Update: If you do everything you can to make the round go as quick as possible, I will increase your speaks (joining early if pairings go up early, not frivolously calling for cards or taking forever to produce them, etc.)

I'm Tejas, I debated a couple years at Del Norte

I STRONGLY prefer it if you frontline offense and whatever you're going for in second rebuttal

Defense is sticky for the first speaking team for whatever the second rebuttal doesn't frontline. However, if the second speaking team DOES frontline, defense is NOT sticky. However, even if second rebuttal doesn’t frontline turns, they need to be extended in the summary for them to generate offense.

If they are extended from rebuttal to final by the first speaking team, given that the second rebuttal did not frontline them, they will be evaluated as terminal defense.

I need full extensions in summary and final

Weigh as early in the round as possible, preferably starting in rebuttal

I'm fine with speed, but send a doc if you're spreading or if your opponents aren't comfortable with speed

Collapse in the back half please

For theory, K's, tricks, etc. I'll evaluate it, but I'm not the best judge for it, as I haven't debated it much myself, so tread with caution

I usually default competing interps and always yes RVIs unless told to do so otherwise

I default con for policy resolutions and first speaking teams otherwise unless contrary arguments are made

I'm tab

Be aggressive and interrupt as much as you want during cross I literally don't care at all

You can also do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

You don't need to add me to the email chain, I'll call for evidence only if I'm asked to do so

I'm pretty nice with speaks, I'll usually average at least a 29

I don’t call for evidence unless told to do so

If a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, I’ll give them double 30s

Have fun

UPDATED for Milpitas 2023: I don't judge frequently anymore nor do I really know what the norms in the circuit are these days, but I'm down for whatever both teams agree on. Overall, please use common sense. I can probably comfortably flow up to around 275 wpm with clarity and signposting.

About Me: Debated PF and Parli for 3 years for Nueva, was ~tech~, I now coach for Potomac.

TLDR: Debate is a game, tech > truth. Debate however you would like as long as you are not being morally reprehensible or exclusionary. Ask before the round if you have specific questions and put me on the email chain even though I probably won't read anything (bncheng@uchicago.edu).

Super Short Version:

1. I am best at judging technical case debate (and probably enjoy it more) but I will adapt to you if you choose to pursue an alternative style. Speed/prog are both fine.

2. I prefer cut cards/direct quotes - you can paraphrase but don't misconstrue evidence. Don't be afraid to call out an opponent for evidence ethics.

3. I prefer that at a minimum you respond to all offensive arguments read in the previous speech. I won't necessarily consider arguments dropped, but I have a much higher threshold for responses if they come later.

Full Prefs:

1. WEIGHING: Probability weighing is not real - the link debate is the probability weighing.

- "cLaRiTY of Link/Impact" weighing is not also real. I will both not evaluate it and also drop your speaks each time you say it. A team does not win because their impact has a number.

- Please don't only drop buzzwords on me. Words like magnitude/scope/timeframe don't mean anything to me without actual comparison done between the arguments. Similarly, if different weighing arguments are unresolved PLEASE METAWEIGH.

2. EVIDENCE: All evidence needs to be cut with citations. Do not send your opponents a link I will give you a 25. I will call for cards if they are relevant and disputed without resolution.

- I will give you an L25 if I notice/your opponent points out misconstruction that is significant. How much I discount a piece of evidence increases linearly with how sketchy it is.

- I'm lazy and I don’t flow authors. So don’t just extend author names, extend warrants too because its good debate.

3. PROGRESSIVE: I have experience with most progressive arguments, but primarily in theory, I haven't really engaged with K debate since graduating so while I can probably still evaluate the debate, you'll want to slow down, simplify things, and do extra warranting (especially if it's anything nuanced i.e. not security or cap).

- I don't have any defaults - you need to read the arguments (yes this means K/Theory = Case if no a priori argument is read). If arguments necessary for the decision are not read I will intervene up to a threshold and then presume if unresolved.

- Please don't read stuff to harvest ballots against novices - use common sense. This also means that my threshold for "we can't engage" responses increases as the "assumed" level of the debate increases (i.e. I'm not going to give you sympathy in quarters at a bid tournament)

- UPDATE FOR THEORY: IMO it's impossible to go for both a shell and case in FF effectively - you just don't have enough time. If you're going to read theory, either collapse on it or extend no RVIs and kick the shell - don't make a half-hearted attempt at going for both.

4. PRESUMPTION (is this still a thing idk): My default ROTB is to vote for the team that did the better debating. I think defaults like “first speaking team has a disadvantage” are intervention, so if no team has offense, neither of you debated better. You can obviously argue that one team should "get" presumption, but absent any such args, I will flip a coin (aff - heads, neg - tails).

5. POSTROUNDING: totally ok as long as you're respectful, I think it's educational and I'm happy to defend my decision. Also happy to discuss after the round through email. I will buy you food or something if you can convince me that I was wrong (unfortunately I can't change the decision sorry).

Did PF and Policy for 4 years in high school. I now actively coach PF and attend UT Austin.

Contact info (for email chains): lnj.deutz@gmail.com

Basics

1. I'll try my best to adapt to your style - debate the way you want and enjoy the activity
   
   

2. I have little patience for people stealing prep and for long evidence exchanges. you will be in my good graces if you make sure the wasted time between speeches is reduced. send cards before your speech for a boost in speaks.
   
   

3. If you follow (2), my speaks usually range around 29. If you get 29.5+, I was very impressed.
   
   

4. As for speed, I am ok with it generally but I flow on computer so if you conjure up a blip-storm in summary (ie- read a bunch of one-liners) because you don't properly collapse, I will end up missing something.

PF Basics

1. I'll vote off of the least mitigated link chain with an impact at the end of the round
   
   

2. To make an argument into a voting issue, it should be properly extended in the latter half of the round, warranted throughout the round, and weighed against other arguments
   
   

3. Have tangible impacts (extinction works) - statistics about the economy growing don't count and reading "x increases trade and a 1% increase in trade saves 2 million lives" doesn't make the impact of your individual argument 2 million lives

PF Rebuttal

1. Frontlining is required in second rebuttal - if you drop offense, it becomes conceded and defense on an argument you collapsed on should be frontlined or it'll be an uphill battle
   
   

2. Each response should have a warrant - you can read as many as you'd like, but no warrant means it doesn't matter. 10 warranted responses with weighing is generally far more effective then reading 30 blips
   
   

3. In my experience, most rounds can benefit from collapsing early & weighing in second rebuttal
   
   

PF Summary/Final Focus

1. Any argument (defense or offense) that wants to be a voting issue needs to be in both speeches - "sticky" anything doesn't exist
   
   

2. Extend and weigh any argument you go for
   
   

3. Arguments not responded to in the previous speech are conceded - just call it that and extend it and move on
   
   

4. Metaweighing is good but hard - try your best to do it when needed and you'll be rewarded
   
   

Theory

1. Read what you want but I'd prefer shells to be accompanied by examples of in-round abuse; for example, if you are reading paraphrase theory, it would be nice to see which piece of evidence in their case is misconstrued (although it's not required).
   
   

2. Out-of-round abuse cannot be adjudicated by me - this stuff needs to be reported to your coach or the tournament's committee if a reportable offense
   
   

Other non-standard arguments in PF

1. I'm down to vote on anything that is well warranted. I'm a big fan of frameworks (with clear standards) and will vote on K's as long as they are well laid out (ie- if you want me to vote on biopolitics, explain in a couple of sentences what that means and what it looks like in the real world). For reference, in high school, I read versions of neolib, imp, bioptx, spark, and cap in pf
   
   

2. Try something new! I've gotten to the point where I've judged so many debates that look virtually identical to another that I will probably reward you with speaks if you try out a new strategy/case position/argument, etc.

Evidence

1. Every piece of evidence needs to be cut - you can choose to paraphrase but must still have cut evidence for it
   
   

2. Make evidence issues part of the debate rather than out-of-round issues - each team should be given a chance to justify the abuse or explain why it warrants a loss.
   
   

3. I'll never call for evidence unless explicitly told to - if you want me to read evidence don't just call it bad and tell me to read it, take the time to explain why you believe it's bad if it's a critical part of the debate
   
   

Post-Round Info

1. I will always disclose as long as the tournament allows it - if they don't, shoot me a message on messenger and I will
   
   

2. Ask questions! You should use the post-round opportunity to learn what you could've improved on.

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 :)

Some background stuff about me that you don't need to know: I debated for Winston Churchill High School for four years, obtaining eleven bids to the tournament of champions. I octo-finaled the 2022 Gold Tournament of Champions and reached late elimination rounds at 2023 NSDA Nationals. I've coached at NSD/Delta, Public Forum Academy, VBI, and Potomac Debate Academy.

Short Version:

Please give me good warranting, implicate your arguments, and PLEASE weigh. Like seriously- please weigh.

Feel free to go as fast as you want, but if you spread, just send a speech document.

If you do not extend your link, I will be sad.

Extend defense in summary.

Things I Do Not Like:

- rude or offensive behavior (i.e. sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, xenophobic, etc.)

- complaining about your opponents calling evidence because it "slows down the round." It's not their fault if you don't have your cards organized

- new overviews in summary

--- SOME RANDOM STUFF ABOUT WEIGHING ---

Probability weighing is kind of fake.

--- SPEECHES ---

Crossfire:

I will listen to crossfire, but I won't vote off of anything said in cross unless brought up in another speech.

Signposting:

Do it, please. Thanks.

Rebuttal:

Im fine with a ton of offensive/DAs, just please warrant, weigh, and implicate them. Weigh links. Second rebuttal NEEDS to frontline.

Final Focus:

First final focus can do new weighing (within reason).

--- LOGISTICS ---

Speech Times:

Please say within speech times. Going 5-10 seconds over is alright if you are finishing your thought. Do not go, "can I finish my sentence?" and then proceed to "finish" the longest sentence in the word.

Content Warnings:

If you plan on reading something potentially triggering, read a content warning. Please read an opt-out of a triggering case. Have an alternative case ready to run.

Post-rounding:

Do what you want... I don't really care.

--- HOW TO GET HIGH SPEAKS ---

- show me your cat before round. if you don't have a cat, you should get a cat. 10/10 recommend.

- if you hold a pet during speech, you will get a 30 (probably).

- a reference to the Lorax.

- make a dad joke in a speech or in crossfire. (i.e. Q: what did the fish say when it swam into the wall? A: dam. don't poach this one, use your own)

- Flow in crayon.

--- PROGRESSIVE DEBATE ---

Theory:

Go for it.

Kritiks:

I haven't run Ks in the past, so run these at your own risk. I am NOT the best judge to run Kritiks with, though I will try my best to evaluate them. I am most familiar with imperialism and security Ks, but I'm willing to evaluate other Ks.

Tricks:

I have no idea how to evaluate these, so if you run them and I drop you, its your fault.

If you have any questions about this paradigm, feel free to ask before round.

For PDA summer camp tournament:

- You should be flowing throughout the round

-YOU SHOULD GIVE THE BACK HALF SPEECHES OFF OF YOUR FLOWS! (I will boost speaks for those who do)

Hi everyone! My name is Leavy (pronounced lee-vee). I debated for Poolesville.

Please add me to the email chain: leavy.hu8@gmail.com

--

-Tech > Truth

-Please keep track of your own time. Hold yourself and your opponents accountable.

-Please signpost for me!

-Off-time roadmaps!!

-Don’t misconstrue your evidence.

-Comparatively weigh- ex. not just "our impact is big" but "our impact is bigger b/c x y z"

-Speed is fine, but quality>quantity always. You should collapse in summary!

-2nd rebuttal should frontline 1st offense (at least the turns)

-I don't flow cross. Tell me during your speech if you want me to flow it/extend it.

-Be rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. and I will tank your speaks (so please be nice!!)

-Most importantly: have fun!!

-theory/prog args: not really comfortable evaluating them

--

for vbi philly:unfortunately i cannot evaluate any attempts to earn speaks based on thestipulations in a google doc that may or may not be linked somewhere in my paradigm. (sorry!)

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

Current freshman at Georgetown, debated four years for Winston Churchill.

Standard tech judge, simple preferences:

• Please don't spread or speak too fast. I would very much prefer quality over quantity.
• Please weigh! Weighing helps determine my ballot 99% of the time, so if neither team weighs, I'll have to intervene, which is almost never a good thing. Doesn't have to start in rebuttal, but at least in summary.
• Extend your arguments properly including uniqueness, link, and impact. It's going to be very hard for me to vote on arguments that aren't extended with all 3.
• Warrant and implicate your arguments. Don't just make claims and then read an impact.

I care about strong organization and speech structure. Within that structure I look for well evidenced warrants that move the debate along by fully engaging in clash. If you explicitly outweigh and tell me why you win, I will greatly appreciate that.

rubyshea.m@gmail.com