I am novice judge and am excited to be taking part in this tournament for the first time. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not spread.

About Me

I attended and debated for Rutgers University-Newark (c/o 2021). I’ve ran both policy and K affs.

Coach @ Ridge HS in Basking Ridge, NJ.

Influences In Debate

David Asafu – Adjaye (he actually got me interested in college policy, but don’t tell him this), and of course, the debate coaching staff @ RU-N: Willie Johnson, Carlos Astacio, Devane Murphy, Christopher Kozak and Elijah Smith.

The Basics

Yes, I wish to be on the email chain!

saied.beckford@rutgers.edu

COLLEGE POLICY: I skimmed through the topic paper and ADA/ Wake will be my first time judging this season. Do with this information what you wish.

GENERAL: If you are spreading and it’s not clear, I will yell clear. If I have to do that too many times in a round, it sucks to be you buddy because I will just stop flowing and evaluate the debate based on what I can remember. Zoom through your cards, but when doing analytics and line by line, take it back a bit. After all, I can only evaluate what I catch on my flow. UPDATE FOR ONLINE DEBATES: GO ABOUT 70% OF YOUR NORMAL SPEED. IF YOU ARE NOT CLEAR EVEN AT 70%, DON'T SPREAD.

In general, I like K’s (particularly those surrounding Afro-Pess and Queer Theory). However, I like to see them executed in at least a decent manner. Therefore, if you know these are not your forte, do not read them just because I am judging. One recent pet peeve of mine is people just asserting links without having them contextualized to the aff and well explained. Please don't be that person. You will see me looking at both you and my flow with a confused face trying to figure out what's happening. Additionally, do not tell me that perms cannot happen in a method v. method debate without a warrant.

I live for performance debates.

I like to be entertained, and I like to laugh. Hence, if you can do either, it will be reflected in your speaker points. However, if you can’t do this, fear not. You obviously will get the running average provided you do the work for the running average. While I am a flow centric judge, be it known that debate is just as much about delivery as it is about content.

The bare minimum for a link chain for a DA is insufficient 99% of the time for me. I need a story with a good scenario for how the link causes the impact. Describe to me how everything happens. Please extrapolate! Give your arguments depth! It would behoove you to employ some impact calculus and comparison here.

Save the friv theory, bring on those spicy framework and T debates. Please be well structured on the flow if you are going this route. Additionally, be warned, fairness is not a voter 98% of the times in my book. It is an internal link to something. Note however, though I am all for T and framework debates, I also like to see aff engagement. Obviously these are all on a case by case basis. T USFG is not spicy. I will vote on it, but it is not spicy.

For CPs, if they're abusive, they are. As long as they are competitive and have net benefits, we're good.

On theory, at a certain point in the debate, I get tired of hearing you read your coach's coach's block extensions. Could we please replace that with some impact weighing?

Do not assume I know anything when judging you. I am literally in the room to take notes and tell who I think is the winner based on who gives the better articulation as to why their option is better. Therefore, if you assume I know something, and I don’t … kinda sucks to be you buddy.

I’m all for new things! Debating is all about contesting competing ideas and strategies.

I feel as though it should be needless to say, but: do not run any bigoted arguments. However, I’m well aware that I can’t stop you. Just please be prepared to pick up a zero in your speaking points, and depending on how egregious your bigotry is, I just might drop you. Literally!

Another thing: please do not run anthropocentrism in front of me. It’s something I hated as a debater, and it is definitely something I hate as a judge. Should you choose to be risky, please be prepared for the consequences. (Update: voted on it once - purely a flow decision)

For My LD'ers

It is often times difficult to evaluate between esoteric philosophies. I often find that people don't do enough work to establish any metric of evaluation for these kinds of debates. Consequently, I am weary for pulling the trigger for one side as opposed to the other. If you think you can, then by all means, read it!

Yale Update: Tricks are for kids.You might be one, but I am not.

I'm gonna have to pass on the RVIs too. I've never seen a more annoying line of argumentation.

NSDA 2024 PF UPDATE

If your cards are not properly tagged, cited and cut, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If an email chain is not set up, I will be tanking speaker points severely.

If I get so much as a whiff of evidentiary dishonesty, I am dropping you, closing my laptop and leaving the round.

Otherwise, congrats on making it to NSDA. Have fun and do you, boo !

In general, give me judge instructions.

On average, tech > truth --- however, I throw this principle out when people start doing or saying bigoted things.

I was on the Berkeley High speech and debate team for Three years and am currently a student at UCSC. I am a pretty simple judge, just make sure all of your impacts are clearly warranted out and make sense. I will value warranting over any source you regurgitate back to me so don't just read an article at me as your "case". As long as you are respectful and don't say anything unhinged I don't force and problems. Have fun and I look forward to hearing what you come up with!

Hi! I'm Julia and I did parli for four years throughout high school and currently compete for my college parli team.

I prefer a style that emphasizes logic and thoughtfulness over tech. That said, I can keep up and flow with whichever style you choose, but please keep in mind that if you don't explain something to me I will not flow that to you. I'm not super into arguments that require a degree of judge intervention, rather I'd prefer if you explain and impact your arguments fully yourself.

Above all, please remain respectful towards your opponents, me, and the debate. Prejudiced behavior will not be tolerated.

Hi all! I’m a parent judge who has judged a few tournaments before.

Preferences:

Please don’t spread, be clear and weigh/impact.

No theory and k’s please as I am a parent judge.

Be courteous and kind to your opponents (maintain civility).

Thanks!

Pronouns: she/her

I flow, I am a newer parent judge, and I judge Parli.

I support trigger warnings being used before debating on sensitive topics.

In the rebuttal debates tell me 3 clash points, key reasons you win, mention dropped arguments, and do rebuttal if time allows.

Do not speak too fast, because if I am unable to clearly hear your arguments, the ending decision may not end up being fair. (I am not a fan of spreading)

I highly value organization and structure. Clearly state your contentions, warrants, framework, and impacts. I also want to hear clear roadmaps and signposting(should be on time).

I expect you to time your own rounds, but I will also time during rounds.

Ask POIs, and take at least 1.

I would prefer if you keep the debate on the motion, as I have limited knowledge on theory/kritiks, jargon, so only run them if you feel the absolute necessary to, otherwise please refrain from doing so.

Abusive definitions are a no no, and being racist, homophobic, snarky comments, will be deeply frowned upon.

My average scoring is a 27.5, if you wow me I may give 29s, and if you are violating equity, I will give you a low score.

Have fun, and debate well!

Hey all!

I use she/they pronouns and I competed on the Oregon circuit in high school. I did PF my freshman year, then parli for the other three years. In speech, I did impromptu, ADS, informative, and radio primarily, but also competed in prose and oratory a few times! After that, I was president of the parli team at NYU. (ask me about college debate!).

Preferences

1) SIGN-POSTING. If I can't figure out where you are on the flow, I won't flow it.

2) Make sure you get me to your impacts. Don't just say something is bad. Explain why.

3) I'm really not a fan of Ks or heavy theory, but if you give me a good reason that you're running it, I might vote for it.

4) If you're neg on a policy resolution, I'd really like to see a counterplan. (PICs are fine if you can prove them)

5) TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. You shouldn't just be listing points in voters, you should be telling me why the points you won matter more than the points the other side won (because, really, unless you're a god you did not win every point).

6) Off-time roadmaps and speed are fine. I will signal if I can't understand you.

7) Give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!

TL;DR. Love sign-posting, impacts, weighing, and counter-plans. Not a big fan of Ks or theory, but I won't strike you for doing it.

Director of Forensics at Bentley School, Lafayette
High school and college experience

I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments. You’ll benefit from signposting and staying organized. I prefer fleshed out arguments and not blips. Don’t assume I know theory. If something is a voting issue, explain it to me. Always tell me "why".

I’ve spent many years coaching speech events and I appreciate quality public speaking skills, along with respect towards your teammate and opponents.

By the end of the round, you need to tell me why I should be voting for you over your opponent. What are the voting issues and how do your impacts outweigh your opponent's impacts?

I appreciate signposting. Just speak clearly and do your best.

First time parent judge. Run case and nothing else. Speak slow and signpost. Weigh impacts and don’t use a lot jargon. Call 2 POIs maximum. I don’t like bias so do not bring up your own race, gender, or social class into your argument.

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

- 4 years of traditional LD
- 4 years of APDA college Parli
- 11 years of coaching

_________________________________________

Clash and clarity are the essential characteristics of great debate. Argumentation is always comparative. Every round is an invitation to learn and an opportunity to have fun. Everyone is capable of being kind and respectful. I'm here judging because I want to be.

SUMMARY:
- experienced “truthful tech” flow judge from a traditional background
- prefer strategic topical case debate or substantive topical critical debate
- you should weigh well-warranted, terminalized impacts to get my ballot
- sit/stand/handstand, whatever’s comfortable for you works for me!

CAUTIONS:
- not a big fan of non-topical / clash-evasive progressive debate
- don't know how to evaluate high theory, AFF Ks, performance
- I have a high threshold for warranting relative to other experienced judges
- speed is fine, but never use it to exclude an opponent –L20 if you do
- I don't follow along in speechdocs; I'd be on Reddit if I wanted to skim

LARP/POLICY:
- I’ve never voted for dedev/spark
- AFFs must prove risk of solvency
- NEGs must disprove/outweigh the AFF
- love smart counterplans lots
- love smart perms even more
- conditionality is pretty shady

THEORY:
- friv is L20, unless mutually agreed in a down round
- competing interpretations > reasonability
- fairness > education
- ambivalent about RVIs
- DTA > DTD

TOPICALITY:
- reasonability > competing interpretations
- pragmatics > semantics
- no RVIs > yes RVIs
- DTD > DTA

KRITIK:
- most receptive to stock Ks (e.g. capitalism, anthropocentrism, securitization)
- links should be cited examples of wrongdoing; links of omission aren’t links
- explain the K’s thesis in plain English – don’t hide behind poorly cut gibberish
- I won’t evaluate anything that asks me to judge a student’s innate identity
- rejecting the AFF/NEG is not an alternative; the alt must advocate for something

Hello!

I am a parent judge, and I don't have that much experience judging so please bear with me. Make it clear where you are at within your speech, and give logical reasoning. I will vote off of whichever arguments convince me best, and have proper impacting. I am fine with whatever speaking style you are comfortable with, but try not to speak too fast.

I look forward to judging you!

My Background

I coached for about 10 years at Diablo Valley College, where I coached Paliamentary debate (NPDA), IPDA, and NFA-LD. I've coached High School Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Congress for about 6 years now. I co-run a Youtube channel called Proteus Debate Academy, where I talk about debate.

I try to write as much feedback on ballots as I can, both in terms of advice and explaining how and why I made the decision I made.

Let's have a fun round with good vibes and great arguments.

What I Like Most to See in Rounds

Good link refutation and good weighing. In most rounds (that don't involve theory and so on) I'm left believing that some of the aff's arguments flow through and some of the neg's arguments flow through. Your impact weighing will guide how I make my decision at that point.

What I don't mind seeing

I'm comfortable with theory debate. I don't live and die for it, but sure, go for those arguments if they're called for.

If you're not familiar with the exact structure and jargon of a theory argument, all you need to know is that if you think your opponent did something unfair are bad for education, I would need to know (a) what you think debaters ought to do in those situations, (b) what your opponent did wrong that violates that expectation, (c) why your model for how debate should be is better than theirs, and (d) why you think that's a serious enough issue that your opponent should lose the whole round for it.

What You Should be Somewhat Wary of Running

I understand Kritiks. I've voted on many Ks, I'll probably vote on many more. But with that said, it's worth mentioning that I have a high propensity to doubt the solvency of most kritiks' alternatives. If you're running the Kritik, it might be really important to really clearly explain: who does the alt? What does doing the alt actually entail in literal terms? How does doing the alternative solve the harms outlined in the K?

If your K claims to have an impact on the real world, I should have a say in whether I want to cause that real world effect. I'm not gonna make decisions in the "real world" based on someone happening to drop an argument and now I have to murder the state or something.

How am I on speed?

I can keep up with speed. If you're going too fast, I'll call slow. With that said, it's important to me that your debating be inclusive: both of your opponent and your other judges. I encourage you to please call verbally say "slow" if your opponent is speaking too quicklyfor you to understand.Please slow down if that happens.If your opponent does not accommodate your request to slow down, please tell me in your next speech if you feel their use of speed harmed your ability to engage with the debate enough that they should be voted down for it. It's very likely that I'll be receptive to that argument.

Other Debate Pet Peaves

Evidence sharing in evidenciary debate formats. Have your evidence ready to share. If someone calls for a card, it's not acceptable for you to not have it or for it to take a lifetime to track the card down.

Please feel free to ask me more in-person about anything I've written here or about anything I didn't cover!

First time judging

I am new to judging. Please keep track of your timings. I would like you to talk slowly so that I can follow.

please be respectful!

Last updated: 2/2/2024 (Evergreen)

General:

I am a tabula rasa judge who will do my best to judge arguments based on the flow. Please do not spread or exceed significantly faster than the conversational pace because I am not the fastest at taking notes... I have judged for 4 years (Public Forum/LD/Parli) and mainly lay debate, however I am down to hearing progressive arguments if explained clearly and well.

Start all speeches with an off-time roadmap: Signpost and tagline extremely clearly. I cannot flow you if I do not know where you are. Please take at least 1-2 POIs per speech as I believe there is a purpose in them existing in the first place.. I will disclose my result at the end given that this does not go against tournament protocol.Finish on time as well.The grace period is illegitimate. You get your minutes and then you are done. Granted, I will not explicitly tell you your time is up -> that is for you and your opponents to enforce in-round.

Case:

This is my favorite type of debate. Simple and easy -> run the status quo or a counterplan if you are Neg and run a plan if you are gov. Be specific but do not spend 50% of your speech on top-of-case. I need lots of weighing and terminalization in the MG/MO and the clean extensions through the LOR/PMR. I barely protect, it is best to call the POO.A good collapse into the key voters and instructing me where to vote and why is the key to winning my ballot. Statistics and empirics are underrated in Parli: But do not lie please. Do not rely on them entirely to the point where you have no logic, but there should be a good balance and mix of logic and evidence.

Theory:

Will never vote on Friv T: I will evaluate actual theory against "real abuse", but explain every single jargonistic-like term in great detail. Err on the side of caution, I have judged very very few progressive rounds. I do not default to anything. If you do not tell me anything I can simply not evaluate it -> I also do not randomly put theory before case, that is up for you guys to argue. Overall, I would recommend just sticking to the case given my wavy evaluation of theory, but if there is actual proven abuse in the debate round then it is best to run it in some form or another.

Kritiks:

Never heard a Kritik before in a round. Best not to run this, I don't understand this concept still to this day. You can try, but explain everything in great detail.

Overall, be respectful to your opponents, it goes a long way for speaker points as well. Best to run a traditional, slower case debate with really solid impacting and statistics. If you collapse into voter issues and effectively rebut the opponent's points, you have a good shot at winning the round.

Good luck to everyone.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

Put me on the link chain

Send all cards before the speech, stop killing time in the round on asking for individual cards please.

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

Hi, I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging! I am currently getting familiar with speech and debate terms/procedures so please give off-time roadmaps in the beginning of your speeches and signal posting throughout. Please no circuit arguments or spreading.

Background: Did 4 years of HS parli with Evergreen Valley High School. Currently in APDA debate at Johns Hopkins. Explored west coast lay/tech as well as east coast HS parli (nypdl specifically). I probably liked NYPDL and west coast tech the most, but all formats had their advantages!

IF YOU ARE A NOVICE OR SOMEONE WHO FEELS CONFUSED READING ANYTHING BELOW THIS PART: Don't worry if you don't know what half of these terms below mean. Just know that I am a judge who did debate before, so I have prior experience. I care most about the content of your arguments, not how you deliver them -- focus on making the round extremely clear to evaluate/judge. Tell me why certain arguments matter, how I should prioritize certain impacts over others, and PICK/CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES -- you do not need to win every argument, just win the ones that matter (and tell me why they matter the most)!

TOP LEVEL: FIRST AND FOREMOST, I always prefer rounds that MAXIMIZE clash, not MINIMIZE clash. This means that I am NOT favorable to rewarding strategies that rely solely on extending concessions and nothing else. I used to be a 2N that used to just love going for tricks that went conceded in the MG, but I've realized since then that it makes debate vacuous and boring, and damages any semblance of critical thinking the activity is supposed to offer. Importantly, this means I DO NOT ENJOY ROUNDS where teams proficient at tech read it against teams who are not as experienced with it. I am more than down to judge a KvK between two teams who are down to have that debate -- but the idea of reading tech against inexperienced teams with the sole purpose of getting a free block is not looked upon favorably by me (yes ik that's a passive sentence shhh). Do not do it -- I will tank your speaks. Please don't make the same mistakes I made:(( Make rounds interesting!!

Apart from that, I am tech > truth. This means that I will evaluate solely based on the flow, barring any blatantly bigoted rhetoric that creates in-round violence -- L20 and reported to tab if you say anything rhetorically violent. No exceptions.

This also means that I want you to do the weighing and collapsing -- please tell me what impact comes first, which parts you think are a wash/not useful to evaluate, why you win an argument, why your warranting outweighs theirs (i.e. why do empirical pieces of evidence matter more/less than analytical pieces of evidence, etc.) -- DO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. Doing this boosts your speaks and minimizes my intervention.

In terms of speed, I can hang with speed/am fine with it. HOWEVER, I will be extremely sympathetic to anyone who is unable to keep up with speed -- if you do not slow down to ensure that all people in the round can engage, I will not be afraid to drop you/find ways to vote for the other side. See main point above -- clash, clash, clash!

Framing

Framing is strategic. Read whatever framework you want -- I often read a lot of structural violence framing, but I also read framing oriented at minimizing spiritual suffering, encouraging class consciousness, etc. Framing is your opportunity to be creative and wild in a way that benefits you massively! This means give me what impacts/types of mechanisms I should evaluate first, why they matter the most, etc.

If you go for phil (principles, Deont, Aretaic Ethics) -- I'm down for it, just be as explanatory as you can and explain why it matters to the round. Idk what to do with "consequentialism is bad for minorities" if you don't tell me an alternative mechanism to evaluate the round/how I use that to evaluate aff offense, so make that as explicit as possible.

Case

LOVE a creative case debate. Make sure you have uniqueness (preferably brink) on your advantages/disads, which basically just means don't read stuff that's non unique to the aff/neg worlds. Be very explicit in how you leverage your own uq/your opponent's lack thereof.

Common thing that I don't see in debate nowadays is link weighing. Impact weighing is beautiful/needs to be done, but when it comes to 2 parallel arguments that claim X leads to Y versus X leads to Z,I need a tiebreaker/way to compare the two parallel arguments. Explain why your link/mechanism is more probable -- do likelihood analysis, warrant comparison, ENGAGE WITH THE INTERNAL PARTS OF THEIR ARGUMENTS, etc.

As alluded to before, Impact weighing needs to be done. Love metaweighing, but please use some actually concrete arguments. I've too often heard "probability comes first because if something is not probable, it doesn't matter" but this is quite honestly shallow. Do the work of being as concrete as possible why probability comes before a specific type of weighing, and clarify the mechanism -- it helps you.

Regarding econ debates -- I am sick and TIRED of hearing vague econ arguments. Please be specific and actually clarify what economic growth means, how your advantage/disad actually leads to a certain economic impact, and don't just make broad stock args like "we create jobs so we make the economy grow" -- tell me why that industry actually needs jobs, what that industry's role is in the larger econ, etc. I LOVE econ when done well, primarily because it's one of my favorite subjects, but I cannot stand how debate butchers econ debates sometimes. :((

Finally, go nuts on case -- I've read cases that argue that "South Korea increasing its nuclear arsenal means increasing investment into nuclear power because arsenal just means resources," or even counterplans that the USFG should invest in plasmid transformation of bacteria that digest food waste and produce isobutanol for clean energy. Fwiw, those aren't even that funky -- literally go as wild as you want, I don't care. Case is engageable, and if you find a defensible mechanism to prove your wild argument, I'm all ears.

Speaking of counterplans.....

CP DEBATE

Top level -- if you aren't super experienced but want to read a counterplan, ignore anything below that you can't understand. Just know that I'm totally fine with anything you read, as long as its competitive, and make sure to be prepared to answer the perm! Also, remember: counterplans are reasons why doing the aff PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING SOMETHING BETTER - you need to actually prove that this counterplan is uniquely an opportunity cost, and that doing the aff would explicitly be bad because it prevents the full benefits of the cp.

I default to neg gets fiat. CPs themselves are terminal defense, not offense, but I can be convinced otherwise. Otherwise, use the CP for defense and collapse to an actual net benefit/DA -- otherwise I have no idea why the CP matters. Perms are tests of competition, not advocacies - again, I can be convinced otherwise, but ngl I'm not very sympathetic to perms being advocacies; it's a pretty awful take.

I am EXTREMELY in love with advantage CPs - they are the most clash oriented and can be extremely creative. I've read extremely wild advantage CPs, and am more than fine with creative CP mechanisms. Just explain them well. If it helps, I am a STEM major, so I have a rough understanding of science-oriented advantage CPs, but I also read a lot of economics, so I can understand some basic mechanisms for economics oriented Advantage CPs.

I default to conditionality being good, but am more than willing to hear MG theory about condo bad. Same thing with PICs -- you can read these forms of non-friv CP theory/MG theory against anyone; just make sure you explain them well if you're reading it against people who aren't as experienced with theory.

Theory/T

I will add more to this section later -- for now, know that I am down for T debates and am happily fine with friv BUT make sure you refer to the note at the top. Do not read friv against people who aren't experienced with theory for a free win. Even if I do end up voting for it, your speaks will be tanked.

K

Same as the section above, I will add more to this later -- down for anything (I read a lot of MLM/Buddhism in junior year and Orientalism in Senior year), but just make sure you're considerate. Also, INTERNALLY COLLAPSE TO SPECIFIC PARTS of your fw, links, ix and alt -- internal collapsing is necessary to win the K debate. No questions asked.

Finally, have fun and have a good round! You got this :D

I am a lay judge with some experience judging, I vote on good logic and reasoning, based on which side can convince me more that they are right.

Be respectful. Be clear. It's about quality and strength of argumentation not about speed and volume of arguments made.

Judging:

I’m a flow type of judge. And judge based on the following.

1. The topic/Message being made clear

2. Evidence is provided if asked for or needed

3. Mannerisms, no hostility or rudeness during the debate

4. I don’t usually flow during cross but if there’s a question or something about the logic that really stands out to me ill let it be known

5. Points being correctly attacked and built up

6. But I’ll also give feed back on what could’ve been done better or pointers on how to make a certain point or topic stronger, suggestions

Speech:

I judge based off of:

1. Topic/Message made clear

2. Manners/Hand gestures/Facial expressions are important, it helps convey the story

3. Volume and eye contact help keep a piece together, especially in intense moments

4. Ones acting in general, if one is trying to act something out and it’s not clear just exactly what they’re supposed to be doing it can throw off the entire scene

5. Passion, a piece can seem robotic or made to seem completely bland without some type of enthusiasm behind it.

About me:

Please call me Joi! I’ve been doing speech and debate from 6th grade up until the day I graduated high school. The events I’ve done are DUO, DI, HI, OPP, Impromptu, Public Forum, Parliamentary and a plethora of others. Speech and debate I guess you can say was my life and I’ll love it until the day I die. Whether it be competing or judging I’ll stop at nothing to help people get better and lift up those who need it even if they’re against me. It’s not something I take lightly but even throughout the seriousness I believe speech and debate is a place for not only competition, but to have fun as well as meet long term family members, not just friends.

Please add me to the email chain and send your cases as well so I can follow along! My email is rocklynry@gmail.com

I am novice volunteer judge and I am a new-bee judging in speech and debate competition, so please be slow while speaking.

Also, please follow the pattern and come up with a structure in your speech and provide evidence for the arguments that your were making whether you are talking on the pro or on the con side.

Try to go in-depth on the points that you are choosing and emphasize on how it relates to the topic that you are speaking for.

Good Luck

I am a parent debate judge. These are some of the things I will be looking for while judging

1. Content rich definition and points.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Empirical evidence.
4. Respect each other.

Hi all! I am a parent judge. I work in journalism and politics, and do a lot of real-world debating myself—Real Time with Bill Maher, Meet the Press, MSNBC, etc. I have encyclopedic knowledge of policy, current events (domestic and international), and the legislative process, so you won't be able to b.s. me, so make sure of your facts and you'll be fine.

I don't track disjointed arguments and counterarguments very well, so the better your signposting, the better your chances of victory. And in a close contest, the better signposting team will likely win.

Hi, I am a first time judge. I will be flowing on my computer, no spreading. I have no tech experience.

I use any pronouns. I'm in my third year of college. Forgive me if I'm not caught up on the latest news. It's me and my matcha latte vs the entire world (pchem). Yippee! I used to compete in the Oregon circuit in high school. I learned everything debate-wise (except policy, but I understand the format). For speech, I mostly did platform speeches with some radio and ADS sprinkled in.

Speech

Respectfully, please allow me to finish writing feedback. If applicable, give me your speech title and tell me when you're ready to start. I will start time on your first word. Otherwise, relax and be respectful! Trigger warnings and content warnings are always appreciated.

Debate Preferences

1) Please signpost and give taglines. I love a good line-by-line. If I do not know where you are on the flow, I will not be able to flow your argument the way you want it. Off-time roadmaps and mild speed are fine. I will tell you if I can not understand you.

2) Explain the impacts of your arguments to me. Why is that specific thing bad?
3) Theory-wise, if you think it's appropriate fire away. I'm not a huge fan. If you can justify why you're running theory, I might vote for it.
4) I love formal structure for policy (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and value (real-world impacts/natural policy consequences of valuing x over y). I also appreciate a clear framework, regardless of the resolution. I understand that in fact rounds, it means I'm just going to see preponderance of evidence. No worries :)

5) PLEASE TELL ME what to vote on in your last speeches. Not all points are made equal, so you should tell me why the points you won matter more than the points your opponent won (realistically you will not win every point unless you're a god).

6) If you're neg on a policy resolution, I love a good counterplan or a justified PIC.

7) Feel free to give your pronouns and name at the beginning of your speech if you are comfortable!

8) Please be respectful to each other! I'm not so sure about intervening but I will vote you down if you display any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. Actions have impacts. (This goes both ways.) I'm not going to be "tabula rasa" because I know that I will have biases, beliefs, etc that will affect my decision-making. (I'm human). I will try to judge purely by the flow.

9) Speaker points are arbitrary and I should not be the judge of your speaking style. If nothing bad happens, 30 speaks for everyone if you signpost. 27 if you do not signpost.

Hello!

I am a college judge and I have debated PF in high school. I've also done Duo Interp and doing British Parliamentary now. I like to see a lot of engagement and lots of clash. Please be respectful of your opponents.

Case: I vote on case, theory is not my favorite. Be concise.

I like to see signposting foremostly and I also like to see clear arguments with warranting, a link chain, and impacts. Constructive speakers need to be clear in each argument and back up each step of the link chain with empirics. Address everything that is relevant. Please do not spread and PLEASE WEIGH. I also don't really like definition debates.

Rebuttals:

Try to cover each argument and respond. Make sure to rebuild your own case as well. Weigh comparatively and using weighing mechanisms.

CX (PF):

Be respectful and ask content based questions. Do not talk over each other and make sure you don't take all the time for yourself.

Have fun!

Everett Rutan

Judging Paradigm

I’m primarily parli these days, but the principles would apply to any form of debate I might judge.

I check all the boxes: successful, national circuit high school debater (policy/cross-ex); debate coach for over 25 years; tab director for over 20 years; debate league director for over 15 years; taught at a respected parliamentary debate summer workshop for 10 years. However, my career was in business, not education or the law, which does affect my point of view.

None of that is “actionable”, in that it is of no help to you if I’m sitting in the back of the room with my flow and stopwatch waiting for you to begin. The following may be more useful.

My role as a judge is to sort through the debate you and your opponent choose to have and produce a reasoned, persuasive decision. My “case” (RFD) should accurately reflect what was said and be acceptable to each of the debaters as a valid opinion on what occurred, even if they may take issue with that opinion.

This judge-as-debater approach has certain implications:

· My source material is the debate you choose to have. If you don’t agree on what it should be about, then my decision should be based first on your definitional arguments. If you do agree, then my decision should be based on the relative weight of arguments on the issue. If both teams agree—explicitly or tacitly—to have a particular debate, my opinion as to what the motion or debate should have been about is not relevant.

· The more work you do to lay out a path to a decision, the less work I have to do building my own, and the fewer decisions I have to make as the judge. That generally works in your favor.

· Your arguments should be based both on what you present and, perhaps even more so, on what your opponents present, with a fair comparison and weighing.

My business background has certain implications:

· Debate is intended to be educational. I have less sympathy for arguments that no one would make or consider in the real world. Theory arguments should be clearly explained and shown to have a serious impact on the matter at hand. The more distantly related an argument is to a plain reading of the motion, the greater the need to justify that argument.

· Not all arguments are equal. Judging is not simply counting arguments won, lost, or dropped, but comparing the persuasive weight of each side. I expect both sides will win some arguments and lose some arguments and drop some arguments. If you don’t weigh them, I will.

· Explanations count more than facts (at least explanations broadly consistent with the facts). For any arguable topic there will be examples that favor each side. The fact that some people survive horrendous accidents unscathed is not in itself an argument against safety equipment; that many will refuse to use safety equipment that is inconvenient or uncomfortable is, at least against that particular type.

· I don’t have a problem making decisions. I rarely take long or agonize over them. However, I will do my best to provide a detailed written RFD, time permitting.

Finally, debate is about the spoken word. It is your job to persuade me and in your best interest that I clearly understand what you want to say. It is not my job to be persuaded, nor to intuit what you intended to say beyond a reasonable effort on my part to do so. This has the following implications:

· Speak as fast as you think appropriate. I flow well and can tolerate speed. But if I don’t hear it, don’t hear it as intended, or don’t get it on my flow, it won’t help you. It’s not my job to signal you if you are speaking too fast or drifting off into unintelligibility.

· Why wouldn’t you present more arguments than your opponents can handle in the time allowed? Spread is a natural consequence of time limits on speeches. But 13 weak reasons why an argument is true won’t help you even if your opponent drops 12 of them, but wins the one most important to the issue. And debaters with more than one level of subpoints almost always get lost in their own outline. Quality spreads as surely as quantity and has more impact.

· I understand some debaters provide outlines, cards, briefs, etc. I will listen carefully to what you say, but I will not read anything you give me.

I have published a great deal of material of varying quality on the Connecticut Debate Association website, http://ctdebate.org . You will find transcriptions of my flows, various RFDs, topic analysis and general debate commentary reflecting my opinions over the years.

FAQs

Definitions? Definitions are a legitimate area of argument, but don’t ask me to rule on them mid-round. Gov has the right to a reasonable definition of terms. If Opp does not like them, Opp should challenge in a POC, POI or at the top of the LOC. Don’t wait to challenge definitions late in the round. Gov need not explicitly define terms or present a plan: clear usage in the PMC binds Gov and must be accepted or challenged by Opp. In other words, if it is obvious what Gov is talking about, don't try to re-define the terms out from under them. P.S. No one likes definition debates, so avoid them unless Gov is clearly being abusive.

Points of Clarification? Like them. Think it’s a good tactic for Gov to stop and offer Opp a chance to clear up terms. Should occur at the top of the PMC immediately after presenting definitions/plan/framework, etc.

Pre-speech outline or road map? A common local custom not to my taste. Speeches are timed for a reason, and I see this as an attempt to get a bit more speaking time. But, when in Rome… They should be brief and truly an outline, not substance. I will listen politely but I won't flow them.

New contentions in the Member constructives? Perfectly legitimate, though it was considered old-fashioned even when I debated 50 years ago. It also presents certain tactical and strategic issues debaters should understand and have thought through.

Counterplans? If you know what you are doing and it’s appropriate to the motion and the Gov case, a counterplan can be extremely effective. Most debaters don’t know what they are doing, or use them when there are less risky or more effective options available. Many counterplans are more effective as arguments why the status quo solves or as disadvantages.

Written material? I’m aware in some leagues debaters give judges a written outline of their case, or pass notes to the speaker. I accept all local customs and will not interfere or hold these against you. However, debate is by spoken word, and I will not read anything you give me.

New arguments in rebuttal (Point of Order)? You should call them if you see them. But if you see them every five words it begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the rebuttal speaker. Landing one good PO puts me on watch for the rest of the speech; multiple “maybes” will likely annoy me.

Evidence? Even in heavily researched debate like policy, facts are cherry picked. Even in the real world one rarely has all the facts. Explanations generally outweigh simple facts (though explanations that contradict the facts aren't really explanations). Information cited should be generally known or well-explained; “what’s your source” is rarely a useful question or counter-argument. I am not required to accept something I know to be untrue. If you tell me something I don’t know or am not sure of, I will give it some weight in my decision, and I will look it up after the round. That’s how I learn.

Theory? (See “business background” comments above, and "Definitions".) These are arguments like any other. They must be clearly explained and their impact on the round demonstrated. They are not magic words that simply need to be said to have an effect. Like all arguments, best present them as if your audience has never heard them before.

Weird stuff? Everyone in my family has an engineering degree. We’re used to intelligent arguments among competent adults. We know we aren’t as clever as we think we are, and you probably aren’t either. The further you drift from a straightforward interpretation of the motion, the greater your burden to explain and to justify your arguments.

Rules of debate? There are none, or very few. If your opponent does something you think is out of bounds, raise a POI if you can and explain the impact on the arguments or on the debate in your next speech. Most "rules" debaters cite are more like "guidelines". If you understand the reason for the guideline, you can generally turn a weak "that's against the rules" into a much stronger "here is why this is harmful to their case."

ejr, rev July 2023

I am a parent judge with little to no experience in judging. I would prefer a normal/slow talking pace and clear structured arguments.

I'm a former university debater and currently an MD-MPH student-judge with 8 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged around 40 parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution and impacts are provided

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution and impacts are provided

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

Public Forum

Speed: Okay with varying pace and speed

Preference of arguments: None specific, as long as they are explained well and their impacts are proven

K's and theory arguments: Open so long as their impacts are proven

Tech > truth: I will evaluate the argument/s provided that the logic and impacts are proven and the opponents' arguments are engaged and rebutted

Evidence: Direct quotations on trustworthy sources and statistics are highly welcomed especially when they are linked to proving the extent of the harms and benefits of your case or your opponents'

CX, Crossfire, Grand crossfire: Questions that cast a shadow of doubt to the opponents' case are welcome. Be creative and sneaky.

Summary and FF: Should be consistent and evolve with the progression of arguments and rebuttals raised during the debate. Evaluation of questions and responses during CX and crossfire should be integrated as well, if necessary.

· I am a parent judge with many years of experience judging debates and public speaking.

· I value the presentation of the debate a lot, and look for good eye contact, diction, and inflection of the voice.

· A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments

· Please do speak clearly. Speed is okay, but you must be understandable. Please remember this is not about how fast you can go, it’s about how good your arguments are.

. I flow the round, but I promise there is a high probability that I will get lost if you go too fast or jump around with your arguments.

. If I am unable to clearly hear your arguments, the ending decision may not end up being fair. (I am not a fan of spreading)

. I have no knowledge on theory/kritiks/jargon, so please don't run them.

. Make your impacts clear to me. Highlight why you win the round.

. Ask POIs, and take at least 1.

· Remember that in order to get good speaker scores, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to favor debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

· And finally, please enjoy your debates. It will show in your performance.

I am a very new judge and have only started this year. Though I am a lay judge, I like to focus on well-developed and connected arguments that are reasonable and backed up by good evidence. Please speak at a slow and moderate pace. Most importantly, make sure to have fun!

2018: I've gotten out of debate coaching as a full-time profession in order to focus on my research on the tenure-track. I'll still write and speak on debate in journals and conferences, respectively. I'll likely judge at some local high school tournaments in South Texas and may do some judging in the Texas area at both the high school and college levels. I very much enjoy debate and will still be a strong advocate for it. I'll just be doing less of it as a career. In 2018, I was fortunate enough to win the Forensic Educator of the Year for Southern States Communication Association and Coach of the Year from SE CEDA. I also won the John Cameron Turner Memorial Novice Critic of the Year Award from SE CEDA, which probably means more to me than any debate award I or my debaters have won. I will still be a good judge in race, cap, and high theory debates, but my reading on the topic won't be that great.

2016 Updates: I continue to think debating is good for education and that many different styles of debate have merits. I still prefer critical arguments to policy arguments, although much to my chagrin, I'm not the worst policy/policy debate judge. Judges are not neutral when they enter a room. We should stop pretending they are. I prefer certain arguments, I've read more critically certain books, I've written things I stand by, and I find some debates more interesting than others. I do not think debaters should have to agree with me or only read arguments I'd like to read, however. I was a 2N/1A most of my life so that's often how I think about debates. I never was to sure what that meant, but since it's in many people's philosophies. I judge a lot of debates in all divisions, although now I'm judging a lot of novice debates as a result of coaching novices. Novice debate is important to this activity, and we should be kind to our novice debaters. I recently returned from Barcelona studying decolonization and also spent significant time in Germany working broadly on communication tragedy. I don't care what pronouns you use to describe me. I use he/his/him. I appreciate people not using "guys" as a gender neutral pronoun and that you make a good faith effort to call people what they want to be called. It's also important to engage the substance of arguments you might not like, which probably means framework arguments are not always the best in front of me, although I have voted on them. I think Sean Ridley and Erik Mathis are good judges and good people, which may say something about me as a judge or a person. I'm currenty reading a lot of Lacan, which has always been the case, and thinking through some issues of leadership and social mvoements. Have fun!

2015 Updates: I continue to be a good judge if you run arguments that address issues of race, capitalism, and ideology. I recently completed my dissertation on George Jackson's Soledad Brother and I actively write about race and (rhetoric, law, capitalism, counter-terrorism and national security). I am starting a new policy team this year so that will likely reduce the critical literature I am personaly reading, although that ought not change my judging philosophy. I continue to think debaters should be nice, fair, and honest. I want everyone to come away from this activity invigorated, feeling as though they are better thinkers, students, scholars, and activists. Although I am clearly a critical style debate person, I am more than competent at judging traditional policy style arguments. Just don't expect me to call for and read your 10th uniqueness card with the same interest I'd put into a piece of Anthony Farley, Charles Mills, or Carlos Mariategui evidence. And yes, I did cut a piece of evidence and cite it as "Saint Alloysius, 400 A.D. or something" for my NDT-qualifying team of GSU NS. I'm a fan of the odd. Have fun, be smart, argue passionately!

The philosophy... more or less...

Explanation and analysis over random card reading. I’m open to hearing any arguments and not disinclined to vote on any argument. If your strategy is politics DAs and Counter Plan theory—read ‘em. If you love reading Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida—read ‘em. I thought about writing my philosophy for every conceivable argument, but that would probably lead folks to think I had a strong preference for or against arguments which really is not the case. All critics come into rounds with experience in different areas just as debaters come into rounds with different majors. It’s your job to convince me, not my job to tell you what I want to be convinced on. I am ultimately a kritik-oriented debater and coach. I prefer to hear these rounds and am probably more qualified to judge these rounds. I love performance, memory politics, poststructuralism, identity politics, and feminism particularly.

Debate is subjective, but I try to come into each round with as open a mind as possible. That being said, I have a strong background in critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, and rhetorical theory, but that does not predispose me to vote for poorly constructed arguments that claim to engage those ideas.Because I’m more involved (reading and writing) in those areas, I probably am a better critic in those rounds.Again, not because I have a preference for those areas, but because that’s where a lot of my intellectual energy has gone over the years.BUT, I also worked the in DC Metro Area in government affairs, so I have an on-the-ground sense of how politics actually works.

Your ultimate goal should be to convince me why you win the round.That can come about using not only many different arguments, but also many paradigms. I value your performative consistency and gender neutral language.Debate is an open canvas upon which debaters can construct communities of action. The ballot can be a tool, but before you assume I’ll vote on something, you need to explain why your paradigm makes sense in the round. If you believe my ballot sends a message, explain why I should feel the same way. If you feel like we are policymakers, then explain why my position as critic upholds sound policy decision-making. Inspire me to take action with you.

I prefer not to call for cards after the round, but if you feel I must, then provide some darn good reasons. Explain why your evidence is better. What are the qualifications of your author? The warrants behind her or his arguments? The inconsistencies of the other team’s authors? I have a good flow, but I’m not perfect. It’s very important to me to flow things in the appropriate place and make sure that I can follow arguments from start to finish. I value debaters who are organized. I usually don’t flow CX, but if I hear something that sounds particularly relevant to the resolution of the round, I’ll jot it down.

Speed does not matter, but speed should not be a substitute for persuasion. Sometimes speed gets valued over persuasion, and that’s not helpful for anyone. It’s great that you read 7 internal links, but how do they matter to the round and why are they better than your opponent’s answers. Don't make speed a substitute for argument.

I've voted on T, DAs, CPs, Ks, Turns, Perf con, Condo, the various Specs. For theory, I am very concerned with education in the debate round. I find a lot of theory unpersuasive, but if you can explain why the other team hurts your, their, or my learning in this round, then you'll be in a good place.

Have fun, be humorous, don’t take yourself too seriously. This is a competative activity, but it's also a fun activity.

Other debate information…

Coaching Experience:

Director of Debate, University of Central Florida (17-18)

Director of Debate and Forensics, Illinois College (15-17)

Assistant Coach, Georgia State University (11-15)

Assistant Coach, United States Naval Academy (09-11);

Director of Debate, T.C. Williams HS [VA] (07-12),

Assistant Coach, West Virginia University (03-04)

Head Policy Debate Coach, Midlothian HS [VA] (00-03)

Debate Experience (all policy): Middle School, Tallwood High School [Virginia Beach, VA], University of Richmond

Education:

Grad. Cert., University of Central Florida (women's studies)

Ph.D., Georgia State University (communication, track: rhetoric and politics)

M.S. Troy University (international relations, concentration: national security affairs)

J.D., West Virginia University

B.A., University of Richmond (history, urban practice and policy, rhetoric and communication studies)

Hello!

I am a parent Judge.

I have been judging parliamentary debate since December 2023.

I expect debaters to be courteous, which is to say I prefer 'our opponents claim of X is incorrect/flawed/incomplete because Y and Z' to 'claiming X is ridiculous', as both more civil and more persuasive. I appreciate when everyone keeps to time. Please do not resort to language that is discriminatory or disrespectful.

Debaters are free to inform me (or not) of their preferred pronouns when/as they choose.

I can follow a fast debate, but I prefer it when debaters speak at their own normal rate. I do not love speed for the sake of speed or jargon for the sake of jargon. If a team does not meaningfully slow down after being requested to do so (within reason), I will dock speaker points and be more forgiving of dropped arguments.

I have no objection to theory, but I expect the connection and relevance of the theory to the topic to be clear and convincing and in no way abusive. I generally dislike topicality arguments, unless the government's definition/framing is unreasonable or abusive (but I will expect you to explain how and why it is). If teams introduce a weighing mechanism, I appreciate when they use it to weigh the competing arguments.

Overall, I judge each round on the cogency and strength of each side's argument as a whole rather than the quantity of evidence or arguments presented. The flow is for keeping track of the debate, it is not the debate.

I did parliamentary debate in college and some judging then and more recently. Currently, I am a librarian and a medievalist (n.b.), I have taught medieval history and world history, I write and I edit, and I am currently teaching legal research at Berkeley Law, all of which informs how I approach judging and feedback.

Who I am:

I am a new parent judge for parli so will need help with jargon and signposting. I am a MD/PhD who spend over 2 decades learning how to influence different people.

My predispositions:

Clear framework is important. Use your definitions to frame the debate and tell me what criteria you want me to use.

I like a structured argument with objective statements based on facts/data rather than emotional appeals.

I will vote for the most compelling argument and the most coherent story rather than the side with the most points brought up.

Have fun!

I am a lay judge. I have been judging parli debate for 1 year. I prefer clear and not too fast speaking. I vote off of strong arguments and whichever team has the most points standing at the end.

Hello! My name is Davis (he/him/his). I was a Parliamentary debater at the Nueva School from 2018-2022, and I am now a junior in college. If I happen to be judging you in a debate event that is not Parli, some other info is listed at the bottom, and most of my preferences can apply to LD, PF, and Policy. It has been quite some time since I judged or participated in debate, but I like to think I've remained consistent in my preferences and that my thoughts on debate align with my current paradigm below.I think the debate space is a great way to learn about, and justify, your own beliefs. In some ways debate is a game where your strategies must be deployed effectively and strategically in order to get a ballot. Debate is also about developing activism strategies and promoting unique discourse. It is up to you to find those strategies and this paradigm will hopefully help make that choice easier for you.

tl;dr

Fine with speed - I probably will have a hard time flowing if you are spreading upwards of 250+ wpm. Go for any argument you feel is necessary—perhaps to truth test your opponents, roleplay as the state, or promote an epistemology/ontology/methodology/etc—with some caveats listed below. I will not intervene although there will be times when I might inadvertently “fact check” in my head if an argument just sounds blatantly wrong and I hope the other team will call you out on that. If not, I will accept it as true. My initial read on your arguments might have some left-leaning political bias but of course I aim to correct this and only use what is presented in round.

As a debater I primarily went for well-warranted cases and the occasional kritik. I only read kritiks that I wrote or studied intently. I think it is critically important that every argument you read is something you could explain to an expert and a ten year old. Be well-versed with the literature you are drawing from. What I mean by this is that you should not pick up a kritik your friend wrote and read it for the first time without knowing what is going on. Read it knowing with confidence that you can defend every argument within the kritik and be prepared to explain it in a POI if need be. One of the biggest portable skills in debate is being able to formulate arguments on your own; if you regurgitate warrants and arguments given to you by a peer, coach, etc it just is a really bad look. Don't read Baudrillard because you want to sound cool and tell your friends "I read Baudrillard" or because you feel the need to read a K for whatever reason. Read Baudrillard because you vibe with what he argues and you actually believe that hyperreality is more important than policy. Imo, if you think Baudrillard's arguments sound cool but you don't agree with them, don't read Baudrillard, even if it scores you a higher chance of winning the round.

I will do my best to make the round accessible for you in any which way, but ensure that the round is fair and even on both sides. You ought to explain why your strategy is inherently a productive use of time and an effective way for both teams to learn in-round if, for example, it is a K against a novice team.

Burdens:

The affirmative burden, to me at least, is to prove the resolution true. In other words, provide a policy that fits under the umbrella of the resolution and explain that it can do a good thing. If the affirmative feels they can still meet their burden by rejecting the resolution because the harms of the resolution outweigh procedural fairness, I believe they meet their burden. The neg can either "disprove" the resolution and tell me that the affirmative isn’t true by explaining that there is a better alternative (ie. squo, CP, K), or simply prove that the affirmative doesn’t do something good and have a small piece of offense. This is how I will make my voting decision.

Case:

I don't dislike case debate. I think critical advantages and disadvantages can be effective. Make sure you have warrants to back up your claims. Do not tell me the economy is doing poorly and not warrant it. Specific link stories are a nice way to help me understand what your plan does/what the aff plan will do. One-off case strategies are fine. If you don't terminalize impacts, I won't do it for you—and I likely won't give the argument that much weight.

I haven't justified voting on terminal defense enough yet, so please ensure you have offense against the other team somewhere, even if it is just an impact turn. I think magnitude is probably the easiest way to win the impact debate, but I weigh all three (magnitude, timeframe, probability, not reversibility) so weighing the three against each other will help me make my decision easier. Timeframe only matters with extinction level impacts like climate change - I don’t really consider it unless magnitude and probability are mute.

CPs:

Delay/actor/other PICs are prime arguments for a theory interp to be run (and I will vote on it), but it is not an autovote. If you run a delay CP with arguments on why it is the only ground in the round I will be more sympathetic to the neg than if you just run a delay CP to be cheaty. Do with that what you will. Be condo or dispo if you want. To some degree conditionality destroys traditional aspects of case debate, but it also increases critical thinking. I would be happy to vote on theory in either direction with regards to condo/dispo.

Kritiks (Aff/Neg):

I enjoy reading critical literature, and think Kritiks are great if understood correctly. See my note in tldr about my beliefs on when Ks should be run. In short, read a kritik you vibe with and can defend every ounce of. Be an expert with the warrants and literature. While debate is gamified in many regards, the gamification is no excuse to pick a kritikal strategy that will allow you to win over an inexperienced team at the expense of your own education and knowledge production. Absolutely be creative with kritiks - try new alternatives or frameworks! All I hope for is that you extensively read the literature first.

I believe that I still have much to learn when it comes to successfully evaluating every K debate I judge, so please explain things clearly to the best of your abilities. Some thoughts:

1. I find myself most attracted to the ones that attempt to transform the way education is gained in-round. Generic Cap Ks or other generics for that matter aren't my favorite. Read an interesting alternative and I'll enjoy your Kritik more. That said, the bar for my ballot is higher for an alternative with less of a tangible connection to the real world.

2. Ks being read as a way to gain an advantage over a team with less experience is cruel. While there is not a clear brightline on the front of taking advantage of another team, intent is generally obvious given the wording of the K and the way in which you read it. If you truly believe in the power of a proletariat revolution and want to read it as an alternative against a novice team, that should be reflected in the way you read the kritik. After all, don't you want to clash over it to debate the merits of such an alternative because you are truly passionate about it? If so, present it in such a way that generates clash (ie. slow down, take questions, use less jargon, spare the other team from minutiae, etc.).

3. Identity Ks are really powerful and a great way to transform the debate space, but you should not be running an identity K about an identity you don't embody.

4. If you don’t take questions from the opposing team who may be confused about your fw, alt, etc, that will look really bad. It will make sad to vote for you in that case if the other team doesn’t respond well because you likely didn’t defend it well either. Please have clear links rather than arbitrary links that apply to every round. You have 20 minutes to prepare links so they should be good. Please also leverage your fw otherwise it serves no purpose.

5. I am not the biggest fan of “reject” alternatives—you will likely have a harder time on the solvency level so make sure the solvency actually has a clear and effective way to solve something. If your alt has no solvency or you fail to explain it clearly enough for your opponents, I won't be sympathetic towards the rest of the K.

6. Don't concede your framework.

7. I have no major opinion on structural fairness versus procedural fairness, and it certainly depends on the context of the round, but I lean slightly towards structural fairness.

9. Never run more than one K in a round. Condo Ks in my opinion simply destroy any benefit from reading one K and you might turn yourself or re-link.

10. I would strongly prefer you to defend the resolution rather than reading a K Aff.

Theory:

I think theory is a great way to win debates when there is proven abuse, but theory debates often link to big-stick fairness implications trying to get a ballot with little educational value when teams go for potential abuse. I won't pull the trigger on an interp that simply says we may have lost some ground or something of the sort—show me exactly how you lost ground.

I prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. The only partially-justifiable brightline for reasonability is "must win every standard." I won't automatically drop the debater or argument - please explain to me which choice I should make. More often than not, I drop the argument. For me to drop the debater there needs to be a high threshold of abuse; run theory when you feel it is necessary to check back against proven opponent abuse.

I don't like friv T. Please refrain from it unless you are 100% certain there is proven abuse. Be prepared to debate the RVI, especially if you run something like “must use a period at the end of the plan text.” I really don’t want to vote on an RVI, but will 100% do it with bad theory that destroys the debate space (ie. must not run a CP, must not wear shoes, or something along those lines). Obviously, I won't determine if the theory destroys the debate space—the team ought to tell me it does.

Speaking:

Speaking is not that important to me. Speaker points are not a good representation of a debater's skill or persuasion, and they are too arbitrary for their own good. If you are enthusiastic, it might make me feel that you understand your arguments better which can look good perceptually. I find that some people might be shy in-round but have really good arguments - that still is "good speaking" to me.

If you laugh at your opponents, you will get lower speaker points.

Carded events - please don't spread too fast. Make sure you use CX effectively with good questions. I probably won't flow it but it could impact my perception of your arguments if you can't answer questions about your own strategy.

-----------

Be humble. Be creative. Be curious. Be authentic. At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be fun, educational, and a space to grow as an individual. Please ensure it is that way for every debater.Please ask in round if you have any questions about my words above, and I look forward to judging you!

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my sixth year judging and ninth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

ADDENDUM: THESE DAYS I REALLY PREFER SPEECHDROP.NET. PLEASE USE THAT IF YOU CAN.

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.

General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.

I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.

I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.

Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.

LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.

PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.

---------------Most Recent Update: 3/30/2024 (NPDL TOC) -------------

TOC-Specific

TOC is the biggest opportunity for students to learn about different styles of debate. I expect y'all to try to learn. Refer to Luke DiMartino's section on "Ballot" for what I expect to occur when styles clash. Refer to Sierra Maciorowski's section on "Pedgogy" for my thoughts on technical accessibility. Refer to Sam Timinsky's section on "Lay vs. Flow" for my thoughts on tech v. lay in the debate community as a whole.

This is also the biggest opportunity for you all to connect with one another! For the first time in 5 years TOC will be in person so make friends with your competitors and be kind to each other! Feel free to reach out to me after the round for my thoughts more deeply on issues (or, after the tournament, if you'd like coaching (NYC is expensive :( )). I am a huge debate nerd so I love it when y'all have a good time and enjoy this beautiful activity. Have fun! :D

If you open-source your TOC prep you get automatic 30 speaks. Everyone should do it anyways....

No consistent coaching, but had intermittent mentorship from Trevor Greenan, Cody Peterson, Javin Pombra, Ming Qian, and Sam Timinsky. Philosophically similar to Esha Shah, Sierra Maciorowski, and Riley Shahar. Try not to pref both me and lay judges; splitting ballots at TOC leaves no one happy, and punting one of us will make both of us sad.... :(. I enjoy super techy intricate debates!

My pronouns are on tab now; please use them and your opponents correctly! Will drop speaks for first infraction, will drop teams after that.

Lastly, I've gotten really into Feyerabend. If you are interested in the philosophy of science (especially on topics about science/technocracy/AI/etc.), I highly recommend his work! There's an old Feyerabend K backfile I found that I can send to people who are interested!

Background

I did parliamentary debate for 4 years w/ Cupertino, but I'm pretty familiar with LD and PF. Currently coach parli and PF. Coached extemp for 2 years and policy intermittently. Debated APDA a bit but wasn't my cup of tea. I was a 1N/2A if that gives you any indication of my biases for speeches.

I mostly went for K if I could, but good on T and fast case. For Ks I usually went for Daoism or Asian Conscientization. If anyone wants a rough copy of either of the Ks feel free to message me on FB or email me (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com). Tried to get K-DAs off the ground but didn't debate enough rounds for it to stick :( Also if you're from a small school message me or email me for a copy of my Small Schools K.

TL;DR

- be cool, have fun, dont be a jerk

- weigh lots

- clever arguments make me very happy!

- no friv T, don't like tricks (although this I think has fallen out of favor since I've graduated)

- *not* a K hack despite my background. This is because I love Ks to death. If you are a *K debater* please pref me because I love a good K debate, but don't use a K just because you think you can get a cheap win. If you would like to get better at K debate, please pref me because I love teaching better Ks in parli :D

- seriously pleaaaaaaase be nice each other, it makes me sad when debaters get upset and debate should be fun!

Preferences

These are not hard and fast rules but general guidelines for you to see how much work you'll need to put in to win the argument. I have found that the farther I get from being a competitor in high school debate, the fewer real preferences I have and I could not care less about most issues. In other words, if it's not mentioned by name in the list below, I don't have a default and *will* flip a coin absent argumentation. If it was that important to your case, you should have mentioned it!

My number 1 preference is for you to try new things and have fun. My partner always said that if you're not having fun you're not doing it right, which I have always found to be true. Also don't be a jerk (sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc) or you'll drop instantly.

I evaluate the round systematically.

1) Who is winning framework? How should I evaluate arguments at all?

2) Who is winning the layering/sequencing arguments? According to the debaters, what order should I evaluate the arguments? Absent that, I default to my stated defaults.

3) Who is winning offense on each layer? When I hit a layer where there's a clear winner, I vote for that team

In other words, I look at layers from top to bottom (e.g. K > T > Case, Advantage 1 > DA 2 > etc., etc.) and as soon as one layer isn't a tie I will just vote for whoever is winning that.

Some things that always make me happy

• Clever plans/CPs: this usually means very good specificity that lets the Adv/DA debate get very intricate
• Ks with very specific links and interesting solvency arguments! Choosing fun solvency advocates is good for everyone!
• Theory with unique standards and approaches (e.g. going hard for reasonability or the RVI, standards like "creative thinking" or "framers' intent", etc.). I'm probably the most lenient tech judge on the underview issues in theory.
• Consistent sign-posting throughout the round. If the 2N says something like "go to the warrant on the second internal link on the Econ DA" I'm going to be really happy that you kept that up the whole round
• Collapsing to fun stuff (e.g. on weighing: timeframe, sequencing, etc.)

Defaults

- If it's not in the final speeches I'm not voting on it.

- Default to probability > magnitude. Bonus speaker points if you collapse to timeframe

- Unwarranted arguments will have very little weight in my mind; if I don't know why something is true I don't know why I should buy the argument: source w/ warrant > sourceless warrant > warrantless source > sourceless and warrantless (this last one isn't an argument at all).

- Don't care if there's a source citation in parli

- Signpost! If I don't know where you are, I'm probably not gonna be able flow it!

T

- Real-world education impacts are the way to my heart, default to Education over Fairness

- Default to RVIs valid, but you need to read a particular brightline for the RVI to function

- Default to Reasonability (esp. Content Crowdout, though I don't think people run this anymore (if you do bonus speaker points))

- Don't use "small school" arguments unless you're actually from a small school or can justify how your program is disadvantaged. I'll give leniency on this but please don't be disingenuous -- and being on the circuit for so many years I think I've developed a good intuition.

K

- KNOW THE SOURCE MATERIAL WELL AND HOW IT ENGAGES ESPECIALLY W/ FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS: most K's (especially generics) are written with the US in mind and are *not* applicable to other places, be sure that the K functions elsewhere before you run it

- PLEASE PLEASE have good links that actually connect to the specific articulation of the Aff.

- If it's a funky K, go nuts, but please explain stuff (for the sake of me and especially for the sake of your opponents) or I won't know what you're saying

- K Affs are lit, just make sure there's actual ground for both sides (for all the Negs out there, email me if you want a copy of arguments against K Affs)

- If you read a decent K out of the 2AC you'll get a 29.5 at least.

- If you read theory saying NEG Ks are not legitimate, I will drop you

- Familiar with most Ks except for super pomo stuff. I'm not sure what the place for identity Ks are in the debate space and I have not judged them enough or been engaged with the community enough to be educated but please be cool about them if you do want to read it and make sure there's an actual valid opposite side

- From Riley Shahar's paradigm: "I tend to think that debate is not the best space for arguments which are reliant on the identities of competitors. I am certainly willing to listen to these debates, because I know from experience that they can be necessary survival strategies, but making assumptions about other people’s identities is a very dangerous political move which can force outing and be counterproductive to revolutionary action."

Tricks

Go slow and explain them super clearly (probably defeats the point of running them but hey it's your round).

Speaker Points

Do work on 30 speaks theory, don't just throw it out there for the sake of it. Speaks are entirely assigned based on strategic decisions made in-round (i.e. I don't care how you say it as long as you say it). 25 or lower for problematic speech/behavior.

APDA Specific

- default to beat-the-team on tight calls

- don't be purposefully obtuse in POCs or you're getting tanked (and I'll be more lenient on tight calls and case args)

- pragmatic > principle, but easily swayed

- run a K, run theory, run condo, go nuts, just don't call it that if it's against tournament rules

- please POO shadow extensions: if it's not extended in the MG, I consider it new (even if it's in the PMC)

Non-Parli

- I don't flow cross

- Read full cites or I'm not flowing it (in particular this is @ PF)

- Cards with warrant > cards without warrant = warrant without card > claim without warrant

- Bonus speaker points if you disclosed on the wiki

- PF: If it's in FF it needs to be in summary

- Add me to the email chain (xiong.jeffrey314@gmail.com)

Misc.

- Call "clear" or "slow" if you can't keep up; if you don't slow down enough when the other team calls it several times you're going to get dropped with tanked speaks. I will also call clear/slow as necessary

- If you say something blatantly untrue, I'm giving the other team the argument (the bar for this is very high though so just please don't lie).

- If you tell me to check the argument, I'll do it but I won't treat it as a "lie" unless it's egregious (in which case I can tell either way)

- Go slow on plans/CPs, interps, alts, etc. Have copies prewritten for everyone. For online tournaments, have texts in the chat right after you say them. We're online! It's so much easier to pass texts! (boomer grumblegrumble)

- For Points of Order, tell me explicitly which argument is new and why (if you're calling it) and where it was on the flow in which speech specifically (if you're responding). I will let you know whether or not I think it's new unless it's in outrounds. Trust me when I say that it is too much work (usually) to protect against new arguments.

- Virtual POIs: put them in the chat, please be mindful of the chat if you're the one speaking

- Tag-teaming: go for it, but both speakers must state the argument

I'm Z Yoo, one-time CHSSA Parli champ. Once lost a round where my opponents said the house wasn't a part of Congress.

Please do not...

-Be disrespectful

-Make up statistics

-Off-time roadmap (Your time will start when you start talking)

-Tag team (I will not flow anything said by your partner during your speech)

-Kick your counterplan

-Make arguments that suck

Please do...

-Signpost

-Be funny!

-POO

-POC (if allowed by the tournament)

Other than that, debate however you'd like. PICs are fine. Kritiks are fine. Anti-K theory is fine. Will be tabula rasa-ish (in other words, I will try not to insert my personal opinions into the round), but please don't try to convince me of things that are factually untrue, and don't expect me to believe something that just doesn't make sense.

If you have any questions after a round, email me at zachary.yoo@tufts.edu

@ Parli kids: everything in this paradigm that isn't PF specific (cards/evidence, CX, etc.) applies to you.

If I flip a coin and it lands on its side (which apparently happens every 1/6000 flips for an American nickel), you will debate in Canadian National Debate Format instead of whatever format the tournament is in. Here's a link to a guide.
(This is generally for PF debates where there's a coinflip built into the format. I judge lots of parli now so sorry to any parli kids I confuse! Feel free to check out the CNDF format tho LOL)

I did PF and BP in high school, and have been coaching/judging since then. That being said, I'm studying neurobio+datasci in college so please don't expect me to remember all the IR/econ drama that goes on in the world :') If someone mischaracterizes a country's/individual's involvement in some global issue, it's better to call it out yourself than to assume that I'm aware of the mischaracterization.

I took bits and pieces of this paradigm from other judges' paradigms that I really like. Credit goes to Lauryn Lee and Kyle Kishimoto.

Content

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name. I don't write down author names for cards and I'll have no idea what you're referring to. I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

I'm unfamiliar with theory and kritiks and I don't like voting off them. I am not the judge you want if you plan to run either of those.

Frameworks are cool but if you bring in a framework, you need to tie it into your arguments and explain to me what you gain/opponents lose. PF speeches are too short for you to waste your time on a framework debate if winning it makes no difference in the overall decision.

Warrants + Evidence > Warrants > Evidence. Not being able to explain your cards looks really bad on you. This also means that I prefer warrant comparison to evidence comparison. Evidence comparison should happen when the warrants directly clash and there isn't much of a way to evaluate them, or one side's evidence just sucks. But in general, comparative analysis is awesome and one of the best ways to win.

Saying the word "extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. I won't vote on anything that's not extended through summary and brought up in final focus.

Weighing needs to be comparative and specific. This means your weighing has to directly interact with the opposing team’s argument – you should be answering the question “If all of their arguments are given to be true, why do I still win the round?” Because of this, I don’t really consider attacking the truth of their argument as an effective weighing strategy – weighing assumes the arguments to be true. I also think more teams should do meta-weighing – why is your form of weighing better than another? Why is your argument that wins on probability stronger than theirs that wins on magnitude?

I listen to cross-ex but I don't flow it. If you get a concession from CX, it doesn't matter until I hear it in a speech. CX ends as soon as the timer goes off, and to pre-emptively address your questions, you may finish your sentence, but don't add another 4 paragraphs to your answer, or I'll drop your speaks.

Style + Misc.

Please don't give off-time road maps. I'm just personally not a fan because I think you should be able to do that during your speech time, while maintaining good time management.

If you’re gonna go Lightning McQueen on me you need to be clear and signpost properly.

If it takes longer than 2 minutes to find your card, I'm not counting it.

Debate is great :) I'd be happy to talk to you after the round if you want more feedback or you can email me at eliz.zhou29@gmail.com

I am a civil litigation attorney who appeared in state and federal courts for over 20 years, and have sat as an arbitrator, judge pro tempore or settlement master for Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. I did not participate in debate when I was in school but believe I can be a fair and impartial judge. I have judged a few rounds of parliamentary debate since 2021.

both sides need to eat more fruit they look malnourished

paradigm lol https://docs.google.com/document/d/13yNM4bIspRBuLD2AH2PAhv5JZzOYJIPEd2rTdz59TwM/edit?usp=sharing

✨✨✨✨

tf why does only the sparkle emoji work