Tabroom.com

October Potomac Intramural

2024 — Online, MD/US

Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Maya Abdrashitova Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 5:21 AM EST

Hello,

This is my fourth year doing PF, and I'm pretty knowledgeable on the topic and how it works. Time yourselves and your opponents, but I will time as well to avoid confusion. I will cut you off after ~15 seconds. Tech > truth (what you say in a round takes precedent over the actual truth) in my opinion, but I will still think over what you are saying and how believable it is.

Constructive: I'm okay with speed, but if I don't hear or understand something, it's your job to explain it. Structure is important, please state C1, Impact, C2, etc. or else it makes it much more difficult to follow.

Crossfire: I don't flow it, so if you want me to write something down, address it in the next speech. Don't be too aggressive; there is no need to be yelling at your opponent. The side that spoke first gets the first question. Don't interrupt your opponents unless they are actively not responding to your question.

Rebuttal: I like off-time roadmaps as long as you stick to them. Address one thing before you move on to another, don't jump around.Make sure to make all your extensions clear, as well as blocks. Use up to date and reliable evidence. I like weighing, it's great.

Summary: You need to start weighing in summary, and make sure to extend your offense and defense. Go line-by-line with weighing and make sure to tell me exactly how you outweigh.

Grand Crossfire: Both speakers need to participate.

Final Focus: Don't bring up new evidence or points as your opponents cannot respond to them. Tell me why I should vote for you.

Proggressive debate: I am okay with judging theory and kritik, just don't run it against novice/less experienced debaters. For kritiks, make sure to thoroughly explain it.

Speaker points: rudeness, racism, sexism, repeated misgendering, xenophobia, etc. will tank your speaks. If your opponents point it out, I will absolutely evaluate it, so don't be rude.

Overall, be respectful towards each other and have a good debate!

-- Maya Abdrashitova (they/she)

Isaac Appelbaum Potomac Debate Academy

Aakash Arvapalli Potomac Debate Academy

Hannah Bat-Ireedui Potomac Debate Academy

Urvi Belday Potomac Debate Academy

Kyra Bergerud Potomac Debate Academy

Samarth Chenumolu Potomac Debate Academy None

Rishab Chimmanamada Potomac Debate Academy None

Laura Cho Potomac Debate Academy

Elizabeth Chung Potomac Debate Academy

Saanvi Churi Potomac Debate Academy None

Beth Cole Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Tue September 24, 2024 at 10:22 AM EST

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

Tom Fones Potomac Debate Academy

Juliene Fuson Potomac Debate Academy

Robin gadjen Potomac Debate Academy

Andrew Gibson Potomac Debate Academy

Eliza Haas Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:32 AM PST

Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.

TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.

If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com

Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.

General:

I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.

Arguments:

I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.

However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:

Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.

For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.

Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.

Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.

Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.

For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.

I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).

Style/Speed:

I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.

Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.

I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.

I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.

If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.

Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.

Final Approach to RFD:

I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!

Weigh impacts.

Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:

- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.

- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.

byria hamblin Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 4:34 AM CST

I am very laid back judge, but here are a few things I would love to see:

1. Give me a roadmap; even something as simple as "it's going to be aff then neg" is greatly appreciated. If your speech is going to jump all over flow, be transparent about that at the top and signpost as you go. Overall, please be purposeful about signposting/claims and slow down for those statements. I need to be able to follow on the flow as this is the primary factor in my decision.

2. If anyone is using a framework, do NOT drop it post constructive or rebuttal. Once framework is introduced, how each side weighs into that throughout the round is crucial.

3. Utilize crossfire. Do not use that time to solely ask clarifying questions. Be offensive (even in the first cross), that's what we're here for. It's not going to win you the round, but it'll give the round depth.

4. FOR PF FIRST SPEAKERS SPECIFICALLY: The summary speech is the easiest way to win your round. Do NOT just merely extend every little thing your second speaker said; that's useless. Do NOT spend the entire time simply refuting your opponent's responses to your case. Give me a worlds/comparative analysis & weigh every impact. Defending your case can be integrated into these big picture analyses. This speech needs to only hone in on a handful of essential arguments. Be intentional with those two minutes.

5. Second speaking team, first speakers: if you want to dedicate some time in your constructive to rebuttal, DO IT. Keep the round entertaining.

6. Keep track of your prep time. I will also be keeping track, but you should be keeping track of each other as well.

7. If anyone is using hands off prep to get a piece of evidence, DO NOT PREP. I will down you.

8. Avoid blippy responses. I value the quality of your argument over the quantity.

9. If an argument seems to be a wash between opposing pieces of evidence, be prepared to show me the evidence at the end of the round.

10. I vote based on a combination of who won the flow, who outweighed, and who was the most intentional with their time.

If any of this is confusing, just ask me for clarification before the round! :)

Madison Huynh Potomac Debate Academy None

Alexandria Ivy Potomac Debate Academy None

Markell Jackson Potomac Debate Academy

Marlowe Johnsen Potomac Debate Academy

Serena Jones Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun September 29, 2024 at 9:31 AM PST

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at Ghidotti, CKM, and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: Do whatever is best for you on how many you want to bring into the round.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Sanvi Kantu Potomac Debate Academy None

Yashvi Kapoor Potomac Debate Academy

Katelynn Kennedy Potomac Debate Academy

Michael Kirylau Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 6:39 PM CST

TLDR: flow judge, I want to judge a slow-ish round (~200 WPM or less), please collapse and weigh, I like unique arguments and impact turns :)

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

I prefer SpeechDrop over email chain for sharing docs.

Background

I'm a current student at the University of Illinois studying computer science and philosophy. I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). This is my second year judging PF (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style Preferences

I can judge speed assuming you send docs (marked!), but I don't want to unless you're exceptionally clear. I don't like super fast rounds because they encourage debaters to give blippy warrants and lazy weighing.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

Vincent Li Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 4:44 AM CST

Background

I did 4 years of PF in high school and 4 years of parliamentary (BP) at University of Southern California. I've coached in both PF and Parli.

Style

Be civil and regardless of your speed, remain coherent in your speech. I'm fine with spreading, but do realize that there is an inherent risk of me missing something if you do so, especially if you begin slurring words together.

I appreciate signposting and well organized speeches in general; either keep it organized or explicitly signpost. Otherwise, I will not guarantee the flow I have is the same flow that you may have wanted.

If you want to offer a framework, make sure that it's a framework of substance rather than just a glorified roadmap. I'd rather you set the tone for the round by providing a weighing mechanism instead (morals in utilitarianism vs. consequentialism, short-term vs. long-term, etc.).

I will only call cards if they are the deciding factor for the round, which is basically never. However, mentions of statistics or results of studies should touch on their methodology.

Judging

Impact, impact, impact. I won't care about how great your point is unless you explicitly show why it matters. Note: if you shotgun a ton of arguments in hopes that the opposing team will inevitably drop a few of them, do not suddenly bring them up at the end of the round without having extended them at all.

I lean tech>truth, but keep it somewhat reasonable. I appreciate creative arguments and am open to anything. However, if you run a more convoluted argument that requires a certain suspension of belief, keep it relevant to the topic of the round or at least keep it loosely grounded in reality.

Speaks will be given based off of argumentation and how well you engage points. Bonus points if you fit in a clever analogy somewhere.

Weighing and/or offering a criteria for weighing is far more appreciated that dogfighting the same 2 or 3 points for 30 minutes. I highly appreciate turning arguments, but make sure it makes sense.

Pankhuri M Potomac Debate Academy

Emi Maeda Potomac Debate Academy

Naysa Mehta Potomac Debate Academy

Adam Mimou Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 10:07 AM PST

adammimou82@gmail.com

Assistant LD Coach for Peninsula HS

Note for Blake: I primarily judge and coach LD, but I competed in policy for my senior year and cleared at the TOC. I feel reasonably familiar with current argumentative norms but I have not done any topic research.

I will evaluate all arguments and base my decision on what you extend into your final speeches. I will try not to let my argumentative preferences influence my decision.

Perm texts should be sent before the 2AC.

Exclusive framework interps are unpersuasive, I generally think the aff should get the plan and the neg should get links, but I am willing to evaluate either.

I feel somewhat comfortable evaluating deontological frameworks. I have less experience with other frameworks but will do my best to assess them fairly. However, I'm not the best judge for strategies that rely heavily on 'tricks' or 'a prioris.'

I think most skepticism or 'permissibility' arguments are defense. I do not vote on defense.

I’m convinced by reasonability against all 1NC theory arguments, but less against topicality.

I try to stay non-expressive during rounds. If I show any facial expressions, it is most likely unrelated.

There is no designated time for flow clarification during a debate. If you want to ask your opponent what was or wasn't read, you must do so during cross-examination or use your prep time. If you mark cards during your speech (i.e., if you start reading a card but do not finish it), you should clearly state where you marked it and send a marked document immediately after your speech. You are not required to include cards you did not read.

I do not have a specific metric for speaker points, but demonstrating a clear understanding of your positions and minimizing dead time are effective ways to improve your score.

I do not pay attention to or flow "flex prep". If there is something you want me to hear, ask in cx or make it an argument.

Cinthia Moncores Potomac Debate Academy None

Jamiya Mosley Potomac Debate Academy

Inesh Nambiar Potomac Debate Academy

Jayant Namdhari Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:52 AM EST

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Lauren Ouyang Potomac Debate Academy None

Vedant Pandit Potomac Debate Academy None

Ceili Peake Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:56 AM EST

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

William Phong Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 11:27 PM PST

2024 update: I haven't judged in a while so just keep that in mind, most of the below isn't too relevant to public forum but if you have any questions just let me know

Pronouns: he/him

Email: williamphong10@gmail.com

General

- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent

- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)

- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it

- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me

Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)

- Neg on presumption

- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi

CP- Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.

DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.

Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Sira and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.

K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.

Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.

T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.

Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.

Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.

Tricks – 0 experience

Matthew Reymann Potomac Debate Academy

Kat Román Potomac Debate Academy

Sarvesh Sabarinath Potomac Debate Academy None

Parth Shah Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed November 6, 2024 at 6:35 AM CST

pasdebate@gmail.com

---

General Background:

I debated at Maine East (2016-2020) on the TOC circuit and at the University of Pittsburgh (2020-2023), including the NDT. Currently, I work in the tech industry and am an Assistant Coach for the University of Pittsburgh.

My debate career focused on critical arguments (e.g., Afropessimism, Settler Colonialism, Capitalism). I particularly enjoy judging clash debates, or policy vs. critical. Traditional policy debaters should note my limited experience in policy v policy debates and rank me significantly lower / accordingly on their judging preferences.

If you follow @careerparth on tiktok, I will boost your speaker points.

Key Principles

The most important thing to know: If you make an argument, defend it fully. Do not disavow arguments made by you or your partner in speeches or cross-examination. Instead, defend them passionately and holistically. Embrace the implications of your strategy in all relevant aspects of the debate. Hesitation about your own claims is the quickest way to lose my ballot.

For reference, my judging philosophy aligns with those of Micah Weese, Reed Van Schenck, Calum Matheson, Alex Holguin, & Alex Reznik.

Debate Philosophy

I see my role as a judge as primarily to determine who won the debate but also to facilitate the debaters' learning. Everything can be an impact if you find a way to weigh it against other impacts, this includes procedural fairness. When my ballot is decided on the impact debate, I tend to vote for whoever better explains the material consequence of their impact. Using examples can help to elucidate (the lack of) solvency, establish link stories, make comparative arguments, and help establish your expertise on the topic.

While I have preferences, I will adapt to your argument style. I don't exclude debaters based on their choice of arguments, as long as they avoid racist, sexist, or similarly offensive content.

Speaker points are arbitrary. I tend to give higher speaker points to debaters who show a thorough understanding of the arguments they present. I am especially impressed by debaters who efficiently collapse in the final rebuttals and those who successfully give rebuttals with prep time remaining and/or off the flow.

---

Public Forum Debate

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk." Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech and the faster you conclude the debate, the higher your speaker points will be.

Samuel Shi Potomac Debate Academy

Noah Shin Potomac Debate Academy

Austin Siefken Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 4:54 AM CST

TL;DR: tech>truth, good with speed, If you want me to vote on something it needs to be in summary and final focus, well weighed, and extended with warrants, send docs, have fun.

Hi! I have debated for Lakeville for 4 years and judged for 1. I have competed on the national circuit and have done some coaching/ judging

email: austinsiefken2024@gmail.com lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain)

Pronouns: He/Him/His

People who influenced my judging and debate style:

Maddie Cook

Naomi Davis

Tejas Neneman

Henry Nomeland

Debate needs to be a respectful and open space if any of your actions do not reflect that or inhibit people from being comfortable in the debate space your scoring will suffer. Most importantly have fun, debate is an activity where you are supposed to learn in a fun atmosphere.

I do not flow cross if you want me to vote on something mentioned in cross it needs to be in the next speech.

Preferences

Frontline in second rebuttal, if you don't I will assume you concede all first rebuttal
Signposting

Meta weighing
Clean warranted extensions
Collapse in summary
Extending stuff in FF or summary (that's the only way I'll vote for what you want me to)
Prereqing/ link ins/short circuits are cool
Tell me exactly what I should vote on
FF should write my ballot
Use a beeping timer to stop your opponents from steal prep or speech time
Frontlining everything in second rebuttal if possible
sending rebuttal docs that are well formatted

Some pet peeves:

Going to the round without preflowing
Paraphrasing
Taking forever to send and share evidence
Interrupting people in cross
Taking way too long to ask a question in cross
Being mean or condescending to your opponents
Post rounding
Giving an off time road map that is more than 5 words
Using the words pathos, ethos, or logos
Saying something was dropped when it clearly wasn't
Saying "we outweigh on _____" and never giving a warrant
Saying "I-E" more than 2 times in a round
honestly probability weighing. its feels very fake and subjective. I'll still evaluate it but I do not find it persuasive.
reading framing without giving me a clear role of the ballot

Evidence Issues (credit to Maddie Cook):

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards is the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins.
Your cases should be sent to the email chain in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
It shouldn’t take you more than 30 seconds to locate a card, and if it takes more than 2 minutes, I’ll strike it from the flow and start dropping your speaker points.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.

Theory:

I'm not too experienced in theory debate but do understand it. If you want to run it go for it.

Frivolous theory is bad.
I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
"Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
A counter interpretation is not an RVI. RVIs are a completely separate (and bad) part of the debate.

Kritiks:

I am not super well versed on most K lit, I would err on the side of over-explaining your arguments.
When extending the K, don't just reread the entire thing.
You need an alt or its going to very difficult for me to vote on it
Understand your own args

Please feel free to ask me any questions about my judging before the round

Gowri Simha Potomac Debate Academy None

Ray Smith Hire

Last changed on Sat October 26, 2024 at 8:50 AM EST

tl;dr I've been coaching since 2011 and can handle any way you want to speak and debate. I encourage and support creativity as long as you follow the rules of the tournament, your league or the NSDA.

Since 2021 I've coached in Ohio, which uses Speechwire exclusively. So much of my judging record is not listed here.

*************************************

Please hit the “Do Not Disturb” option on your phones and other devices during the round so that your speeches are not disturbed by alarms for calls from your family and Slack notifications from your coach. I wear headphones and your timer going off sounds really loud.

Please "pre-flow" your cases before the round start time. Tournaments want us to start on time.

I don't disclose after rounds unless the tournament requires it. I weigh everything up to the last word of the last speech. So that means I can't start deciding until the end of the debate round, which means I need time to think and write after the round is done so I can turn the ballot in on time.

I don't like when multiple debate teams from a school use the same constructive. Write your own speeches please.

Ask me if I'm ready before you start speaking. I don't want to miss anything you say because I'm still writing notes. Actually ask me - please don't robotically ask "Judge ready? Opponent ready?" then start speaking before receiving an answer.

If the tournament or your league has a rule that judges may only consider arguments spoken about in the last speeches, then I will respect and follow that. If there is no rule saying that, then I will consider ALL arguments given at any point in the round. If you made a great point 20 minutes before the end of the round, then I'm still going to remember it even if you didn't repeat it 5 minutes before the end of the round. Techniques your coaches teach you (like to extend your arguments into the the last speeches) are not rules, they're just best practices.

I don’t like useless road maps. “I’m going to go down my opponent’s case, then mine.” Of course you are. Everyone does. Why waste time saying this? I LOVE specific road maps that are actually useful, e.g. “First I’m going to refute their economics argument, then destroy their pollution impact, then give new evidence for our nuclear contention, then blow your mind with a new defense of our poverty contention.”

Evidence requests are a question and should be asked during crossfire. This ends all confusion about whose time is used for evidence requests. I will adapt if the tournament's rules are different than this.

Congress

I give high points/ranks to competitors who speak well and argue well. If your speech is as good as those in extemp, I will rank you highly. At a certain point in the year, everyone doing Congress is at about the same level for their argumentation skills because everyone is using the same formula for each speech. Therefore, having high-level presentation skills is what separates the top 6 from the bottom 6 for me.

I am biased against speeches that, after the first few, don't rebut or support previous arguments. As a Congress coach, I've seen the student thought process: "Goshdangit I spent all that time before the tournament writing this sponsorship speech and I'm gonna goshdarn give it." Well...ignoring the other speakers and giving a speech that just repeats the arguments of previous speakers does NOT help you get higher scores from me.

Policy

Policy is rare in the 2 states where I've judged, so I haven’t judged it much. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win. I don’t read cases or evidence that you share - I judge based only on what you say so that there is no confusion about what was said vs what was written. I don’t mind spreading as long as you’re understandable, but I’m not a perfect flow-er so I’m going to miss some things and will depend on you to tell me what you think is important after the first constructives. I judge based on who was more persuasive as opposed to who covered more points - this usually means if you have some squirrelly argument I will ignore it and go with the arguments that makes more real-world sense. Speaking of squirrelly arguments - I am so sorry but "everything leads to nuclear war" is hack. We were saying the same thing in the 80’s and it feels played out. If it makes sense that something might lead to nuclear war, like militarization of the Arctic, then I’ll accept it. But when you try to say something like more laptop manufacturing in Malaysia or the military playing Fall Guys on Twitch will lead to nuclear war, you’re going to have to work REALLY HARD to get me to give that any credence. I do not turn my brain off during rounds - there's no such thing as tabula rasa.

Lincoln-Douglas

My LD preferences are pretty much the same as Policy above. There’s not a lot of progressive in my area, so I don’t know all the jargon. I don’t care if you do progressive or traditional, as long as I understand what you’re talking about. The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

Public Forum

The more of your speeches I understand, the more likely you are to win.

SPEECH/IE PREFERENCES

No forensbots. If you are giving us a speech that you've polished so much that it shines, make sure your eyes aren't dead. If this is literally the 50th round you've performed this piece, practice it with a friend and tell her to tell you truthfully if you look like a soulless automaton.

My entire life is spent watching young people speak. I notice everything: swaying back and forth; shifting foot to foot; grabbing the bottom of your blazer; pacing too much; purposeless, repetitive gestures. I was once in a national circuit final round in which I ranked a speaker 7 because she kept smacking her lips every other sentence. The other 2 judges didn't notice and each ranked her first. There is nothing wrong with any individual movement or tic, but if you repeat that movement too often, I will see it and tell you. Watch videos of yourself to notice and reduce your own unnoticed habits.

Please don't make fake changes of position. The purpose of changing positions is so that different parts of the audience can see you better. In front of a camera, this means you have ZERO need to change position. Stay centered in the frame just like a news reporter. Please don't do the golden triangle in front of a camera - people whose job is in front of a camera in real life don't do this. In-person in a normal classroom at a tournament, change position based on the people in the room. Don't go over there and talk to a fake audience if no one is actually sitting over there. Adjust your position changes to the actual people in the room you're in. Changing positions during your speech's transitions is WHEN you do it, NOT WHY.

Events I have judged but not enough to have preferences for:

BQ, Extemp Debate, original spoken word, duo improv, radio speaking, broadcast announcing, pro/con challenge, and world schools.

Events I haven’t judged:

Parliamentary, Mock Trial

My experience

High school coach and classroom Public Speaking teacher from 2011-2018, then 2021 to present. Have coached/taught: PF, LD, Congress, and all Speech events. Have coached students to TOC, NCFL and NSDA in PF, OO and POI. Have coached students to state championships for PF, LD, Congress, OO, POI, Extemp and Humorous.

Teacher since 2003.

Teaching private public speaking lessons to adults since 2019.

I judged at nearly a hundred online tournaments during the first 2 years of the pandemic. Online platforms I've judged on so far: Zoom, NSDA Campus, Accelevents, Classrooms.cloud, HopIn and Yaatly.

I've completed the NSDA/NFHS online judge training including the cultural competency section.

I know how to be a Parliamentarian for Student Congress.

I know how to be an Extemp proctor.

In high school I did policy and prose/poetry.

I speak Spanish and Portuguese.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

Harshiv Sohagiya Potomac Debate Academy

Gina Spanu Potomac Debate Academy

Isabel Tang Potomac Debate Academy

Catherine Terrace Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:42 AM CST

TABROOM PARADIGM

As a judge, I am committed to addressing barriers to accessibility in debate.

EXPERIENCE:

I did high school Lincoln Douglas for 4 years, and JV Policy at the collegiate level (Trinity University) for 2 years until 2018 or so. I have experience judging policy, LD, PF, and some speech events. I judged tournaments in the Houston, Austin, and San Antonio areas from around 2015-2018, took a break, and have been regularly judging online tournaments since 2020. At this point in my judging career, I'd say I'm still very knowledgeable with the basics, but I'm less comfortable now with high-jargon arguments in policy and LD (see, theory in LD, K literature). Having good and clear voters is important to me - I'd say the best 2NRs/2ARs are the ones that write my ballot for me. Tell me why I should vote for you!

SPEAKER POINTS:

I judge speaker points based on how clearly you navigate the flow (sign post, please!) and how clearly you articulate your voters in the final speeches. No speaker points will be deducted for stuttering - so long as you sign post (tell me where you are on the flow), have good organization on the flow, and tell me what arguments I should vote on, you will get above a 29. You will get low speaks if your speech is disorganized, and lower speaks if you are rude to your opponent.

My scale is usually (but not always):

30-29.5: excellent sign posting, clearly outlined voters, very good round. 30s will write a well warranted ballot for me

29.4-29: mostly good sign posting, at times a bit unclear, but you did a generally good job.

28.9-: not enough sign posting, your speech was somewhat disorganized.

LD/POLICY:

SPREADING:

For policy: I will permit spreading evidence if all debaters in the round are okay with it – if you wish to spread (evidence only), please ask beforehand in front of all participating members. If you or your opponents do not want to spread, no reason is necessary, and I will not flow any arguments that are spread if your opponent and I have explicitly asked you not to spread before the round (these requests to/ not to should be made before the round - I will not drop debaters for spreading, but I always welcome spreading kritiks). Spreading can be an accessibility issue, and it is important to make our rounds respectful. Good debaters do not need to spread to win!

If all debaters agree to spreading, then you HAVE to slow down for tag lines – if it’s important and you want it on my flow, then you HAVE to slow down and provide emphasis. It's been awhile since I did debate, so I'm not fast to flow anymore - ESPECIALLY for final speeches, do not spread analytics if you want your arguments on my flow/ ballots. I cannot give you a good RFD if I cannot flow your arguments

For LD: Please do not spread (and if you do talk quickly, just do so with cards, not tags or analytics). These rounds are too short, and at this point in my judging career I miss too much in LD rounds with spreading - treat me like a traditional judge, and give me quality arguments, and you will win against opponents with blippy speedy arguments

EXTENSIONS:

When extending an argument, you must extend the warrant as well. A dropped argument is a conceded argument.

And - weigh your arguments!! If you are losing an argument, but you are winning another and tell me why that’s more important, I will be more likely vote for you. Weigh, weigh, and weigh some more!

FRAMEWORK:

I enjoy framework debates, but they usually aren't enough to win a round alone. Clearly weigh your winning offense through the winning framework - whether that’s yours or your opponent’s - and you will win

I evaluate the round by: 1 looking at the winning framework (ROB, standard, etc), 2 relevant voting issues/ offense, and lastly (and arguably most importantly) 3 weighing (tell me why your offense matters more)

KRITIKS:

Ks are okay, but make sure your arguments are clear. Especially if you're reading denser philosophy, be sure to explain it clearly - I'm good on stock Ks, but if it's high level/ complex, explain it to me like I'm a lay judge (and I generally recommend erring away from these in front of me)

PLANS/CPs/DAs:

Love them, and I especially enjoy a good comparative worlds debate. I am able to write the best RFDs for these debates

TOPICALITY/THEORY:

IN CX: Topicality is fine, I will vote for it if there is a clear violation and it's articulated well. I am not the biggest fan of Theory.

IN LD: TLDR: Treat me like a lay judge if you're running theory, please do not spread your theory debates - I will not be able to follow. It is best not to run theory in front of me

My longer response: I think that theory in LD is very different than theory in policy. I was never really into the technical aspects of theory, and my skills in being able to judge it have eroded over the years. If you want a good and coherent RFD from me stay away from theory, and probably stay away from T as well (though I am more willing to hear this). If you are running theory/T in LD, you cannot spread if you want it on my flow/ ballot - I will not be able to keep up. If you choose to run theory and spread in front of me, I will do my best to judge this, but I would encourage you to run any other arguments in front of me. Judge adaptation is an important skill to have!

PF:

Everything above applies! Some additional notes:

If you plan on speaking quickly/ spreading, then please make sure your opponents are comfortable with that before the round - I generally prefer it if PF rounds stay at a conversational pace, but if both teams want to speed up the speeches, that's okay.
PF is not policy/LD. Remember - one strong argument with good weighing is better than multiple poorly warranted ones - know how much time you and your partner have to commit to addressing all arguments in play. I am okay if you want to run more policy-like arguments.
In my experience, rebuttals should address all arguments, summaries whittle them down to the key arguments, and final focuses look at the voting issues. Again, I think the best final speeches are the ones that write my ballots for me!

MISC:

- Open cross is fine.

- I don't count flashing in prep, but keep this within reason.

- You are responsible for timing your own prep - I prefer to not have to keep time myself. Same with timing speeches - you are responsible for keeping track of your own time. I generally time all rounds, but all debaters should time themselves

- If time is up, you can finish your sentence, but do not go significantly over. I do usually time speeches and will stop flowing when your time is up - if you're going towards 20 seconds over, this will reduce your speaker points.

- I will not vote on any morally repulsive arguments.

- Do not be rude. Debate is a competition, but we should respect one another and do our part to make this a welcoming educational environment. Debate is fun and educational, let’s keep it friendly!

- Weigh your arguments!! Generally speaking, you're not going to win every single argument in a round. That's okay. Win the most important argument, and tell me why it's the most important argument/ more important than the argument(s) your opponent is winning

COVID/ VIRTUAL DEBATING UPDATES:

- Please try to show up on time to rounds - that includes showing up to whatever "report time" or "check time" the tournament outlines. That being said - technical difficulties happen, and this will not factor into my RFD.

- If you think you'll be asking for evidence, collect emails/ create a Google Doc BEFORE speeches begin. No prep time is needed to share evidence, but try to be as quick as possible so that we can have an efficient round. Please get my email in round so I can be on the email chain. I think Google docs are the easiest and best way to share evidence

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round begins! I am more than happy to clarify, and always appreciate when debaters read paradigms before rounds. Best of luck y'all, and have a great round!

Aaron Tian Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun November 17, 2024 at 2:34 PM EST

* for intramurals*

- please time yourselves and try to fill up all of your speech time

- extend in summary and final focus

- weigh!!! make it comparative to your opponents arguments

- be nice

- organize and signpost your speeches

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

NOT GOOD FOR BLIPPY BACKHALF DEBATES

send all evidence

aaron.ftian@gmail.com

yes speed but be clear - i'll clear you and you can tell if i'm not flowing

my threshold for new final focus implications, crossaps, or extrapolations is VERY HIGH, especially second final focus. You'd have to make good justifications.

will vote on any argument - i have some of my thoughts in my paradigm but they are not strict predispositions

don't be racist sexist etc

postrounding is good but dont be rude

i eval off the flow (tech>>>>>>>>truth) - i think intervention is terrible and will comfortably evaluate solely off of in round extrapolations unless directed otherwise (ie. you make ev indicts/say look at the evidence it's bad) - that being said i think indicts are only significant with counter warranting or opposing ev. Exceptions to intervention arecertain reasonability debates on theory, if intervention good is won, or if I feel a need to step in to check certain behaviors.

i dont think links themselves are offense

presumption must be read latest by summary - i default presume neg

i look at weighing first then if there's a link thats won, but I think "any risk" only kinda applies to fw like extinction cause a low risk of a link to ex. recession even if it outweighs would translate to a mitigated impact so you can't access that (that would have to be implicated though). any risk only makes sense in the context of categorically distinct impacts.

assuming they are not in direct clash with each other, weighing arguments will almost never be a wash ex. if one team wins link timeframe + shortcircuit but the other wins impact magnitude , both can be assumed true and still have a decisive outcome. *link weighing is extremely smart and useful, but unfortunately underutilized.

warrants are essential, extensions are as well to an extent - I should be able to reexplain your arguments based on the summary and final extrapolation

im generally unpersuaded by intervening actors - i think most of the time its a late breaking attempt at inserting unwarranted defense but will vote on it if read well or dropped

im also generally unpersuaded by probability weighing

terminal defense takes out try or die - i think try or die is often granted way too much leeway, imo inroads to aff offense with a faster timeframe flip it. that being said good meta weighing on try or die takes out timeframe/inroads is quite fire

presumption requires zero risk - i believe in zero risk from won terminal defense

i enjoy a good k debate but explain things well

i think most k alts are cps

good for reps ks, most basic non util fw (phil), etc, but err overexplaining > underexplaining on anything that differs from policy

i'm very skeptical about discourse alts/voters - will almost never vote on "vote for us because we brought it up" unless its absolutely dropped in which case I will be sad

i rarely went for T vs k so I'm not as well versed on deep TFWK clashes, but obviously it is a core answer - i think T violent/T bad dumps are likely groupeable and a lot more intimidating than they are substantive

Theory

i dislike theory but will vote on it. (this only applies to out of round violations like disclo or round reports, T or in round abuse is different)

theory > ev challenge on ev ethics but i'll eval an ev chal too

i think ivis are fine - they should have the same "dtd" warrants or "voter" justifications as theory ie. you need to explain why it's a procedural issue or why it outweighs

I am not opposed to voting on rvis/ocis

reasonability needs a brightline, a ci can just be defending the violation

good for T - i think a lot of positions stretch the limits of the res

i think the argument that T violates T is interesting but silly

General

mediocre for tricks - explain well in the backhalf if ur going for them

cross is binding but point it out in speech cause I'm not flowing cross

if you're going for impact turns you should briefly extend the link to the res ie. their case but the threshold is very low

i think the same way crossaps are considered "new" responses, implications off existing arguments on the flow are also new to an extent ex. you probably should not get away with new wipeout in final just because the arguments s risk outweighs, ai development inevitable, and an extinction link from the res exist on the flow.

yes "sticky defense" but my interp is that if the second rebuttal doesn't explicitly kick a contention but they don't answer ANYTHING on it the first summary isn't obligated to extend dropped defense and if the second summary goes for that contention the first final is justified in extending rebuttal defense. However, if only specific pieces of defense are dropped on a contention that's frontlined to any extent, the first summary has to extend dropped defense and the first final is not justified in extending straight from rebuttal.

Speaks

high speaks for smart strategic choices and arguments

Asher Towner Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 5:25 AM EST

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Satvik Vedula Potomac Debate Academy None

Malavika Venkatesh Potomac Debate Academy

Nicole Vournazos Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sun September 8, 2024 at 1:11 PM EST

I was in LD and state-wide extemp debate at Newtown High School (2006-2008); I've also judged LD and PF at tournaments off and on throughout my college and working years (2010+).

On speed (slow please, do not speak fast): I used to speak fairly quickly in some of my own rounds, but in both debate and the real-world the slow spread, speaking slowly, or great word economy will likely lead to a much more persusaive discussion. You will likely need to persuade people higher up the ladder or others (e.g. in college/job interviews) down the road: this work requires clarity and persuasion. Generally speed at -2X. I'll flow throughout the round. Sometimes I remind folks not to speak fast and then they still do it anyways :(.

On structure:

Please use a traditional PF/LD structure. However, Yes to underviews, overviews, a priori arguments welcome. No to Ks and theory.
I like when you're creative and throw in interesting arguments that make me think in your contentions.
Always a fan of weighing. Do the work and tell me how I should evaluate the round :). Looking for multiple voting issuses.
If someone is making arguments that seem silly and unlikely, I need to hear specficially why they are silly and unlikely.
Keep a balance of making your argument and then also explaining why you're winning, e.g. summary "My opponent said X, I said Y, it went unresponded to etc."
Bring me along for the ride each time you get up and speak -- repeat the contentions and summarize your argument etc. from the previous speaker/speech. Arguments I should vote off of need to be brought up again and talked about in each speech.
If things are said in cross-examination that are important to the round, bring them up again in the arguments.
Sometimes you and your opponent will have evidence that supports different conclusions on same contention/topic. This could be a wash e.g. she said versus he said...or you could tell me why I prefer your argument. Try to make this as clear as possible.

A bit more...

Looking for things like sign posting (tell me where you are going e.g. opponent contention 1), enumerating (numbering) your arguments, weighing (also why your weighing is better than your opponents/why I prefer yours AND why theirs is not so great), talking about the argument that was dropped or why you're extending through something etc.
Don't forget to breathe and take a chance to practice some voice inflection when making an argument.
Try hard to use plain language: the ability to translate more technical terms into easy-to-understand language is key.
If you’re extending something, briefly summarize the extension (try hard for less blippy extensions while balancing being succinct).

On cards: When reading off cards, I'm looking for some synthesis e.g. (1) what is this person saying (2) why does it help your argument. I still see cards that have no actual evidence e.g. x person says Y; if your opponent goes in and says no warrant, there's not much I can do.

On final arguments: Again add that synthesis in. Show me where you extended an argument that was unresponded to and crystalize your main points. I can go do the work for you (it may not be what you like), but it's helpful as a speaker when you do it for me (summarize the round and tell me why you win). Give me multiple places to vote on via number (#1, #2, #3) even if we've collapsed issues (I won X of arg, I've turned their arg and it's better/worse in my world -- don't forget to generally mention oh and btw they aren't winning their offense).

On civility: Be kind. Having a great argument and being even-keeled in the process is great -- it makes for a persuasive speaker IMHO. Looking for CCC: calm, cool, and collected (though spirited debate is of course welcome).

Please do not shout at me or your opponent during the round. Please use the speaking voice you use every day when at school or talking to friends. There's no need to shout in the round for me to understand what you are saying. Thank you!

Alex Wang Potomac Debate Academy

Kyle Wang Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 11:20 AM EST

I have debated for 3 years in PF, am in 9th grade now at Potomac in The Rivers School. Let me know if anything is unclear or if you have any questions!

1. Make it easy for me to vote for you with well-warranted and weighed arguments in the 2nd half

2. Please rebuild in 2nd rebuttal, potentially start collapsing and establishing early weighing

3.SIGNPOST: this makes my life so much easier as a judge, I will be grateful.

4.WEIGH COMPARATIVELY: don't just say magnitude, tell me how you have 3 more magnitudes than your opponent

5. I am uncomfortable with spreading, please keep it under 160-200 wpm. If you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

6. Please come to the round with pre-flows completed and try to keep evidence calls as short as possible

7. Have fun! Be comfortable! Be nice to your opponents!

2nd Half (Summary/FF):Collapse needs to happen in summary and these speeches should mirror each other. Make sure you are telling me why things matter when extending it. Extend the warrant AND impact in BOTH speeches for me to vote off of it

I don't require defense in 1st summary but mentioning it will always work in your favor.

Cross: I kind of enjoy watching cross so take it as an opportunity to clarify arguments or do whatever it is you need to do. That being said, it won't factor into my decision at all unless it's brought up in a speech.

Evidence: I'll call for it if someone tells me to or if it's super key to my decision. If it is sus, I will not be a happy camper.

Theory, Ks, IVIs(for HS debate): I have no idea how to properly run or evaluate it but I will try my best if you read it. Please do not use this as a tool to be exclusionary. Be sure to emphasize its role on the ballot.

Other, General, notes:

tech > truth > obvious BS. In other words, the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Please cut your cards, have something your opponents can command.

- Don't be rude (just in general)

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's going to affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get prep instead.

I'm more of a flay judge.

Don't do any of the -isms.

I will be timing your speeches/prep unless you explicitly say you will, if you go over it I will intervene.

Show up to the round at the check-in time and be preflowed.

Please enjoy yourselves while debating and have a fun (and educational) time!

Anita Wei Potomac Debate Academy

Anna Wu Potomac Debate Academy None

Lina Wu Potomac Debate Academy

Thomas Wu Potomac Debate Academy

Mengtong Xiang Potomac Debate Academy None

Ava Yu Potomac Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat October 12, 2024 at 5:32 AM EST

hi! freshman at stanford ohs, debated for 2 years under potomac debate academy

please add me to the email chain / speech doc: avayu2010@gmail.com

general info:

tech>truth (most of the time)

always preflow

please time yourself, ill keep track of time but make sure you dont go more than 5 sec overtime (ill stop flowing after those 5 seconds)

speed is okay, dont compensate clarity for it (send doc before you begin if you're spreading (>280 wpm))

please have good warranting, i wont vote for something just because you said to

ill always give rfd at the end of the round

im very lenient when it comes to speaks

rebuttal & backhalf

signpost pls it saves me so much brainpower

2nd rebuttal must frontline and also respond to opponents case (i would prefer you do it in that order)

i love turns but they must be implicated & impacted for me to vote for them

please collapse in summary

good extensions are everything so please extend

make sure you weigh because theres a 99% chance you'll lose if you dont

FF should mirror summary

no new args in FF, ill drop you if you do

i presume neg

crossfire:

crossfire is my favorite part of the debate round but i wont vote off of it

please be nice during cross, i will dock speaks by quite a bit if you interrupt and talk over your opponents consistently

prog:

please dont run prog if you're hitting a novice MS team, even if you win, i will give you low speaks

i love a good fw but it has to be warranted

other than disclosure, i dont love theory

Ks are okay, not the biggest fan of them so run at your own risk

evidence:

if you're sending ev make sure its a cut card, dont just send a link and expect your opponents to know what to do with it (this doesnt apply for elementary & ms novice)

i will dock speaks if the ev is miscut

other stuff:

if both teams are okay with no grand cross, let me know before the round begins and ill give both teams 1 extra min of prep

mavs get 1 extra min of prep time

postrounding is okay

send me an email or message me on discord (avayyou) if you have any questions before round and ill probably get back to you within 10 min

thats it :) have fun!

Kaylynn Yuan Potomac Debate Academy

Colin Zhang Potomac Debate Academy

Kaitlyn Zhang Potomac Debate Academy

Login to Tabroom

October Potomac Intramural

2024 — Online, MD/US

Judges Paradigm List

Judges