Background: I am a former PF debater and current PF coach at Phillipsburg High School. I have over a decade of experience in all debate and speech events.

PF Paradigm --

Email Chains: I don't want to be involved in the email/evidence chains. I trust you all to present/use your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of back-and-forth on specific evidence throughout the whole round, I might call for it after the round, especially if it will greatly impact my decision.

Progressive Debate: I am a traditional PF debate judge who focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments. I am not a fan or very familiar with progressive debate so please no theory/k’s and impacts out to nuclear war/extinction. If that is what you want to run you probably won't get picked up by me. When it comes to tech over truth I lean towards truth, use your best judgment, I think logic is incredibly important in PF. Just because it is on the flow doesn’t mean it is absolutely true. Links should be explicit don’t just say impact terrorism or nuclear war, I want to see logical link chains and impacts.

Speed: When it comes to speed I can handle a little bit but no spreading in PF, please. If you want to send a speech doc then you are probably going to speak too fast and I am not going to read it. Present your case articulately and clearly, PF is not policy or LD.

Weighing: Comparative weighing and good impacts are super important to me. Also, be super explicit, don't just say things like "we win off magnitude and probability" tell me exactly what your impacts are "we win on magnitude because we help 327 million more residents blah blah.." again please just be explicit. When it comes to weighing probability is very important to me. I will almost never outweigh on a low probability huge magnitude impact i.e. nuclear war/extinction.

I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Other notes:

• Funnel down/collapse – I don’t want the summary to just be a second rebuttal. Also if you are listing 10+ responses and doing line-by-line in the summaries then you aren’t prioritizing. Tech debate in PF has been focusing too much on quantity and not quality – 10 blippy responses that don’t have a logical basis are not better than 2 sound logical responses with good warranting.
• Provide me a narrative and an advocacy, it is not the team with the most cards and most responses that wins, it is the team that narrows the debate down to the major areas of clash and provides me a better worldview of either the AFF or NEG.
• Please spell things out clearly: links, turns, especially extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says a 3% increase blah blah..." Being more explicit is always better.
• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly what you are responding to.
• I don't flow CX but if a good point is made and you bring it back up in speech I will listen. Also be respectful in CX.
• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

LD Paradigm:

I would also identify as a traditional LD judge who is very open to well-thought-out and engaging arguments. My background is in PF and I tend to only judge LD on the traditional circuit. I will evaluate the round in the best way you present to me and I really appreciate strong values, VC, and FRs in the round. When it comes to things like kritiks and other super tech LD, I will evaluate to the best of my ability and I think that if they are well done and add to the debate in a substantive way that is fine. I don't love theory debates because I don’t really understand super tech LD so you probably won’t win on that with me as the judge. One other thing is that I do look toward more realistic impacts bc of my PF background. Impact calc is very important but if there are massive unrealistic logical jumps I am not going to buy it i.e. impacting on nuclear war/extinction in a round concerning animal rights. Lastly, when it comes to speed, I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

Traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed or negated through strong, sound, and logical arguments.

Please enunciate clearly. While spreading can be advantageous in your rebuttals, please do not forsake the quality of your arguments for speed, especially during your construct.

I value respect so please be mannerly in your conduct toward judge and fellow opponent.

I have judged at local and national tournaments.

I'm a freshman at Princeton and debated with Regis for the last four years.

I'll ultimately vote off flow but I'd consider my judging style to be more lay. A few well-warranted and nuanced responses are far more convincing to me than a larger amount of blippier responses. If you can do that and stick to a clear narrative throughout the round, I'll be very happy.

Please speak relatively slowly.

All responses/frontlines should be warranted. I will not buy a claim simply because you read it from a piece of evidence. Rather, I prefer you explain why your responses/frontlines are true.

Do not introduce new information besides weighing past first summary. Final focus should mirror summary.

Write my ballot for me by weighing and doing the comparative in summary and final focus. It makes my job much easier!

Be respectful and, most importantly, have fun!

email for email chain is tj . ascherl @ gmail.com

I dont flow off the doc

for princeton pt 2 (except it's at the top): if you have good clash on the specific granular details of your evidence you will be very happy with your speaks from me. Essentially, if you demonstrate knowledge of military doctrine (ex: us has world leading ABM defense systems, which are key to protecting command and control nodes against china's extensive tactical ballistic missile arsenal, which means us aid specifically is critical) you will do far better than just repeating "china can invade without us support" "no china actually cant invade even if taiwan is defending alone". Ships passing in the night make me sad. There are a lot of weapons systems, ranging from small arms and ammo to whole ships and aircraft. Demonstrating knowledge of 1) what the us currently does and doesnt give and 2) how these systems interact with each other, even if only in a very basic sense, will make me happy.

Former LD Debater for Okoboji High School. Dabbled in PF and Congress. I have experience with both circuit and trad/lay LD, but haven't been closely involved in the LD nat circuit since ~2020.

Debate background: I mostly read util in lay rounds, and was a tricks/theory/phil debater on the circuit. Despite reading util in lay rounds, I did not frequently read LARP/policy style arguments at a high level. I collapsed to a K maybe twice in actual rounds. I read a lot of 1ar theory and analytical phil, and am of the opinion that skep is an incredibly strong argument that is underutilized primarily because of hacking against it.

Non-debate background: I have a BBA in Finance with a minor in Philosophy. I work in the energy sector and as such have pretty good knowledge of things in that domain, specifically as they relate to financial markets. I also have a fair amount of knowledge regarding military doctrine/strategy, but do not have any formal background in this area. I am not particularly well read in most K lit and have practically no experience with most of the authors outside of the debate context.

For IHSSA: you can read whatever in front of me, but I would prefer you keep rounds somewhat inclusive of lay debaters. I won't vote you down for not doing this, but if you read shoes against someone who's never heard of theory you probably won't love your speaks. I will still vote on anything, and your speaks will be very good if you make the round particularly educational.

for princeton: i just checked and the nsda explicitly prohibits reading plans and counterplans in PF, but everything else is fair game. Idk if people read Ks in PF these days but I would strongly encourage not doing that in front of me. Ill still vote on it and I wont tank your speaks or anything but I am probably more lenient on how ill let post fiat offence weigh against the K in PF than I would be in LD.
VERY IMPORTANT: IF THERE ARE ANY TECHY ARGUMENTS YOU PLAN ON READING THAT ARE UNCOMMON AND/OR STRUCTURED DIFFERENTLY FROM CIRCUIT LINCOLN DOUGLAS, YOU SHOULD SLOW DOWN AND BE THOROUGH IN YOUR EXPLANATIONS. I have circuit LD experience; I do not have circuit PF experience. I do not want anyone to be surprised if theres something I've never seen before and I am literally unable to fill in the blanks for you. if there's anything specific here you can ask me before round, but only do so when all competitors are present.

General

debate is a game

I will probably repeat this sentiment many times but unless I explicitly state otherwise, all the preferences/defaults listed in this paradigm are subject to change based on arguments made in round

I'll yell clear/slow; im not the best at flowing so I won't dock speaks unless it's particularly egregious

throw me on the email chain

If you have questions feel free to ask before round

flex prep - yeah im chill w it unless tourney rules explicitly prohibit it or something

cx is probably just constitutively binding in the same way speech times are, so if for whatever reason you're in a position where you need to argue otherwise that will be an uphill battle.

feel free to match the energy of your opponent/be more abrasive in but don't be mean to novices, lay debaters, etc (dont be mean to anyone - what I mean by this is that if you're in deep elims at some huge tournament and your opponent says "what's an a priori" in cx, you can be pretty confrontational)

I don't mind postrounding but keep it reasonable

PF

I competed in PF for like 1 tournament but I read plenty of lay util LD stuff (which is functionally the same aside from needing to win the framework). If you can win some offense and weigh it well you shouldn't have any issues. Never did circuit PF but my understanding is that it is less tech than LD; that might have changed to some degree, but anything resembling the LARP LD stuff is fine. I am probably marginally less tech judging PF than I am for LD, largely because I am highly unlikely to vote on LD style tricks in PF in a local.

I would recommend collapsing to one point of offense then winning the weighing, although this obviously varies greatly based on the circumstances.

LD

These are all preferences, it's your round, standard disclaimer or whatever.

Tech > Truth

Debate the way you want to with the understanding that there's a chance I might not understand your style as well and it will probably be harder to get a ballot from me depending on what you read. I wont activity hack for or against anything but there's a far higher chance I understand your theory args than your K.

Pref shortcut - Tricks/theory>Phil>LARP>K>performance/non T aff

A dropped argument is a true argument as long as it is pointed out that it is dropped. If you ignore it as well, don't expect it to be a factor in my decision

I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no rvis (THESE CAN CHANGE). I'm reasonably confident that there is no implication to a theory shell without paradigm issues, so I WILL NOT DEFAULT TO ANYTHING on drop the arg/drop the debater specifically. I suppose I don't have an issue "defaulting" no rvis and competing interps, but if you for some reason don't read no rvis on the shell and your opponent goes for it you're in a really bad spot. Paradigm issues seem to be underutilized in theory debate by a large number of debaters so I would enjoy seeing an actual debate on dtd/dta or something like that.

absent any argument from either side, i will assume the aff is whole res and defends implementation, and neg advocacies are condo.

absent another rotb i will default to truth testing

I have no problem with any position you run. I will try my best to ensure that my personal opinion has no influence on the round whatsoever.

NC AC makes me happy, especially if it's well thought out and interacts well with the ac

knowing the details on your advantage/offense also makes me happy

prewritten 1ars/2ns are meh, and nonresponsive prewritten stuff makes me sad

I know less about Ks, high theory/pomo and performance stuff. I'm still more than willing to vote on them, but make sure explanations (especially in the 2ar/nr) are understandable to someone who hasn't read your author.

I think tricks and frivolous theory are cool

*if they're actual tricks - tricks debaters need to step their game up, K debaters have the floating pik which is a top 3 trick for sure.

if something is legitimately not warranted I'm not going to vote on it. I would strongly prefer that you do not try to test the limits of what constitutes "legitimately warranted" as that will make me very sad. To clarify, the underviews of 2019 do typically meet this threshold, but saying "no neg args - they make me sad" is probably not a complete arg. Indexicles, condo logic, etc are things that are frequently underwarranted in my view. On the flip side, it is my view that a LOT of K/idpol positions are either underwarranted or lacking warrants altogether. None of this means I wont vote on any specific argument/position - a warrant need not be true (and can be incorrect/false) to be won.

I am increasingly finding myself holding the view that it is outright unstrategic to read an arg that you literally cant go for if it's responded to (think the a priori/paradox dump offs with 7 one sentence blips). This is due to the diminishing returns present when they're inevitably grouped, the sort of true combo shell that you open yourself up to, the inability to actually give a 2n on any of them, and the fact that the answers can be just as (or even more) incoherent than the args themselves and you can't exactly do much about it. TLDR it's just a lot easier to read something that isn't obviously wrong (shocking, i know).

Speed: I can flow about a 6/10, slow down on tags or anything that is absolutely critical. Ill should clear and slow as necessary.

Speaks: Ill probably average a 28.7-29.2. Higher for funny/creative args. strategy and speaking ability both go into speaker points imo. Reading something that I've never seen before/an arg that you created, very good cx (on both sides), and clever strategic choices are ways to get very good speaks.

Random stuff that seems worth mentioning

zero risk/terminal defense is probably a thing and can definitely be won in front of me - for example, 0 risk of a 2018 midterm DA

"converse of the interp" probably isn't a real counterinterp and i will be quite receptive to the (true) arg that there literally isn't an exact couterinterp to which standards can be applied. You might be able to win this arg if the interp is something like "aff may not read a prioris" and you say "converse of the interp", but there is literally no reason why you cant just say "aff may read a prioris" instead so just do that pls.

rotb and rotj are probably the same thing - if you expect me to evaluate these separately I would strongly prefer a reason as to why one comes first

***kicking a condo position needs to be explicit; not extending =/= kicking

***NSDA evidence ethics complaints supersede all in round arguments - you don't get to tech your way out of it

***I have never seen "gut checking" used in a way that is sufficient to constitute an argument (claim, warrant, impact). "It's obviously frivolous" IS NOT a sufficient response to a shell - you need to win why it is frivolous and why that matters. Going for reasonability is probably the best way to do this.

***Absent some reason to view them as such, "independent voters" don't magically operate on the highest level of the round. They can, but you do have to win that part of the argument. Just saying "independent voter for _" is almost certainly not sufficient.

I have no particular issue with any impact turns (death good, etc). I don't auto-require any sort of warnings or disclaimers, although if your opponent makes those arguments you still have to answer them.

• "Layest of the lay" - My students
• Tech is NOT a debate

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

Hi, I'm a freshman at Barnard but I judged, taught, and debated PF for 4 years at Lexington High.

- short version: weigh comparatively and extend your case in the last two speeches, signpost, frontline, and don't have anything new in your final focus that was not in summary.

theory/ks: if you're in varsity/jv, this is up to you. I will be super upfront and say that I am not super familiar with Ks and don't love theory/ks in PF in general so read at your own risk (but I will judge it). please do not run tricks/friv. If you choose to do so, you need to be very clear and show me that you know what you're talking about.

- weigh weigh weigh, including comparative weighing. If one team runs probability and the other magnitude, I have no idea which to choose. I love weighing & if you do not weigh, I have to choose which impact matters most and trust me, you do not want that.

- signpost. If I don't know where you are, I won't be able to write your responses where you'd want me to and your arguments aren't going to come across cleanly.

- tech>truth. that being said, if you say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I will drop you. Also, I'm going to have a higher threshold for "aliens are invading the country" than "the sky is blue" so take that as you will.

- I will vote off the flow, so don't drop things and make sure to extend your argument completely (don't only extend the impact without the link chain or vice versa). Make sure you're frontlining and extending defense throughout. Collapsing in first summary or earlier will help you in this way. Extensions are important to me, please extend arguments, defense, and impacts.

- I am fine with speed/spreading if you do all of the following: prioritize clarity, enunciate, make sure your opponents are okay too, always offer speech docs (same policy on format as cards), and signpost clearly.

- summary and final focus should be mirrored. I will not consider anything new in final that was not in summary and for an effective backhalf strategy, you and your partner should be on the same page.

- You must send cut cards and rhetoric if you choose to paraphrase case (honestly would rather you not). I will call for carded evidence if I feel like it is necessary for my decision, but in general, I will not be doing this often. All evidence should be in card format with qualifications, cites etc - if I/your opponent calls for evidence and all you have is a link, I'm not going to be super happy and it may impact my decision. No google docs or sending in email bodies please, PDF or word.

- cross shouldn't be three minutes of extra debating or responding. Please ask and answer questions in a CIVIL manner. However, I will not flow cross so if there's anything you want me to vote off of that happens in cross, bring it up in your next speech.

- timing speeches/prep time is your responsibility. I expect you to be keeping track of how much time you have and how much prep you have - after you take prep, just let me know how much you took. I understand that sometimes you don't finish perfectly on time, so if you're in the middle of a sentence and the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence given that it is less than ten seconds over. Please do not abuse this grace period, I will cut you off.

feel free to ask me questions about my decision if you're confused. I will not dock speaks and I feel like it helps you learn how you can improve in the future. i'm happy to give specific feedback after round as well.

You got this, have fun!! If anythings on my paradigm don't make sense to you, please ask me any questions. Debate is a game: this means that you should not be exclusionary. Follow the rules or warrant why you shouldn't, and let me know if there is anything I can personally do to make the debate more accessible to you.

email for evidence chain: atreyib18@gmail.com

I am a lay judge but will try to flow as much as I can. I will vote mostly based on clear unrefuted arguments and weighing on impacts. Other things to note to win vote and speaker points:

1. Don’t spread, and speak with clarity and conversational speed
2. Provide off-time roadmap and signpost
3. Be respectful especially in crossfires
4. Follow NSDA PF rules e.g. no new arguments after rebuttal
5. Try not to use technical terms (delink etc) so I can follow
6. No Ks, theory and other prog arguments, only debate on the topic.

As a new debate judge with a background in biopharmaceutical research, I am going to be all ears for arguments drawn from solid evidence. Just as I rely on rigorous research for drawing conclusions about my findings in the lab, I value well-supported arguments and logical reasoning in debates. I look forward to encouraging thoughtful discourse, critical thinking and respectful conduct of debate proceedings. Best of luck!

Hi! My name is Davey Biviano, I'm a freshman at Princeton, and I did PF but also a bit of LD, Worlds, Parli, and Congress for Regis. If you have any questions please let me know before the round and I will 100% happily answer them. Like seriously zero judgement pls ask.

email: daveybiviano@princeton.edu

My thoughts:

- i'm chill with speed but don't be crazy

- nothing is sticky - you don’t have to extend a ton of case just say extend this c1 super quick linkchain and please read the impact. You don't need to reexplain everything just tell me what to extend and the interaction

- no new offense in 2nd sum

- 2nd reb. must frontline

- COLLAPSE

- weigh please - if I get little/no weighing i default to magnitude b/c probability has to be implicated to make sense. But this makes me super sad. In my opinion weighing should be like 1/4 - 1/2 of everything you say I think it's super important especially in more advanced debates

- i vote off of the flow in case you haven't gotten that by now

- if you’re funny or clever or make a really intelligent response you will get very high speaks

- PLEASE implicate responses. This is a good way to win rounds and get good speaks

- be nice! have fun! Debate is a good thing and ik it can be stressful but it should be mostly fun

PROG. (THEORY, ETC.) MAKES ME SAD

just like be chill pls

I prefer concise arguments with well-supported by evidence. I value the quality of the arguments rather than the quantity, and would like debaters to speak at a moderate pace. Please remember to have fun, and I am excited to hear your arguments!

Send speech docs: brashearjamie@gmail.com
tech>truth

If you believe the other side has dropped a contention, I encourage you to point that out.

Be respectful. One note of caution -- I am familiar with NSDA rules. Please be certain of the rules before you decide to cite the rules as an objection.

I really like prog debate. Ks are my preference. But I enjoy theory and ivis as well.

For the VBI Camp Tournament

do not run theory if your opponents cannot engage in bc they are in a lower lab. run theory at your own risk i don't like to evaluate it. absolutely no friv and no trix. i LOVE any type of fem argumentation. i love ppl who speak slow but are still efficient on the flow. i love warranting. i love carded weighing.

Email: scaracalos@college.harvard.edu

Hi! My name is Bryan and I am a freshman at Princeton. I debated and judged WSDC (and occasionally BP) debates during high school in Singapore. A few things from me:

• Good framing of the debate goes a long way, especially if the debate happens to be on a topic I am not familiar with.
• Be strategic with your argumentation. Quality trumps quantity, I would much prefer fewer but more complete arguments and/or rebuttals than a long list of one liners.
• I am most willing to buy arguments that have plausible premises, developed mechanisms, and strong impacts. Ensuring that the links from A to B to C are clear is a good checker for this.
• When providing rebuttals or weighing arguments, it is important (to me) to compare each side’s impacts and outcomes on the relevant actors/stakeholders in the debate. If you can prove to me that the impacts on said stakeholders in your worst case are on par with or marginally worse than the opposition’s best case, you are likely to win my vote.
• I am more familiar with debates that operate on the foundation of charitable contextualizations, which I personally think allows teams’ arguments to clash more directly with one another about the resolution itself. As such, if you decide to run an unconventional contextualization or K, it is possible I will appreciate it if it is convincing and well explained, but you are doing it at your own risk.
• Speaking clearly and coherently is the best way to get ideas across to me. Don’t use seven words when four will do if it means rushing through your speech.

Best of luck, I look forward to hearing you all!

Dear Students,

My paradigm is listed

1. Originality in style, thought and delivery is always appreciated
2. Authenticity resonates deep. Mean what you say and say what you mean. Being contrarian is OK, being unauthentic is not preferred
3. Wherever possible, make a case with evidence, or relatable experiences to lend authenticity to the argument
4. A little humor goes a long way.
5. Need not fill your time if you have made your case. Brief and impactful > long and laborious

JUDGE EMAIL: TINTU.KRISH@GMAIL.COM (TO SHARE CASE BEFORE ROUND)

Hello Debaters,

A few things to keep in mind before the debate.

1. No need to rush. Communicating your thoughts/ideas in a clam and composed manner is very important.
2. Please be courteous and professional.
3. Please stick to the time limit for every round.
4. Please be ready to provide evidence for your claims to Opponent.
5. Please be assertive with your arguments and not aggressive.

All the best. May the best team win.

Cheers,
Krishna

· Speak confidently and clearly

· Respect other team while they are speaking

· Don’t stress & have fun

I am a parent lay judge who just started judging this year. Please speak at a conversational pace and do not spread.

Don’t short-cut your reasoning and explanation process simply because the other debaters have spent countless hours researching and reading about the topic. It is equally as important that I can follow along with you on your journey through the debate. Signposts are very helpful to my flow.

I'm looking for clear, well-explained, and logically presented arguments. Eliminate debate jargon. I look forward to meeting you. Good luck!

I am a parent judge with experience as a corporate lawyer. I focus upon logic, persuasion, and evidence. Secondary issues are civility (required), clash (essential), and quick thinking (responsive and on-point argumentation score high).

I value quality of argument over quantity - rifles beat shotguns. I do not insert my personal views but will penalize abusive, imaginary, or hyperbolic claims. Lying with statistics or misrepresentation of evidence are also red lines. That said, teams need to take care to address every argument their opponents make; if you drop an argument, I will presume that it has been conceded, but I will listen to arguments on why conceding that argument is not fatal to your case.

As a judge, I prioritize substance over theory.

I don’t fill in the blanks on topicality. If you want to argue it, then be sure you spell it out - I will gladly listen. As for kritiks, I am not a tech judge. Run them if you wish but no promises on following them.

Debate is practice for citizenship. I want polite disagreement. Nothing is personal, but if you attack the other team ad hominem, it will cost you speaker points. Being respectful is not sufficient to win, but it is necessary. Chronic poor sportsmanship, rudeness, or bad-faith interruptions can swing a close round.

I appreciate directness, clarity, and common courtesy . Good luck and remember that debate is persuasion, not mixed martial arts.

I understand that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, argumentation, and clear communication. Debaters should articulate clearly and with intention all their points without pressure to speed read or cover a multitude of topics so quickly. Therefore, I do not look favorably on speed reading, spread debating, counter-planning, and the recitation of interminable quote cards and briefs. I do not tolerate the use of jargon against addressing the facts and rebuttals given in the round. I am not supportive of progressive debate style inasmuch as it limits the clarity of the debate for the sake of endless information with no anchor or goal in providing one's opponent with a considerate roadmap for the debate.

Debate is a respectful and hopeful exchange of ideas delivered at a reasonable pace with clarity of thought. I do not tolerate pointed or hostile, rude, or supercilious attitudes from any of the debaters at any time.

Argue well, speak clearly, and disagree civilly.

Hi my name is Sumita De

I'm a new lay judge but I bring a solid understanding of the topic

Here are a few things I would like to see

- Please speak slowly and clearly as English is not my native language

- Please send your cases to the email jayant.it@gmail.com

- I do not flow/listen to cross

- Please be respectful and kind during the debate!

- Substance and accuracy in your arguments will go a long way with me.

- Please introduce yourself before the round!

I'm looking forward to seeing some great debates!

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for.

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10. Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

Former debater for JR Masterman. Doubles at TOC ‘23. noaheggerts@gmail.com

Win your links and weigh. Debate however you want, I’ll follow your lead. Over 250 WPM you’ll start losing me. I’m fine with Ks, theory, prefiat framing, counterplans, etc., but not experienced with them, so explain it to me. However, if you run friv theory and your opponent explains why it's bad, I won't care about conceded warrants or competing interps, I won't vote for it. Defense is sticky. I will be playing the Google snake game during cross.

Confusing your opponents is never worth confusing me. Warrant, implicate, and weigh three times more than you think you should. And PLEASE extend your links in summary and FF. Saying "extend the link," doesn't count.

I promise you none of the perceptual stuff you do before round will influence me - be normal.

Be funny, don’t be a bad person, have fun.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. I am a parent judge so I would like things to be spoken clearly and easy for me to follow, sign posting and off-time roadmaps are good. For Pf, Ld, Policy etc. formats, I like to see back and forth arguments and good debating. In most things, quality outweighs quantity. Please respect each other and have a great debate.

My name's Adelle, I debated policy for NYU in novice, jv and open divisions running mostly performance and k args. I was a speech kid in high school, so when I came to college I decided to see how the other half lives.

Preferences: I don't love voting on existential scenarios. Your framework should check throughout your arguments, I think perfcon is a voter. If you run theory don't just rattle off your blocks, contextualize. When extending ev, don't just read, engage: dates, author credentials, sources are all meaningful and can help immensely in a close round.

Speaker Points: Fluency and engaging speaking style are key here. I appreciate personality! You can spread, but be mindful about your enunciation and speed - I should still be able to understand every word you are saying.

PF/LD: Don't be shifty with evidence, have sources downloaded before the round and be ready to share if prompted.

Above all, be respectful. Debate is a game but in round we still implicate ourselves in the rhetoric we use and the arguments we make.

My email is adelle.fernando@gmail.com if you would like to include me in the email chain or if you have any questions.

Wants debaters to speak and read speeches at a moderate speed. Speed reading to achieve spreading is NOT ADVISED!

Debaters should stick to the actual topic of debate supported by facts/research and not resort to using technical tricks to score a win.

Debate ettiquette must always be respectful and professional

Add me to the email chain: tgio@me.com

I am committed to evaluating the arguments presented by both teams based on their clarity, logic, and evidence without bias. My aim is to provide a fair and educational experience for all. Please speak slowly and track your time. I look forward to hearing your arguments!

Lay + parent judge

You don’t need to speak super slowly, but do not spread and if you need to speak fast, please articulate well

DO NOT run Ks or theory; I do not know how to evaluate them

I will not flow but I will take some notes

Weighing is necessary to win the round

Be respectful towards your opponents at all times

In cross examination, the goal should be to (politely) seek clarification or to highlight what you believe are analytic or factual weaknesses in their argument; the goal should NOT be to to intimidate, shout down, or otherwise prevent your opponents from actually responding

If you interrupt or otherwise prevent them from responding, I will score the cross in their favor; if they do not meaningfully respond to the substance of your question, I will score it in yours

I'm a current Princeton student and ex-debater who competed for Regis. Treat me as a flay judge.

I'm familiar with kritik and theory debate.

ag5593@princeton.edu for sending evidence by email chain

Hello, Im Ivana.

I am a lay judge who value's logical contentions and rebuttals above anything else in round.

Please speak at your natural speaking pace, as English is my 2nd language.

Please do not run any prog. arguments (Theory, Framework, ect.)

I formerly debated and coached LD (high school level) and Parliamentary (college level).

I judge traditionally. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the resolution topic. I look for compelling arguments and responses. I will be inclined against tricks, theory, etc.

I listen and take notes during cross.

If you tell me that you win the round on some point in the final speech, I expect the point to have been well developed throughout the round.

You may want to explain or simply avoid debate lingo. I prefer intuitive explanations over excessive reliance on shorthand like "framework," "claim," "warrant," "impact," and other terms not commonly used outside debate. You should assume I won't know them. Good explanations accomplish each of those things without specialized, confusing jargon.

Speed is a negative. I prefer a speed comfortable for a non-trained person to understand your point.

Treat your opponents with respect.

Most of all, have fun!

Lay judge with no debate experience; freshman at Princeton University studying Computer Science. I value arguments that are sound, relevant to the topic, rigorous, and logical. Explain your arguments in a way that makes sense to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Speak clearly and slowly and avoid highly technical language; I will not evaluate what I cannot understand.

Caitlin Hodge (she/her)

Affiliation: Princeton University '27

Background: In high school I competed in and judged WSDC, Australs, Asian Parliamentary, and British Parliamentary debate for Team New Zealand. Currently debate in both the BP format and APDA format and have judging experience with BP, APDA, NPDA and WSDC.

Progressive/Traditional Debate: I am a traditional judge and will focus on logical arguments, clashes and weighing. I don't like progressive debate so DO NOT run theory/kritiks/tricks/friv. Also I am not a PF debater so treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: I trust teams to present evidence fairly. Quality > Quantity. I don't want to be in an email chain and I will not flow off of a google doc/pdf so DO NOT paraphrase your case.

Speed: DO NOT SPREAD. I hate it. I am not an LD or Policy debater or judge and I strongly believe that spreading makes debate inaccessible so don't do it.

Timing: I will try my best to keep time but it is your responsibility to keep to time.

GeneraI: I will vote off of the flow, but I will not flow cx. No new info at final focus. Below are things I like to see as a judge:

Please weigh! Pre-emptive weighing is a slay, but weighing is absolutely necessary in summary/ final focus speeches. If you do not weigh, I will intervene based on my opinion and I don't want to do that.

Even if you give a roadmap, please signpost! Also if you give a roadmap and don't follow it, it will mess up my flow and I will be sad

Please don't yap for 4 min straight without structure. Be structured and explicit about impacts, warranting, and evidence

I have absolutely zero tolerance for ableism, homophobia, sexism, classism etc.

This is a high school debate competition so like pls chill

I love fun speechs and a joke here and there because at the end of the day we should be having fun.

Feel free to ask questions or for feedback! I think its so important for development and learning but don't post-round me. I will not change my decision and if you badger me I will cry and I will tell on you to tab.

Thanks :)

About myself: I am a building substitute at Holland Middle School (in Council Rock School District) and an assistant speech/debate coach for Council Rock North.

In debate: I prefer a style of argumentation that fuses quality evidence with strong analytics. If you can clearly state your card's statistics and then connect them your argument, impact, and/or framework, that is a strong argument that will win my attention (quality of cards over quantity). Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you so that I can effectively take notes about your case --- no 'spreading'. Also, please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.

In speech, depending on the event, my focus will be on your vocalization/delivery (volume, tone, flow, fluency), performance/blocking (gestures, facial expressions, movements), and cohesion and comprehension of ideas and/or scenes. My attention is very easily grabbed with passionate acting, so strong control of facial expressions and tone of voice are good ways to receive high marks.

Good luck and have fun!

I’m Alex. I debated for Durham Academy in North Carolina for four years, and won the TOC in 2023. I am now a freshman at Swarthmore College and coach for American Heritage Palm Beach.

PLEASE READ — TL;DR

*Tech>Truth to the best of my ability.

*I prioritize high quality analysis over high quantity lack of analysis. I will not vote on blippy turns with no warrants, and case arguments with no internal links.

*Please send an email chain to alexander.huang@ahschool.com (no Google Docs), and label it properly: Yale Round 1: Durham HH (Neg) vs Taipei CW (Aff). Send docs before every speech and send them quickly.

*Every part of an argument must be extended for me to vote on it, and anything I vote on must have a warrant.

*I will vote by first looking to weighing and then links into the weighing, but feel free to make arguments for why I should vote otherwise.

*Second rebuttal must respond to first, and there should be nothing new past summary.

*Be nice please. Everyone is trying to learn, and everyone is trying to have fun. Don’t be a prick.

SPECIFICS

*Do not sacrifice analysis for speed and/or shenanigans. While “tech” in place of “truth” means that I try to limit the influence of my own personal beliefs to the maximum extent, it does not mean that the need for your analysis to be technically persuasive is absent. Smart analysis is always going to triumph over bad, unwarranted evidence. Tech debate that is in-depth and full of smart analysis is so much fun. Tech debate that is fast blips that are unwarranted misconstructions of bad evidence is boring and noneducational.

*Speed is fine, but be clear. Slow down on tags and in the back half. Use speed strategically. 3 slow minutes of the best argument in the round is always going to beat 18 mediocre arguments read at lightning pace.

*Cross is binding, but must be brought up in speech

*Implicate good defense against weighing. There is a trend in PF where both teams try to find the quickest link into extinction, and all defense goes out the window. I am not a fan. If you are winning terminal or near terminal defense against an extinction outweighs + short circuit, tell me why I shouldn’t look there first. A 0.00000000000000000001% chance of something occurring rounds to 0, after all.

*Theory: It must be read in the speech after the violation. For your information (because I think there is inherently a little more intervention in theory debate, since we are debating about debate, and the persuasiveness of certain responses is going to be based on what I have seen in debate), I think paraphrasing is bad, and disclosure is good, but I would be willing to vote any way on theory.

*Ks: I have a relatively high threshold for a quality K. I think a quality K is very educational, and also fun to watch. However, to be a quality K, a K should be treated like a research project – high quality work that is clear, done yourself, and disclosed for others to interact with. I have a very low tolerance for Ks that are stolen from LD or Policy, read against teams who barely link, and are generally unintelligible. Such Ks will lose very quickly to “no link/alt doesn’t solve/no impact” responses.

*Non-starters: no tricks, no speaks theory, no friv theory, and no ad-homs.

*Post-rounding: Post-rounding is educational, but be polite and curious. I’m not going to change my decision. Ask to learn more about why I wasn’t persuaded, but there is no debate between you and me.

first time parent judge

English is my second language, I may not be fluent so please speak slow (no more than 150-170 words per minute)

Send me your speeches so I can understand you better: tieyinghuang10@gmail.com

background in IT, so I don't know much about the topic

no technical language, be polite to each other!

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

Hello! My name is Rahul Kalavagunta (He/Him/His) and I’m currently a third year student at Princeton. I debate both APDA and BP in college, and I debated a parli format (DANEIS) in high school.

Limited experience with LD and PF, but a ton of experience with debate in general, so I have no real familiarity/preference for more technical, niche aspects of LD/PF debating. That being said, if you intend to run theory, feel free to do so, but provide a little explanation if possible. If you can help it, don’t spread, but if you do I’ll try my best to keep up. I will NOT read your cases if you email them - I'll just flow as fast as I can. For other tech, just realize that I can’t vote on it if I don’t understand it.

Try to keep your speaking speed to a clear, understandable level - I’ll signal you if you’re speaking too fast, but I won’t dock speaks for it, so don’t worry about it too much. I’ll try to flow your arguments regardless, but signposting and making clear arguments also makes it much easier for me to follow and vote on your arguments. Most importantly, focus on warranting, impacting, and weighing your claims so that I can give them as much credence as possible. Explaining and supporting the logic of an argument, as well as showing how it interacts with your opponent’s case is just as important as making the argument in the first place. I won’t intervene in most cases or take excessive steps to interpret your arguments. Try to interact with the issues in the round and present your arguments with clear structure, and you’ll be fine!

For the pref sheets:

I heavily would prefer if you just argued straight on the topic (traditional debate), but I understand the format is given to certain strategies, and I certainly won't penalize for that.

T/Theory: 1-3 -- this depends on how well explained it is. I'm not fully up to date on the meta/in depth details of theory, so if you run something, explain it and all shall be well

Larp/Policy: 2

K: strike -- if you are determined to run a k, run it, but be aware that I really don't understand them and will be hard pressed to even recognize one, much less vote on it.

Phil: 1/2

Tricks: I will try not to dismiss them out of hand, but I'm highly skeptical

The above stuff was specific to LD, but a lot of the same applies to PF. I'm willing to do my best to understand any argument / strategy you run, as long as you're able to explain it.

One last (important) thing: Absolutely NO being sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc - a safe, respectful environment is essential to a good debate round. This is especially true for Cross Ex -- don't be rude, cut people off (within reason, obviously), and argue in good faith.

1. Clarity of thought and how you make your point.
2. Eye-contact: maintain good contact with all involved and not talk to one person.
3. Tone- should be assertive and not aggressive.
4. Overall body language/ gestures when in debate- avoid being dismissive about your opponent.
5. Time management.

Hello, I'm Tushar.

I am a lay judge but I will buy almost any evidence provided.

Strong links and strongly linked impacts are one of the top things I will vote off of in round.

I don't mind disagreement in cross but be generally well mannered.

I won't flow cross but if your opponent concedes a point or says something of interest, please point it out in your next speech.

I am an attorney with an extensive history in Speech and Debate - primarily in the public speaking categories. That being said, I also competed in Public Forum in the past and am very familiar with the relationship between claims, warrants and impacts. No "spreading" or ultra-fast talking throughout the round, please, but I won't mind you rushing through the last few words of a sentence in order to finish your thought before time expires.

From the outset, please note my general preference for the debate to remain focused on the assigned topic (within reason). I recognize that no debate can be truly exhaustive due to time constraints, but I expect you to be thorough and to advance the debate to the extent allowed by the rules--i.e., please avoid repetitive or circular arguments. I will be paying attention to the extent that you anticipate the arguments put forth by your opponents as well as, of course, how well you rebut the arguments already put forward.

Even in debate rounds, I expect to see presentation skills that match or elevate the quality of your argument. I will be paying close attention to your articulation, rhetoric, and the effectiveness of your gestures, and these will affect my decision as to the winning team and the losing team in a round that is even on the merits/substance.

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged various format of speech and debate for several years.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

General Information:

I am a parent judge, but it is not my first time time judging PF debate (My son is competing and so I am familiar with the topic to a very basic extant). I am not completely solidified with all the discreet rules of Public Forum or the terminology, however I will vote for the more logical and impactful claims. Weigh your points. If you add logic to your claims to back up your evidence as well, it will improve your speaker points and make me more likely to vote for you. Make sure to extend your points throughout the round to help me and your opponents flow better. I would prefer if you don't spread.

Lay judge. Freshman at Princeton University studying Mathematics and Philosophy. No experience in debate. Minimize technical language, speak slowly, and run rigorous and logical arguments.

Contact

Email: kelly.z.lao.28@dartmouth.edu

About

I competed in LD for 4 years at Council Rock High School North, PA and competed in both NSDA and NCFL nats.

Debate

I strongly prefer traditional debate. This style usually produces substance and clash that I am best versed in evaluating.

During rebuttals, make sure to have good coverage. Be concise and don't allow over-explaining to come at the expense of getting to every issue.

Voting issues are a BIG help, especially in muddier rounds. Tell me what you won and why it matters. At the very least, weigh and emphasize the points that you believe are the most important.

CLEARLY EXTEND THE EVIDENCE YOU'RE WINNING (AND POINT OUT DROPS)!

Progressive:

> DAs, counterplans, policy-centered arguments - fine in my book if they're topically relevant

> Theory, T - reserve for cases of genuine abuse

> Kritiks - Can deal with generic ones, but make them weird and I have no confidence in evaluating them correctly

Another Note: If you are in novice and spread/read heavy progressive argumentation against a less skilled opponent, especially if you do not disclose that you will be doing so beforehand, you can expect me to proceed with a strong inclination towards them. Please do not exploit your opponent’s inexperience with progressive conventions for cheap wins.

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

PF UPDATE - PRINCETON

Please treat me like a flay judge. If you try to run theory or a K the bar is set VERY high. If you attempt to spread you will be "cleared" if your clarity is poor. Therefore, please just treat me like a flay judge to make it easier on all of us!

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

Put me on the email 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

Lay judge, first-year at Princeton University with no debate experience. Please speak slowly and be persuasive, clear, logical, and concise.

Parent Judge.

1. Please be civil and respectful at all times
2. When arguments are based on value judgments, please state what those judgments are (don't assume that audience automatically or necessarily shares those same values)
3. Support arguments with actual facts
4. Admit when you don't know something
5. Spell out chains of causation, finish lines of reasoning (e.g. this is good/bad because ...); answer the question, "so what?"

This is my second season to serve as lay judge. As a parent, I have been following PF for several years and am familiar with the format,

In my daily job, I am a scientist focused on Stem Cell research, and English is my second language.

If you could, please send constructive documents to ylinster@gmail.com before the round so I can better follow your speech while you are speaking.

Please speak in conversation speed that I could follow along. No spreading as I have difficulty keeping up with fast pace.

I will not time speeches but expect the debaters to do so and watch their opponents.

I value debates showcasing constructive, logic arguments supported by solid evidence. I highly appreciate the skillful addressing of opponents' flaws or claims during crossfire, and final conclusion.

Please be polite and respectful. Personal attacks to the opponents or bullying are not tolerated.

I assure you that I will be unbiased and will work diligently to give a fair decision.

Enjoy the game!

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

**for Taiwan topic: this is my first time judging the topic. Please do not use acronyms without first defining them or I will not know what you are talking about.

I have judged at four/five public forum tournaments in the past year. I was also actively involved in policy debate while in high school and college, winning the NDT in 1993. I am familiar with both public forum and debate in general, and I am comfortable judging any kind of argument you wish to present. I have no issue with spreading, so long as it is clear, and I will not let any of my personal opinions influence my judgement in-round.

Remember to weigh and do not drop arguments!

A couple of specifics:

"Kritiks"

"Kritiks" were first developed in the early 1990s, right at the end of my policy debate career. I have never been a big fan of them. Here, again, I'll be tabula rasa, but I tend to think of these arguments as easy to beat. I would rather hear a really good debate about the substance of the issues.

Theory

I'm not experienced with the PF theory arguments, so if you want to make one you need to explain it clearly and avoid the jargon and acronyms.

Lay judge.

My son debates PF and is now a freshman at the Lawrenceville School in NJ.

1. Please be respectful to your opponents. Do not roll eyes, snicker, make rude gestures or comments. Treat them as you would want to be treated.
2. Please speak at a normal pace. No spreading, speed talking etc. If I can’t follow you as you are speaking, I can not understand you and judge you.
3. Do not interrupt others. You may reasonably do so during cross examination, if they are rambling on for a long time, but generally hear them out.
4. Remember, I am a parent judge not a professional one.
5. You are debating a topic, not a person. Do not make it personal. You can disagree without being insulting.
6. Keep your cards handy. I might call for them only if the two sides say the exact opposite thing, but your opponents may call for them anytime.
7. Speaker points are awarded on how you speak, not just on what you say. Look at the judge/others. Modulate your voice. Talking in a monotone is less interesting. When you talk, where you pause is also important. Show me that you care/ believe in what you are saying. Reading from a paper/computer without any eye contact or emphasis is less effective.
8. Remember that weighing is an important part of showing why your argument is more convincing. A great idea that can not be scaled/applied is not as effective as a good idea that can be scaled and applied and affect a broader change.
9. Look like you are enjoying yourself. More importantly, actually enjoy yourself.

Hi there! I'm Alex. Add me to the email chain: amargulis[at]princeton.edu.

I debated PF at Princeton High School for four years. Don't adjust your strategy for me — I'm happy to judge whatever round you all would like to have. Topical, off-topical*, secret third option, anything goes. I will vote for literally anything if it is done well.

Generally, I'll feel as though an argument is "done well" if you manage to convince me why it a) is true** within the context of the round, and b) matters more than any of your opponents' arguments.

*T-specific: although I'll try to be pretty tabula rasa about this sort of thing, you should probably know that while on the circuit I read cut card cases, and did not disclose.

**I have a very low bar for responding to arguments that are obviously, painfully untrue. If your opponents run something that seems blatantly false, point it out!

Public Forum-

Background-

My email is cammays05@gmail.com

I did PF debate all four years in high school so I'm pretty familiar with anything that could come up in the debate. Speed is fine, but I think debate is supposed to be an educational activity, accessible to anyone who watches, so I highly discourage spreading, but if you really feel like you have to spread in a constructive of rebuttal just send the doc.

In Round-

I expect everything y'all are going for in the debate to be clearly extended, especially in summary. With this, dropped points need to be pointed out by each team, I will be flowing but dropped points should immediately be jumped on as a cause for winning. At the end of the debate I vote on what offense is left (obviously), so be sure to introduce voting issues and weighing mechanisms for me preferably starting in summary or rebuttal. Please clearly explain your weighing mechanism don't just say, "Vote on this impact because of scope," incorporate some analysis and explanation with it. Also, extend warranting and link chains not just the impact and its stat. I will also vote on mishandled evidence or faulty evidence, I think those are strong arguments that can undercut a case well. Finally, please do some case defense, don't just reread your case or not respond at all to arguments against it. I really don't know what else to put just be respectful in speeches and questioning and ask me any questions if you have them.

LD-

A lot of the same stuff from PF, don't just extend claims and source tags, but extend the warranting with it. My vote is based on whichever argument better fits under the value and value criterion I buy in the debate.

Post Round-

I'm fine with disclosing and answering questions about my decision and the round and giving feedback as long as a tournament allows it. However, doing this can get pretty contentious, so if y'all are trying to be post-round debaters I'm going to cut my feedback short, like I said earlier just be respectful. I get tournament days can be stressful but just remember I'm trying my best. Thanks.

Hello, my name is Justin McDaniel. I am pretty new to public forum, but I am confident that I can judge every round very fairly. I really like to see strong evidence for every point and for everyone to be respectful to each other. Remember to always have fun with your debates; together we will have a great round!

(Please, please, please, unless you are well prepared for a theory round, do yourself a favor and strike me if you don't cut accurate cards, don't send evidence in email chains, or don't disclose at circuit tournaments.)

Blake: Second flight teams please start the email chain while you're waiting in the hallway.

Background: He/Him/His; 3L at NYU Law; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC); previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024.

Email Chains: Please add nmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies for rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards.

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.

• Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.

• Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words. If I say slow, please go slower.

• Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).

• New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary

• Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.

• Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).

• Don’t crash out in cross. Put cross analysis in ink with your speeches.

• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I prefer topical debates but am open to the following arguments at varsity/open national circuit tournaments:

• Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche).

• Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, and their derivatives/CIs are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but won't intervene on the flow. If your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I believe you did not disclose (open to this as a debate response).

• Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

Questions? Ask before the round.

In Brief: I am a PF and LD coach at Phillipsburg High School and a pretty standard PF judge. I value impacts, weighing, argumentation, and argumentative structure.

PF Paradigm:

Email Chains: I don't want to be a part of email/evidence chains, I trust that you are presenting your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a specific piece of evidence which keeps being brought up, I will call for it to evaluate, but I would prefer not to.

Progressive Debate: I’ll never tell anyone that they lose just based solely on their case (unless it is offensive or otherwise egregious) but I will say that running theory or a K won’t get you very far with me. I’m open to the idea of a good faith criticism of the logic of a particular resolution but just I would say don’t do it unless you have something really good.

Weighing: To me, comparative weighing and clear impacts are the bread and butter of debate. Impacts should be explicit and clearly backed up. I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, I care very heavily about impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Logic and Reasoning: Your cards are important, but they are not the end-all-be-all of the debate. I will typically side for a logically constructed argument without a specific card over a logically weak argument that has a card.

• Frontline in second rebuttal.

• Spell out links, turns and extensions clearly : links, turns, and extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says..." You know what your cards say, I do not.

• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly where we are on the flow.

• Keep it civil during crossfire and grand crossfire.

• It is the judge's prerogative on calling for cards. It is usually not a problem, but if you are calling for 5 cards after every speech and holding up the tournament, I will intervene.

• I am usually good with speed but if you start spreading, I will stop writing. If you are going too fast i will motion for you to slow down.

• I will almost certainly not buy your nuclear war or extinction impact unless it is directly related to the resolution.

• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

Please no spreading

make sure to warrant properly when stating cards

I have some experience judging debate, however, do not use tech

hey! Some background:

email: allisonmoon@princeton.edu <--send cases before round

My experience:

I'm in the class of 2026 at Princeton. I debated varsity PF for 3 years in high school (7 gold bids, octos at toc). I did a lot of debate in high school but I would say I pref a pretty flay style of debate. I've not been on the circuit for a long bit now so am pretty rusty.

Some things:

1. collapse on one/two argument(s) please and extend warrants

2. weigh!

3. defense should be extended in both summaries

4. 2nd speaking team should frontline during rebuttal

5. no theory, I don't think I can judge it properly

6. do not read 7 blippy arguments and make it impossible for the other team's summary speaker

7. Default first speaking team

if you have more questions, ask before round

Hi, I’m Lily! I am a junior at NYU and have been debating since 2017. In high school I debated LD and CX nationally- I typically read more performance/allegory based K’s from a variety of literature bases (ex: Wilderson, Baudrillard) as well as heavily analytic/narrative based arguments. Currently, I debate for NYU’s CX team where I essentially have done the same.

Ranking for K comfort level:

1- performance

2- security, cap, academy (and all adjacent arguments)

3- pomo

Ranking for overall comfort level:

1- k (and trad ig?)

2- theory

3- larp

4- phil

*Goes without saying, but, racism/sexism/homophobia will be reflected in how I adjudicate the round, and I will intervene to stop a round if it is at a point where it so egregious that it becomes necessary.

*It is important to me that arguments are multi-layered. I am more favorable to multi-directional offense against Ks. My favorite rounds and arguments are the ones that are less obvious- they are usually more strategic, too.

*You will get high speaks if you are confident and if you layer your speeches well. Tell me exactly why I should vote for you, and where I should put arguments on the flow. I am favorable to good overviews and tactful line by line.

I'm a parent volunteer judge. I did parliamentary debate in Ireland in the late 1980s and I've been learning contemporary US PF style and jargon. This is my third season judging. My email is rnash@rnash.com, pleasure add me to the evidence sharing emails.

OK! First, don't talk at me, talk with me. Use tone intentionally. I'm your kind but slightly cranky uncle at the Thanksgiving table, you want to persuade me. You can use warmth and humor, as well as clarity and ruthlessness. Give me facts, but give me a point of view. Don't spread, I want to follow your argument, and I want to feel like you're having a conversation with your opponents and with me. It requires explanation and causality, not profligate assertion.

Above all, listen to your opponent. Really truly listen to them. Don’t talk over each other, but also don’t take a minute to ask your “question”—“don’t take up cross.” Try to understand the very heart of their argument. If you "block" the heart of their argument, you are more likely to win than five little nitpicks.

One last thing—my day job is as an executive and leadership coach. In that capacity I work a lot with leaders of large organizations, often helping with public speaking and executive presence. Show leadership, gravitas, charisma and presence out there!

Here's some extra detail, spelled out in more classic PF style:

Tech = Truth (mostly this means I don't fall for drawn-out linkchains—you have to prove each step, not merely assert the steps)

Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal
• Collapse LATEST by second summary
• I’ll keep times but you should too (you can finish your sentence but I’ll cut you off after that). With prep time, I run a countdown clock, in other words I don't add up to 3:00, I count down from 3:00. So always tell me when you stop and when you start. Don't use requests for evidence to sneak in extra prep time.
• Extend all important offense into final focus
• Give warrants (don’t just read a card and not explain the reasoning behind why that’s true)
• You don't need to tell me your name in speech, I'll have already asked for it before the round starts, also I know the resolution so there's no need to repeat it
• WEIGH (and don’t just read buzzwords, just saying you outweigh on scope without doing some comparison isn’t weighing)
• I'm not going to evaluate a framework unless you give me specific reasons (and probably some empiric evidence) for why I should prefer it over util ("prioritizing national security" is not a framework)
• Signpost (don’t make me do extra work trying to figure out which side of the flow/ where on the flow you are)
• Implicate what your responses mean, reading me a response without telling me why it’s important/what it means for the round creates a messy round
• Don’t take up cross and be respectful to each other
• I won't flow cross so if something important is said bring it up in a speech if you want me to consider it

Typed by debater son.

Very very lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. No theories, no K, etc. Extend warrants, link chains, impacts, in a very simple and easy to understand way. Not very good with technology, so make sure all your stuff is working before the round starts. Keep track of your own speech times, prep, and crossfires. Announce team name, side, and speech before speaking. She will probably not be timing so if your opponent goes over their time, you have to call them out yourself. Be respectful, kind, and have fun.

Fifth-year assistant coach at Ridge High School.

I teach AP Government, Politics, & Economics, Global History, and AP Euro there as well. I will be able to follow any content/current event information you include.

I've coached and judged all major debate topics. I work most closely with our Congressional debate team, but also have experience judging PF, LD, and Parli.

PF: I think it's important for you to remember the goal of the event. Anyone should be able to walk into your round and follow the debate. With that said, I do flow and will try to give tech feedback as well as general commentary. I think some speed is ok in PF, but I think spreading absolutely does not belong.

LD: I am not a former debater myself; I really struggle to follow theory debate, K's, and spreading in general. I've learned a little about it over the past few years, but if you are a tech/theory/spreading team you should probably strike me (just being honest!). For all other levels--I will flow both framework and case and have voted on both. Try to be concrete in connecting your evidence to your claims. I've found that LD debaters can sometimes get carried away with "debater math"...and no, not everything can lead to nuke war. I am partial to probability arguments--I'm a realist at heart :)

Congress: As a teacher of Government & Politics, I really enjoy this event. You should always be roleplaying being an actual representative/senator. What would your constituents think about your speech? Why is your advocacy in their interest? I really like constitutionality arguments--we have a federal system, and sometimes bills being debated are directly in violation of those principles. Feel free to cite those Supreme Court cases all day. I think any well-prepared Congress competitor should be ready to flip at any point, and I look very favorably on whomever can save us from multiple Affs/Negs in a row. As you get later into the round, I will be highly critical if you are just repeating points from previous speeches. I want to see crystal/ref speeches later on--as do your fellow competitors, I'd presume.

I am a parent volunteer.

Background: Pharmacist with a focus on pharmaceutical research

Please speak slowly and clearly.

I have judged PFD for 1 season.

I am more of a traditional judge, the national organizations have defined what formats should be and their rules, I believe they should be followed, like LD and PF should not be policy, K's belong with policy. Besides that, I prefer cases that actually use evidence, pieces and speeches that I can follow, and speed is okay, but you should not sound like you are choking and cannot breath. Be respectful and remember, in debate, evidence wins the day, sign post and provide road maps.

Experience
I am a former Public Forum debater (graduated in 2019) with experience judging for my high school team. I have judged rounds on the current resolution in two tournaments.

Delivery & Jargon Preferences
I can handle moderate speed but require clear enunciation for faster delivery. I appreciate signposting and clearly stated key voting issues (KVIs) but will not penalize teams that do not incorporate these elements. I am comfortable with technical language.

Note-Taking
I maintain a rigorous flow throughout the round.

Argument vs. Style
While I value both, argumentation takes precedence over style.

Evaluation Criteria
I assess the debate based on the resolution and the team that convinces me the most by the end. Strong, evidence-backed arguments, that are not misconstrued, are particularly persuasive.

In-Round Conduct
I expect debaters to maintain respect for each other and the judge(s).

Feedback Philosophy
I strive to provide constructive, actionable feedback to help debaters improve while acknowledging their strengths.

Feel free to ask any questions prior to the round about my paradigm, I will be happy to answer them!

I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear communications in the form of volume and projection, confident but respectful tone, and a pace that is swift but not too fast. I also appreciate well structured constructive with introduction/overview and good evidence to support your points.

For public forum, I'm interested in the weighing of the quality of sources, and ensuring that the points are clear when said out loud. In terms of sources, quality is determined in terms of statistical analysis. I usually prefer statistics and facts and figures on cause and effect of the policies, instead of hypothetical editorials, even if well thought out. I am open to comparing similar historical events as a source to back up an argument. Crossfire is also very important, as it guarantees the overall confidence of the team and how they work cohesively in their own understanding of the material. I am not a fan of arguing theory; I prefer to stick with the traditional spirit of public forum. If theory is hypothetically a part of both sides' arguments, I will prefer the theories that back up traditional PF.

For lincoln douglas, this also applies. I usually am not a fan of spreading, but can roll with it if need be. Also, I am open to weighing Value vs Value Criterion and how it affects significance.

Hi PF Debaters-

I am a parent lay judge and this is my third tournament judging. I last judged this month at the Princeton Tournament. Please speak in a respectable and conversational manner so that I can capture your great points. You could miss out on me leaning your direction if I cannot hear or understand your arguments because you are speaking too fast. I appreciate a calm demeanor during crossfire(s).

Good luck!

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

• Tech > Truth
• Fine w/ speed
• Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

• WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
• Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
• Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
• Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
• If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
• I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory (all evidence included) and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

• Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
• Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork. Update: I will have a higher threshold for explanations - I am not going to reread ur K link card - if your explanation and implication of your literature isn't sufficient you will not get my ballot.
• Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
• TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

• If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
  
• If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
• I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
• If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
• Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
• More efficient the round the better the speaks for both teams.
• If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Add me to the email chain

vikramsaigal08@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff

Any style of debate is fine with me, 11 off or 1 off.

Tech over truth, I vote based off the flow and how arguments are articulated in round.

Im not the type to extensively read ev throughout the round, if you want me to take a deeper look at a card, thats something that you need to explicitly say.

Topicality

Impact calc and judge instruction make the biggest difference for my decisions My grammar skills are not fantastic so simplifying the debate is always appreciated.

T -- USFG

Aff's should have a coherent and/or limited model of debate, I'm down to vote on impact turning T, but it's a bit of an uphill battle.

The neg should meaningfully engage with the things the aff is saying. Things like limits and predictability usually mean more to me than generic rants about fairness and clash.

DA's/Impact turns

I have an irrational love of impact turns. I think most turns case analysis could use more development from both sides. Do impact calc.

CP's

<2 condo = Ill probably hack against condo (unless dropped or severely mishandled), >3 condo = ill likely hack for condo

Proccess CPs make me sad, I'll vote on them, but I don't want to be sad anymore.

K's

Aff's should probably answer and mitigate the links, its not that hard. Neg's should have nuance with their link articulation and engage core themes of the aff (a 7 second link arg in the block means precisely nothing)

Embedded clash is cool, but not a replacement for the line by line.

LD Specific Stuff:

I hate frivilous disclosure theory. Pretty sympathetic to 1ar theory, some of the 1nc's being read in LD nowadays would be considered egregious even in policy debates.

Phil debate is cool.

Im fine with tricks, but if you're the type to excuse atrocities with things like skep, then i'm probably not the best judge for you

Columbia Update: STRIKE me if you don't send constructive docs for virtual tournaments, it is required. I wish to have access to your evidence because it helps check back for miscutting, etc., and helps with internet cutting out. Anything off the doc will not be flowed.

Sending rebuttal docs is not required, but you will get a speaker point boost.

Add me to the email chain for ev/docs: srdebate24@gmail.com

For the most part, truth > tech. I am a traditional PF judge and won't evaluate arguments like spark, dedev, etc. Nuclear impacts should be related to the resolution, otherwise I drop the ballot and your speaks. I will not evaluate Kritikal arguments or theory, either, as this is PF and not policy. I will not evaluate disclosure, paraphrasing, or other such arguments. I will almost always vote for the team not inciting theory.

I dislike speed, so keep speeches <200 wpm. I will flow the round and evaluate based on quality of argumentation, not necessarily how you present it (although that is important for good speaks). Cross is good for the debate and for speaks, but will not influence the decision itself. Please refrain from postrounding me, as it will not change my decision.

Speaks start at 28 and go up/down based on performance and strategy.

Lastly, have fun and be respectful. Debate should be a fun, educational activity for us all. If you have any questions, ask me before the round. Good luck!

Nathaniel.Sasenarine@Icloud.com

I am new to Public Forum. Please ensure your explanations of the arguments are clear and help inform my decisions. Additionally, impact analyses are always appreciated.

I am an assistant coach at American Heritage Palm Beach and served previously as a director for four years. I have both speech and debate experience.

PF

I can flow the round fairly well and prefer for you to be explicit with your contentions and impacts when you state them. Please make it clear what I should be writing down and striking from the flow as well as why any arguments have been dropped from the round. I do not consider questioning as part of the debate. If your opponent made an error in questioning, it must be addressed in later speeches. I can handle some speed.

Congress

I enjoy when competitors follow the debate on the floor, create interesting conversations, and ask hard-hitting questions. I think structure and organization to your speech are vital; use signposts in your delivery so I know what your impacts are.

I'm open-minded, and a good listener.

I am committed to judging according to equanimity and integrity,

and based solely on the evidence and individual arguments brought forth by each team.

Prefer typical conversation speed and lean toward quality over quantity.

Chirag Shah

Lay judge

Send me your case ahead of time (crshah77@yahoo.com) so that I can follow along when you speak

Don’t speak fast

Don’t be aggressive/rude to opponents

Be clear with links

Keep track of timing

Warning: Being aggressive or speaking too fast will result in a loss of speaker points.

If you make a Bollywood movie reference, + 0.5 speaks.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy -although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

rajendra10031@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Raj and if you’re reading this, I’m probably judging you. I debated for 4 years, went to the TOC my junior and senior years.

TLDR; Treat me like a flow judge. Do whatever you feel comfortable doing. When it comes to evaluating theory's K's, disclosure theory, I didn't do a lot of that in High School so I am unfamiliar with it. However, if you feel that it is needed and you can justify it in the rounds, then by all means go for it but be specific with it. If you’re spreading, then I won’t understand you and will put my pen down. *PLEASE DON’T SPREAD ABOVE 350wpm* I WILL VOTE 100% OFF THE FLOW and I will disclose and give my RFD. PLEASE FRONTLINE RESPONSES and have actual terminal impacts that I can vote on. Weigh and throw buzzwords like scope & magnitude at me. Remember if you do not extend these responses, impacts, and weighing I cannot vote on that. Tabula Rasa

FOR PRINCETON. Have not judged this topic at all and have not judged in a couple of months. With that said, do whatever you feel like as long as you are respectful.

If you make a comment that I deem racist, homophobic, sexist, or ableist at any point in the round it completely eradicates the integrity of the event and creates a space in which individuals can’t compete fairly and I won’t think twice about dropping you and giving you 20 speaks.

Last thing; please remember to have fun. I remember doing debate at this tournament and it was so much fun so please cherish this time at this tournament and enjoy yourselves.

Hi. I'm a parent judge and I have little experience. Below is how I would prefer the round to go:

1) Both teams should speak confidently and have statistical facts.

2) Don't expect me to find flaws in your opponent's arguments. Please explain why you should win clearly.

3) Please be respectful to your opponents. Do not roll your eyes, snicker, or make rude gestures or comments. Treat them as you would want to be treated

4) Please speak at a normal pace— NOSPREADING, speed talking, etc. If I can’t follow you as you speak, I can not understand and judge you.

5) Remember, I am a parent judge, not a professional one.

That's about it. Please enjoy yourself and I look forward to judging you.

I would consider myself a novice/lay PF judge having judged only a few tournaments including the Princeton Classic. I appreciate an organized case that is delivered respectfully. Please don't talk too quickly...I want to fully digest your arguments!

I currently work at the University of Pennsylvania and have previously worked in the public policy arena at the U.S. federal and city (City of New York) government level. I also have extensive experience in K-12 and early education policy working for a major national foundation. I received my own undergraduate education at Wellesley College and obtained my masters degree in public administration from Columbia University.

I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

Looking forward to hearing your arguments!

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It is not asking the question of what specific action must be taken, that's policy, what it is asking is for us to justify an action to be taken, or arrival at a particular state of existence. I HIGHLY value topical debate, (I mean really highly, like really, really highly). I start with the idea that role of the ballot is to determine who best debates the topic, I like it to remain there, but am open to having that change. I highly (and I cannot stress this enough) value topical debate. I value clarity in the round, and giving me a clear direction as to why you win gives me a roadmap that I can use to find your winning argument, use that time to wrap things up at the end of the round.

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. In my mind, Theory is there to check abusive arguments and tactics, don't make it frivolous please. The worst offender of this in my mind is disclosure theory. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense," tell me why that argument fails to hold water.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

My name is John Michael Streitjorst. I'm a parent of a novice PF student and this is my first tournament. I have a career background in private equity and investment management. Please be kind to each other and have fun!

If you're going to make an assertion, you better back it up with evidence and analysis.

If you have evidence, you better give me analysis to tie back to your point. Don't assume the evidence speaks for itself.

If you make a point you better give analysis to show it proves that supporting/negating is the way to go.

NOTE: I get REALLY cranky if I suspect debaters are manipulating (or outright faking) evidence. I also get really cranky if debaters try to claim the other side did something they did not do, or did not do something they did do. It's shady debate. Don't do it.

If you're a PF debater, don't waste your time with off-time roadmaps, because there are only two things you should ever be doing--hitting their case, and defending yours (this includes teams running a non-traditional case. Even if you're running a k, you should still be hitting their case, and defending yours). Even when you are weighing, it is just hitting their case, and defending yours. If you are organized in presenting your points it will be clear what you are doing. I'm ok with paraphrasing, but if the other team asks to see the original text and you can't produce it, I'm ignoring your evidence. I'm also ok with non-traditional approaches, but you better make it CLEAR CLEAR CLEAR that it's necessary, because I will always pref good debate over acrobatics.

If you're an LD debater, you better be giving analysis that shows your points are proving that you have achieved your value criterion. Articulate the connections, don't assume they speak for themselves. As far as non-traditional cases, I won't automatically vote against, but you better sell me on the necessity of going there, and that it's enriching the debate, and not hobbling it. (Particular note: I really hate pure theory cases, but won't automatically vote against. That being said, let me reiterate-- You better prove that what you have to say is improving the quality of the debate, and that your theory is a better/more important debate than the debate over the resolution. Which means you will have to still talk about the resolution, and why your debate is more important. If you're just doing it for the sake of being fancy, it's a no-go for me.)

I don't ever judge CX, so if you're reading my paradigm as a CX debater-- why?

No one should ever tell me when or how to time. You can self-time, but I am the final arbiter of time.

If you are excessively rude, aggressive, shouty, or derisive you will see it in your speaks. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic, or any other type of bigoted I will vote against you every single time. This includes denying a person's lived experience.

If you post-round me, I will shut you down-- you might as well put me down on your permanent strike list (this does not include students who ask me questions for the purposes of improving their debate in the future. I am always happy to answer those questions.)

Parent judge. I will attempt to follow the flow, but help me by speaking clearly and do not spread. Do not use debate jargons.

Likes:

Explain your reasoning well, focus on convincing me with sound arguments and concise/clear logic.

Keeping the cross fire civil, respect each other and refrain from combative/aggressive tone/phrasing.

Speaker points are awarded based on both the manner of speaking and the content of the speech. In other words, try not to read monotonously from your screen.

Dislikes:

Avoid strategies that rely on scoring technicality "gotcha" points.

Do not attempt to overwhelm your opponent (and me) with numbers. I will not check complex statistics/math in your arguments, but will doubt why they're necessary if the argument/reasoning is sound.

No progressive arguments like Ks or theory. Keep the debate topical.

Misc:

Walk me through the ballot. Make it really easy for me to vote.

I am a parent judge who loves debate and debated LD in High School. I am a flay judge who votes off the flow. That being said, I do not fully know debate jargon.

Do not speak too quickly to be understood. If I do not hear an argument and understand it, I am not weighing it in the round. If you are speaking too quickly, I will not penalize your opponents for missing points in your speeches because they could not hear them.

I am a tech > truth judge. If one team does not rebut or weigh against another team's argument that argument, however untrue, stands in the round.

I do not know the specifics of card-cutting, but I value good evidence ethics. If another team asks for your evidence and you cannot produce it in five minutes, you don't have that evidence. I would like to be included in email chains with evidence. My email is hvarah@yahoo.com

That being said, debate is an amazing activity and one that I love. Compete with each other, but show respect to your opponents and the art of debate itself. Let's have some fun.

PF: I am a traditional judge who likes to see contentions well developed through strong, logical arguments supported by evidence. Ad hominem attacks, implied or explicit, are not appreciated. Spreading should be avoided so I do not miss a critical point in your case. I recognize when debaters know and understand their material rather than reading what has been written. Civilly presented, compelling, and supported arguments and counter arguments are valued. I appreciate the need to challenge evidence when warranted, but do not support requesting multiple pieces of evidence throughout the round as a tactic to disrupt the opposing side. This is an annoyance and slows the pace of the tournament.

Congress: I will judge the quality of your speech over the way it is presented. I do not appreciate one sided debate and would prefer an extemporaneous speech in the opposition for the sake of the chamber. I enjoy hearing clash and questioning is important to me. I am a new judge to Congress so I prefer traditional debate. I do not see a need for a consolidation speech and would rather move to a vote to allow for more pieces of legislation to be debated.

I am a parent judge

I judged LD in the past and this is my second year of judging PF. I have limited experience in judging varsity

I value content, logic and argument over technicality

Don’t speak too fast

DO:

1. clearly state your value criteria, contentions

2. make concise, clear and logical argument. link your argument, point out voting issue, and weight on impact

3. Be respectful in cross.

4. stay on topic. do not digress too far (i.e don't bring in argument or evidence that has weak link. the burden is on you to make a linkage)

I think lucidity is more important than speed in one's speech. Also I am a number guy by training; hence I tend to be more convinced by correctly quoted statistics than emotive appealing.

parent judge

please speak slowly and clearly

TLDR

she/her pronouns

I debated for Ridge, now a freshman at NYU, and currently coach Millburn

Tech > truth, quality > quantity, please compare and please warrant

I can handle <250 wpm

I'd rather not flow from a doc, so if I miss anything then that's on you

Strike me if you run friv, tricks, phil, performance, etc.

I will drop/dock speaks if you are _ist

Add me to the email chain: vivianz5406@gmail.com

Housekeeping

- Setup the email chain first thing before the round starts

- Send case and rebuttal docs before your speech; its a waste of time calling for individual cards

- I don't care if you paraphrase, but you must send rhetoric and cut cards in the chain

- Any evidence read and you want evaluated must be in a cut card

- Do not give me google docs or links and tell me to ctrl+f

- I'm not going to spend time looking at evidence unless I am told to do so; it is your burden to point out problems in the evidence for me

Misc

- I don't flow or really listen to cross, anything important mentioned should be brought up in a speech

- If both teams agree to debate an old topic, go for it

- If both teams agree, you can skip grand for extra prep

- I generally give grace periods of about 10 seconds, anything over I'll stop flowing

- You should track your own and your opponent's prep time; I am not tracking

- Be funny and witty :)

- I do not care what you wear or where you sit, do whatever is most comfortable and just be polite

General

I first look to where the weighing debates points me to and look to who links into their offense the best. In order to win my ballot, you must win the best weighed link into the best weighed impact. I do not think you can win rounds by purely winning the weighing debate, you must win the link to your argument/impact in order to access your weighing. Weighing will determine my ballot if both teams do substantial work on the link debate and/or link into the same impact, and I need to use weighing to break the clash.

On weighing specifically, please remember that weighing is comparative. The claim "we outweigh on scope and magnitude because of X number of lives" is not weighing. Weighing needs to be extended, warranted, and implicated correctly. Repeating your impact will not win you anything. Please interact with your opponent's weighing. If both teams are reading prereqs, you should be telling me why your prereq comes before theirs and/or is better for xyz reasons. Most of the time debaters will individually weigh their arguments and not respond to each other's weighing. In that case, it forces me to judge intervene and I don't want to do that. New weighing in first final is fine, but no new prereqs and definitely no new weighing in second final.

Even if your argument/impact is 100% conceded, it is not an auto win for you. I am not a policy judge, therefore will not auto-drop arguments because they are conceded. Any argument/impact you want evaluated must be extended, warranted, and backed by evidence. I have a very high threshold for extensions and am more than happy to credit an argument less if there is a blippy extension. Saying "vote for us because the argument is conceded" is not an extension. You should also be collapsing and spending time fleshing out one argument/one turn that is high quality, rather than going for everything with no warranting.

Remember that you primarily win rounds on offense, which includes your case, turns, and disads. You must weigh offense for me to evaluate it. A conceded turn is not an auto win, it must be warranted, extended, and weighed.

Defense is not sticky. Do not extend through ink, nor bring something read in rebuttal but not extended in summary back up in final focus. Trust me that I will catch it and am very willing to drop defense that is extended through ink. Again, frontlines and defense that you want considered in the round must be extended and warranted. Do not randomly say terminal defense just because it sounds cool, explain why. You should not be going for all your defense on your opponent's case, pick the best one and flesh it out for me. Merely rereading your responses in summary and final is not enough; tell me why it matters.

Prog

I have experience running/responding to progressive arguments, however, I do not think I am the best judge at evaluating prog. If you do read it, I will try my best to evaluate them, but I cannot promise that I will make the correct decisions so run it at your own risk. Definitely not well-versed in the intricacies of theory. I can probably evaluate topical arguments, but non-topical arguments are definitely a stretch for me. Please please please extend in summary and final, frontlining is not enough. I will not vote for an argument that is not extended.

- If you read friv theory, I will evaluate it but cap your speaks at 26

- If you read disclosure/paraphrasing/any wiki-related theory but you do not meet your own interp, I will give you the lowest speaks the tournament will allow me to. However, I will not auto-drop you. I think it is the burden of your opponents to point out that you do not meet your interp, and even though I will check the wiki, I will still evaluate the round as I should

- Framing: most familiar with SV, extinction first, generic ones from LD, etc. and anything else please explain it as clearly as possible

- T/Theory: please extend the shell and give me reasons as to why theory up-layers substance or why your theory comes first

- Ks: I've read some topical Ks in the past, but not super up-to-date on current "trending" Ks on the circuit so do explain thoroughly. No alt is fine but you should have a clear link and ROTB and prove why the ballot is key to your discourse

World Schools

I did worlds for two years, semied NSDAs in 2022, and competed with USA Dev in 2023. However, its been a while since I last did/judged worlds, so I am a bit rusty.

There should be clear framing in the one, this means clear definitions and contextualization of what the motion looks like right now and in the world of your side of the house.

Please read counterfactuals/countermodels at your own risk. Only run a model if you need to, don’t run it because you can’t think of another argument on the opp. If you are going to run one, you need to prove why the model is good. Generally, I think that countermodels should be mutually exclusive.

Comparative worlds writes the ballot for me. Worlds heavily relies on good warranting, blippy warranting will not get you far in this event.

The three and the four should not be the same speech. It should mirror each other but should not be the same things. The three should focus on tying up loose ends and doing the comparative. The four should crystalize the round and use ballot directing language to write my ballot for me.

Love me a good principal and practical debate. Make it fun and interesting!

Hi! I'm Sophia, a second year at Princeton. I debated/judged WSDC/ Asian and British Parliamentary in high school where I represented Taiwan.

just a few things:

• Truth>Tech
• Structure and speed are important to me! make sure you are understandable and clearly mark out argumentation and responses. this is especially relevant if you have a lot of material to get through.
• Because I am most familiar with worlds format, I appreciate debates most when they are strategic, well-framed, and impacted clearly. Try to minimize running complex K's/theory because there is a high chance technicalities will not be fully appreciated by me.

• Please be respectful in and out of rounds! Debate, as competitive as it gets, should never be a platform to hurt, slander, or dehumanize each other.

i'd be happy to give post-round feedback and further explanations. contact me at: sz5856@princeton.edu.

have fun!