric

• Don't try to negotiate decisions after round

• Be courteous and respectful to your opponent

• I'm looking to see clash rather than just competing claims; if you break the clash on a voting issue, that will go on my ballot

• If your opponent breaks a format rule, bring it up with me between speeches or mention it in your speech; I'll take note for my decision

• Don't be overly aggressive in your speech (don't yell)

• If you use the following words: Joever, rizz, or sigma in your speech, it may slightly influence your speaker points in a positive manner

I'm looking forward to seeing great debates!

hey, i'm harrison (he/him), and i debated for 3 years at Walt Whitman High School in PF.

*THIS WAS MADE WITH HIGH SCHOOL PF IN MIND; IF ANYTHING DOESN’T MAKE SENSE OR ISN’T TYPICAL MIDDLE SCHOOL PROCEDURE, ASK ME BEFORE ROUND*

add me to the chain: hjwalley2006@gmail.com

i prefer a google doc w/ rhetoric and cards, but you can also send a PDF. if any of this isn't accessible for you, it's 100% fine if you don't send. maybe disclose on the wiki if you're not able to send evidence during round

*seeing as there's no place on OpenCaseList to disclose for middle school, middle schoolers do NOT have to disclose*

**NATS NOTE: i'm apparently not allowed to disclose, but don't let that stop you from asking for feedback after the round; i'm not gonna talk much about general speaking skills or anything, but i'm always happy to talk strategy**

ask me about anything confusing in the paradigm if you have questions

TLDR:

this is probably the most standard tech paradigm you'll ever read; literally debate like you're doing any other tech round and it'll be good

tech>truth, run whatever you want as long as it's not exclusionary

defense isn't sticky

PLEASE STRIKE ME IF YOU DON'T READ CUT CARDS

i guess you can do new weighing in 1st final; definitely nothing new in 2nd (i’d much prefer solid weighing in first summary)

extend at least uniqueness, link, and impact

comparative weighing please

prob not the best person for prog; i can maybe evaluate theory, but k's are probably a no-go (april 2024 update: i can evaluate really well implicated, fairly stock k’s, but if you get screwed bc i was never a prog debater, please don’t blame me)

let me know if i can make your experience better; if both teams agree that my paradigm sucks, you can ask me to change it for the round

General Debate Stuff:

i think that judge intervention is really bad for debate. don't make me intervene; do comparative weighing, extend your args, leave defense on your opponent's case. you, your speaks, and i will all be happier if you do that

if it's not on the flow, i'm not voting on it

collapse - it makes the round really messy when someone goes for 4 blippy arguments

signpost - please help me know where i should flow...

Evidence:

i won't call for cards unless someone explicitly tells me to

if you send cards, i might look because i'm interested, but i won't intervene on bad evidence. the other team has to explicitly tell me that it's fabricated to the point i can't evaluate it, or just run an IVI or do an ev challenge

if you take like 2+ minutes to pull up a card, i'll probably tank your speaks and will take it as an analytic

Speeches:

constructive:

i'm probably not the best judge for speed. if i can't understand you, i'll say "clear" three times before i just stop flowing. not gonna flow off of a doc, so just make sure that you're actually speaking in a way that i can understand

2nd constructive can respond to 1st if they want. just make sure to at least say, "onto their case" or something to just let me know (but like probably just don’t; i don’t see many scenarios where it’s actually strategic)

rebuttal:

if you're able to, send any cards (or a speech doc) you're reading for rebuttal before your speech

i think it's smart to weigh in rebuttal, but not necessary obviously

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline

strategic collapses in 2nd will result in a happy judge and happy speaks

summary:

extend

if the other team does a really bad extension, call it out and tell me why i can't vote for them (if there's no extension at all, i won't vote on it)

at least give me uniqueness, link, and impact; internal links and warrants are nice, but at least have that

definitely weigh (i'm of the opinion that probability weighing is usually bad and just new defense, but i guess it's a weighing mechanism, so utilize it)

final:

needs to mirror summary

extend, again

if your opponents are using different weighing mechanisms than you, it's probably strategic to tell me which mechanism to prefer (metaweigh, anyone?)

if your partner didn't weigh in 1st summary, 1st final can do new weighing (no new prereqs or link-ins; that's just abusive)

no new implications or args from 2nd final; i won't flow them

cross:

i'll listen, definitely won't flow it

if there's something important, bring it up in the next speech

Prog:

theory:

i guess i understand theory. if you have to know, i think paraphrasing is really bad, disclosure is probably good. i default text over spirit, RVI's, and Competing Interps (reasonability for TW theory). all of that can change if you just... give me warrants for why it should

read the shell the speech directly after the abuse happened. out-of-round abuses need to be in constructive

also, i want shell>substance layering at the very least in summary and final; if you're reading a shell in constructive, it's probably smart to do it in rebuttal

extend the shell every speech after it's read

don't read friv on novices; that's just dumb

april 2024 update:

middle schoolers can read theory that’s fine (still steer clear of friv)

it’s been a while since i’ve even thought about theory, but i’ll catch up on it before the tournament

k's:

i don't know too much about non-T k's, but i kinda get the gist of topical stuff. if you HAVE to read a k, just implicate it well and tell me why you win off of it

april 2024 update:

it's been a while since i've thought about k's too... if you have to read one, just don't spread it 300 wpm or more

tricks:

no, except for roko's. i like roko's (don't read tricks please)

i like what other people have said about tricks - if someone reads tricks on you, saying “tricks are for kids” is adequate and terminal defense

framework:

sure. framework should be extended in every speech after it's read. 2nd constructive should respond to framework in 1st

speaks:

speaks will probably be good

i'll start at 28.5, and go up or down from there depending on strategy

not gonna dock speaks bc of the way you dress, how you talk (unless you're spreading and you're incoherent), etc

L25 if you do something exclusionary

few ways to up your speaks:

a. read a funny impact turn

b. be nice

c. disclose on the wiki (ask me before round if you don't know how - i won't dock your speaks if you don't disclose) +0.5 speaks if you do

d. do smart prereq stuff

e. actually engage in substantive clash in a cool and strategic way

other stuff:

i'll disclose if i'm allowed to; ask me privately to disclose speaks if you want

postround if you want, but be nice about it

be funny if you want, but there's a line between being funny and being a jerk

Respect is top priority. If you don't respect your opponents you will lose the round.

Pronouns she/her

Preferences:

Speed is fine but make sure what you're saying is clear; enunciate your words

Eye contact is important, but I understand if you can't do so, as we are in a virtual setting

It's recommended that you keep your own time- I will keep time as well

Please roadmap your speeches, as I will be flowing. Make it clear to me what you are talking about

Weighing is crucial and will be a huge part of my decision as to who won or lost

I will give personal feedback to every speaker.

Use up all or as much as possible of your time- it tells me you have a lot to say and adds to your case

Obviously, be respectful to both your teammates and your opponents. No interrupting others

Things that will help me decide the win- weighing, impacts, and rebuttals.

May the odds ever be in your favor :)