Hello! My name is Hamza, and I am currently a a rising senior at Cary Academy in Cary, North Carolina. It is possible that I may ask you to share your documents with me before the round starts so that it is easier for me to follow the arguments that you make. My email is: hamza_adnan@caryacademy.org. I am a Lincoln-Douglas debater and have competed in over 30 tournaments over the course of my first three years of high school. I also have limited experience with Congressional and World Schools Debate.

I don't have many specific preferences regarding your style of debate. I personally enjoy any and all types of debate and will listen to and try to understand pretty much any argument that you provide, as long as it is logical and you are able to defend it well. If you talk a bit faster than a conversational pace, then that is totally fine! I have competed in Lincoln-Douglas long enough that I am fairly used to fast speakers. However, I would still like to be able to hear what you are saying. If you are speaking so fast that I cannot figure out what you are saying, then I won't be able to flow it.

I will keep detailed notes and a rigorous flow as the round progresses. I will keep time but I encourage you to keep time as well. I usually allow a 10-second grace period, meaning that I will let you speak for up to 10 seconds after your time is up and if you still continue to speak, then I will have to cut you off.

I will try to be as generous with speaker points as possible. If you generally spoke well and articulated your arguments in an effective, insightful manner, then you are guaranteed at least 28 speaker points. More specifically, here is the scale by which I award speaker points.

30 - insanely amazing speaker, one of the best speakers in tournament, deserves to go extremely far in the tournament

29 - great speaker, significantly above average, went above and beyond in argumentation and should advance pretty far in the tournament

28 - good speaker, generally good argumentation, slightly above average, should at least win some of their rounds in the tournament

27 - average speaker, generally okay argumentation but could and should have done better in many different areas

26 - a 26 is very rare. I will only give you a 26 if you do one of two things: a) say something offensive, or b) don't respond to any arguments at all and go completely off-topic during your speech about something that isn't even remotely related to the topic being debated.

Middle School NSDA Nationals Competitors: I am truly thrilled to have the opportunity to judge you all! This will be an amazing experience for everybody and please know that one win or loss, one 30 or 26, does not define you as a person or as a debater and you all still have so much merit to offer!

I will provide extensive comments and oral feedback at the end of the round for both competitors. If you still have any other questions, comments, concerns, or simply want me to provide you with even more feedback after the round or tournament is over, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Again, my email is hamza_adnan@caryacademy.org.

Brand new judge. Talk at a slower pace.

For email chains, please use kbertram@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

QUICK UPDATE: As I am mostly judging more PF and LD these days, I am more than willing to listen to offbeat approaches to the topic - but you must engage with the topic. My strong preference is to not have to listen to theory debates and the burden for me to vote on something like disclosure theory is absurdly high.

FINAL NOTE: If allowed by the tournament, I will disclose my decision. I will not disclose speaker points.

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 3L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level; my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg. Please see "important" section below.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Important Stances that May Deviate from the Norm:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("new 2nr args permissible" and "new 2ar args impermissible outside of answers to new 2nr args" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- every claim needs a warrant, even conceded arguments (I don't presume conceded arguments are true); alternatively, if you don't want to extend the warrant for conceded claims, an explanation of why conceded arguments should be considered true is acceptable (there's no justification for the claim without the extension of a warrant or an explanation of why concessions matter)

- if you go for substance and don't read a fw/both debaters are winning offense under their fw but neither explain which fw comes first/no one extends a fw/both debaters are winning unweighed offense under a fw, I'll vote on presumption absent an uplayer (same goes for t/theory in the context of standards/voters/paradigm issues; I'll just devolve to a lower layer of the debate)

- I presume: neg if it's aff v squo (bc the post-fiat world of the aff changes the squo); aff if it's aff v most generic post-fiat cps/alts (bc the post-fiat world of the neg is further from the squo); neg if it's aff v pic or "reject the aff"/pre-fiat advocacy (bc the post-fiat world of the aff is further from the squo). If neither debater has an advocacy by the end of the debate (both aff and cp are kicked or similar squo v squo scenario), I'll vote for the debater whose most recent advocacy is closest to the squo (ig I'll judge unkick the last advocacy read by both debaters and then presume; idk this has only happened once).

- if you don't extend your plan text/advocacy in some way it's kicked; in other words, you must extend your advocacy/plan text if you are going for a postfiat link/impact turn (one commonly applicable implication of this is if the 2ar goes for postfiat link/impact turns without extending the advocacy/plan text, it no longer defends the plan nor accesses offense from the turns)

-I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the antithesis of debate; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similarly discriminatory I will not drop them unless you say something about it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is report them to tab after the round and give them god awful speaks. Just call them out for being unethical.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Miscellaneous:

- tech>>>truth

- I will vote on literally anything when given a framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls, reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep and joint cross examination are fine

- have a localized recording; absent one, you risk losing whatever content was missed due to tech error (ig hope your opponent is cool with a redo)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 2 to 3 (depending on density)

Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP, it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than one is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I treat perms like condo advocacies because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links, they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression, it looks bad

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my favorite the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets/indicts

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I generally default competing interps unless otherwise specified

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult/potentially imnpossible to win for you

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, paradoxes, afc, acc, aprioris, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making>fluency (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is/report to tab

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- more leniency for novice debates

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

TL;DR: Just read your Flay/lay case, signpost, give clear voters in the last speech. for LD the value matters- win the FW to win the ballot.

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past eight years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate and that it focuses on traditional debate elements. I have judged debate in all levels of tournaments including the finals at NSDA nationals in LD and Quarterfinals in PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated. If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first THEN considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred. I expect arguments to be clear and reasonable.
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice, I become frustrated with ugly or rude debaters. I will judge you on your arguments but I can not help but dock speaks when you are just nasty to your fellow competitors. We are all human, we all deserve to be treated with respect.
4. I am a judge who loves traditional debate at reasonable speed. I will discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me but it is not the only thing.
5. Clear impacts please, as in tell me "the impact is" and you need clear and reliable evidence, don't rely on "logic" or "intuition" to provide an impact. I am a sucker for historical precedence that shows the impact has or is happening in some form in the squo but of course I will buy any logical sourcing of a predicted impact.
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting.I may call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE MAIN IDEAS OF THE CASE.
8. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth-finding. LISTEN and analyze the big ideas seeking logical holes. That shows sophistication and critical thinking.
9. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round. I am tracking those drops.
10. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is a hard sell for my ballot. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF and LD debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it, of course.
11. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosophical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so? Show me that you have done the HW and know what you are talking about when you claim that Liberty is important. Definitions will be important.
12. The story is a big deal for me. What is the theme of your case? Is there a through line that ties all your contention level arguments together? This shows sophistication in your debate style.
13. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
14. Will disclose if allowed.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones!

Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).

Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.

2024-2025 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last couple of years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!

Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!

Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)

Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.

Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.

Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds. I am not going to evaluate the round after a certain speech.

Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please be kind to your opponents and the judge.
3. Have fun!

WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.

I recently began judging Lincoln Douglas for the Speech and Debate community. Judging comes with a lot of responsibiity and uber-focus 100% of the time. The time and effort the students put in requires undivided attention which I embrace. I have a background in public speaking through my professional career of over 30 years with financial markets and technology. I am multicultural to the degree that I have worked and lived in numerous countries on 3 different continents. Quality trumps quantity, and its better to have 3 strong arguments with supporting information, vs 5 light ones without stats to support them.

I did policy debate for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA High School) before graduating in 2020. I debated over 80 debates per school year, with around 50 of them on the national circuit. I now coach and judge for LASA sporadically.

If there’s an email chain, please add me at i.sruthi13@gmail.com

…

TLDR:

Do what you do best. I would rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences. Having said that, I’m most comfortable judging CP + DA debates, since that is the literature base I know best. Write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR and tell me what I’m voting on. Your speaks will thank you. Tech > Truth.

For novices: The most important thing is to have fun! It’s important to remember that debate is a process, not a product. Focus on learning as much as you can from these debates, instead of focusing on the results. If you have any questions at all, don’t hesitate to ask me or send me an email. I promise I’m not scary!! Yes, I’m okay with speed (as long as you are clear). No, flashing and emailing are not prep (unless it’s excessive). Yes, I’m okay with open CX.

For LD: I coached LD in the 2020-2021 season. Since my background is in policy debate, I am most comfortable judging LARP and kritiks (to a lesser extent). I'm not the judge for you if you specialize in phil/theory/tricks.

…

Framework:

I went for framework a LOT. This doesn’t mean I hate all K affs, but it does mean I subconsciously look at these debates through the lens of a 2N. I find myself going for fairness as an impact in some debates, so I can definitely be persuaded to vote on it. Don’t forget impact calculus! It’s not enough to extend the impact of the aff on the case page. Explain how it implicates framework and why it outweighs the Limits DA (or whatever the negative team goes for). In that same vein, make sure you are not just extending arguments. Explain the broader implication of winning that argument and why it means you win the debate. "I find it really hard to explain why the act of reading framework in and of itself is violent or bad." -- Mason Marriott-Voss. Retweet.

…

Topicality:

Going for topicality was my jam in high school. These debates come down to the execution of your standards. Quality of your definition matters, especially if you are going for a precision or predictability impact.

“Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff.” -- Yao Yao Chen. Retweet. Topicality is a question of models of debate, not THIS debate.

…

Kritiks:

I’ve dabbled in the fem K and the cap K, but I have very little expertise in critical literature. If you want to go for another kritik, by all means, do it. Just be clear with your explanations. The more case-specific your link is, the more likely you are to get my ballot. I find myself questioning what the purpose of framework is in these debates. If your 2NR/2AR strategy relies on winning framework, explain what winning framework gets you in terms of the rest of the debate. Floating PIKs must be clearly made in the 2NC. If you bust one out in the 2NR, I’m probably not a great judge for you.

…

Counterplans:

Theory debates are fantastic. I lean affirmative on process CPs (consult, delay, etc.). I lean negative on PICs. I don’t have a preference on conditionality, 50 state fiat, or international fiat.

…

Disadvantages:

I find evidence quality matters a lot more than evidence quantity, especially in politics debates and impact turn debates. Evidence comparison is under-utilized.

…

I will not vote on any argument that endorses racism, sexism, homophobia, or otherwise offensive ideologies. I will also not listen to any arguments that endorse self-harm, suicide, or purposeful death. I will vote you down and it will be completely on you for not reading this paradigm.

This paradigm is definitely a work in progress because I’m still figuring out how I think about debate. Yao Yao Chen has probably influenced my thoughts on debate the most. Check out his paradigm here if you want to.

Hi, I’m Aum. I did LD. I go to UNC.

• Read taglines SUPER SLOWLY and EXTREMELY CLEARLY.
• Round narrative is key. Given a messy round, I will vote on arguments which are very clear.
• Ask me before round if you have any specific questions.

Speaks:

• --- Speaks if you are racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.
• -- Speaks if you belittle your opponent / general rudeness.
• - Speaks if your debate devolves into 'who has the better value: morality or justice?'
• + Speaks if you cover the flow while speaking at a normal, human pace.
• ++ Speaks if you read animal rights arguments or make the round entertaining.
• +++ Speaks if you cover the flow while speaking at a normal, human pace and your opponent is going super fast.

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.

Updated for 2025

Please include me on the email chain at deena.mcnamara@ahschool.com before the commencement of the round. If the round starts at x time, then please ensure that the doc is sent or uploaded by x time.

My Background:

I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate.

I have been a litigation attorney for over 27 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 20 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I have been coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach since 2021. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.

I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, Glenbrooks, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… however, if you are huffing and puffing through your speech or sound as though you are hyperventilating then it is not enjoyable for your judge. I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. CX is super-important in the round, so please make sure that you are not sitting in a desk facing away from me during CX. Judges who think that CX does not matter really do not understand the purpose of debate; I will leave it at that. Additionally, I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. Please do not mistag your cards. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.

Important:

Please do not text or message with anyone outside of the round during the round for any reason whatsoever. To be clear, you should not receive any texts, messages, emails, documents or any other form of communication whatsoever from anyone outside of the round during the round.

Case type/argument preferences:

Phil- 1

K -1

Turns on case -1

Turns on FW-1

Line-by-Line -1

Skep- 1

Perm with doublebind argument- 2

T- 2

Disads- 3

Non-T Affs-3

Theory to check abuse which was checked in CX-3

Tricks- 3-4

CP- 4-5

Kicking arguments with offense responded to by opponent- 5

Policy Affs/Plans/LARP- 5

Contradictory case positions-5

Collpasing on an argument in last rebuttal when there is offense on other arguments in round- 5

Extinction impacts- 5- strike

Frivolous Theory read as time suck- you should strike me.

Reading someone's case off the wiki that is not your case- you should strike me.

FW/Phil Debate:

I love phil cases, dense phil cases, detailed frameworks with lots of philosphical warrants and well-written analytics that are interspersed in your framework. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.

Ks:

I love Ks when they are well-written. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed, Wilderson, Warren, and some other authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.

Plans/CPs/DAs/Perms:

I am not a fan of LARP debate and if this is your style of debate, then I may not be the best judge for you. If you prefer to read a bunch of evidence with heavy stats and nuke war impacts, then maybe you should consider policy debate. Debaters have been reading brink arguments since the beginning of time and we are still here. If you read a Plan or Counterplan in the round, please ensure that it is suffciently developed and there is offense. I have voted down policy affs read by debaters that I adore because there was no offense in their case and therefore nothing for me to vote on at the end of the round. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent. If you read a Perm argument then please slow down and explain it because debates get messy when these arguments are not fleshed out. When you are making arguments against a Perm, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly as to why they cannot Perm or why you outweigh on net benefits. I am not going to go back to your speech doc to figure out what you said and make the connections for you. I do love double-bind arguments and I think they are very strategic in policy debate. If you make a double-bind argument, then please slow down so I can truly enjoy the argument as you make it; I aprpeciate it.

Non-T affs, T, theory and misc.:

I am fine with non-T affs, but I think you can figure out some way to make the Aff topical so the Neg can engage in the substance of the debate; it avoids the arguments that the Aff was not predictable or that the Aff case is non-topical. I am amenable to reasonable topicality arguments - not BS ones for time suck. I enjoy semantic arguments a lot - for what it is worth! I know that everyone wants to uplayer the Neg and read so many positions that the other side cannot answer; however, one of the key purposes of debate is to engage critically with the arguments made by the other debater. When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff. Please do not just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect varsity debaters at national competitions to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to send cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.

LD as a sport:

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.

However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.

Voters and what I like to vote on:

Please give me voters- this is not a suggestion, but a kind request from your judge. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. I do not vote on presumption. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me before the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.

Pet Peeves:

Please do not read cases off the wiki written by someone else.It is easy to see that the cards were cut by someone else and the tags and analytics were written by someone else. Using someone else's words and reading them as your own is considered plagarism. I know that it has become a norm on the circuit, but that does not make it right. There is so much information available on the internet to assist you with writing your own cases that I do not think it is a difficult ask. Back in dark ages of debate, I wrote all my cases on paper and my "cards" that I "cut" from Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (or whatever book I could get my hands on) were hand written on 5 by 7 notecards with a full citation also handwritten on each card. I understand it takes time and is difficult, but it is worth it.

Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your CX as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script in rebuttals. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate! You do not have to send extemped analytics in the round.

Hi, I'm Arafath Mohammad, I have no experience competing and judging at schools, but I have vast experience in corporate levels. I work as Senior Vice President and Executive at top Bank. I have completed my bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and master's in business administration. I coached many students and individuals at different schools and corporate on management and strategy planning. I have judged many rounds in professional presentations at client events and corporate discussions.

Feel free to message me for feedback (if I forget you can nudge me), if you have questions about my professional, experience or anything else. I'm happy to help!

Hello! My name is Davis Shedd. I go by whatever pronouns. I debated all 4 years of High School, reading primarily the K. My favorite K's to read and the K's I'm most familiar with are Cap, Queer Theory, Set Col, some pomo, and Deleuze. However, I am familar with a lot of critical literature so feel free to read whatever you want. I feel like doing more on the about me section is stupid and isn't useful information, but if you want to know anything else in particular feel free to email me and ask or just check the wiki or tab or sum :)

email: davis.shedd@duke.edu

(put me on email chain if thats what u are doing. in online debate ive seen ppl using file share. if u want to do that thats fine with me)

feel free to contact me with any questions!

Quick Pref:

tech > truth

K: 1

Theory: 2

Phil/Tricks: 3

Larp: 4

I will vote on literally anything at all as long as it has a link, warrant, and impact and is clearly articulated and contexualized within the round. I will not however, vote on blatantly harmful arguments that are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. If you read these in front of me, I will immediately drop you. Similarly, if you say anything harmful in round to either your opponent or myself, I will give you an L0. Speed is totally fine with me, just make sure your opponent is okay with speed and make sure the space is safe for them. Spreading super fast at your opponent and not making any arguments simply because they wont be able to keep up and catch everything is dumb, harmful, and is not a good look for you. If you do this, I will tank your speaks. Read whatever you want - debate well and I will vote for you. It's just a debate round - have fun with it, do your thing, and chill.

My email is ryanindebate@gmail.com for docs BUT I would much prefer speechdrop. I think disclosure is a good norm even for traditional debaters.

I'm not your coach so it's not really my place to tell you HOW to debate unless it seriously affects my ability to judge whether you have won within the context of the game. I believe judges should try to adapt to debaters, not the other way around (I will do this to the best of my ability, but I can't do impossible things. ie. I can't magically spawn a perfect understanding of pomo literature in my brain before the round even if you want me to).

TLDR; I did traditional LD for Hawken for 4 years and currently do BP debate in college. Will vote on the path of least resistance. Tech>truth, will vote on/evaluate literally anything I understand (that does not make debate an unsafe place). Yes, that includes tricks, non-T affs, friv theory, speaks theory, IVIs, RVIs, and anything in between. I have functionally no hard predispositions (seriously) on the type of arguments you read/go for, as long as I understand it and it isn't egregiously problematic (check document for specifics). Err on over explanation without being redundant. Please ask questions before round if you want clarification!

Here's my old paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h6qydn7Cttnrt73hqfy36nil1BHBIxx8mVgoyzSmmVA/edit?usp=sharing

I put it there if you wanted something specific but I found that most people either ignored it or overthought it. Just run the style and argumentation you're good at and you'll probably be ok.

I am a parent judge. I appreciate well structured arguments and debaters who are collegial and professional. Talk quickly or talk slowly - I’m fine with either approach. Just make sure I can understand you. Poise and style are important (especially if you can provide a great turn of phrase), but I’m more interested in the quality and completeness of your case. Passionate arguments can be very persuasive; however, I’m more likely to be won over by a well-reasoned case.

I am an assistant coach, this is my second year coaching, third year judging. I am a teacher certified in English Language Arts and have actively taught high school for 5 years. My notes and comments tend to follow my flow/train of thought as I type as I go, making comments as I see things.

For my first two years of judging, I have almost exclusively judged speech events with debate/congress sprinkled in, however this year I have been judging mostly LD.

I have never gone into a round and found a student I wanted to do poorly. I want you to succeed as much as you want to succeed.

Paradigm for LD

Construction of Message:Is your argument well-thought? Is your resolve interesting? Does your evidence support your claims? Are you claims tied together and supporting each other? Does your argument flow in a logical way that makes it easy to follow by only listening, and not reading?

Delivery of Message:Are you speaking slowly and clearly enough that the judge can actually process what you are saying? (this is a speech and debate competition, not a race). Do you command the room when you speak, without being overbearing? Can the judge hear what you are saying without straining?

Evidence of Engagement:Are you actually listening to you fellow competitor? Do you make points in questioning and rebuttal that are based on what your opponents said, and not just what you thought they said? Are you adapting to the way the round is flowing?

Construction of Rebuttal:Are you able to use their Value to support your own argument? Are your counterclaims based in evidence? Are you pointing out any logical fallacies? If you raise a concern about something in your opponents case (ex: you accuse them of cherry-picking), is your case safe from similar scrutiny?

Decorum: Are you behaving in a way that reflects well on yourself, your coach, your school, and the District?

Paradigm for Congress

How I Rank:While the ballot on Tabroom only has a place to score speeches, it is not unlikely that room is full of great speakers. To fairly rank the room, I have a personal spreadsheet where I score individual speeches, as well as the categories below, to help separate the "great speakers" from the "great congresspersons". Think of it like a rubric for your English class project. Speeches are the biggest category, but not the only one.

Speeches:Do you provide a unique perspective on the bill, and not simply rehashing what has been said in the round already? Do you back up your reasoning with logos, ethos, AND pathos? Is your speech deep, instead of wide (more detail on one specific aspect of the bill, rather than trying to cover all angles of the bill)? Do you write with a clarity of style and purpose, with a good turn of phrase? Do you engage your listeners? Do you respond well to questions?

Questioning:Are your questions thoughtful and based on listening closely to the speaker, and what they actually said? Are your questions brief and to the point? Do you avoid simple yes or no, gotcha style questions? Does your questioning have a clear line of thinking? Do you connect questioning to previous speeches? Do you avoid prefacing?

Decorum:Do you follow the rules of the chamber? Do you follow speaking times? Do you speak calmly and collectedly? Do you ask or answer questions assertively, without being aggressive? Do you respect your fellow speakers?

RP:Do your speeches reflect that you are a congressperson, and not a high school teenager? Do you think of your constituents? Do you consider yourself a representative of your state or District? Do you allow your RP perspective to make your speeches better, and not become a distraction? Do you participate in motions, seconding, etc?

Knowledge of Rules:Do you have an obvious and clear understanding of the rules? Do you follow them closely? Are there any egregious breaking of the rules?

Special Consideration for the Presiding Officer:The Presiding Officer is marked for one "speech" per hour. This score is a reflection of how well they perform the specific duties of PO. It concerns knowledge of the rules (at a higher expectation than the average congress competitor), the efficiency of the room, the fairness of the PO, and the demeanor of the PO (should be calming and welcoming). I also look at them for decorum and RP.

You should be polite, but you should also know that being obsequious will not gain you extra points.

Please don’t use debate-world jargon. The people judging are not debate team members, so using words that mean something totally different in their world (the real world) is not effective.

Don’t be overly pedantic. If your argument is premised on a word game (e.g. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") it just seems silly.

Hyperbole (e.g. "Half the human population will die if you don't vote for AFF!") can be viewed as insulting to a judge’s intelligence.

As a judge I can't see your cards, so getting into an argument with your opponent about cards is kind of meaningless to me.

The best debates are about articulating ideas and presenting evidence to back up those ideas. Focus on persuading your audience—in this case, the judge—not each other.

Make it a debate that would impress Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

David Vanderweide's paradigm: This is my second time judging, so I am somewhat familiar with how LD debate works, but still no expert. I know the process, but might not know all of the terminology. Speaking quickly is fine.

Hello! I'm Ms. Zvanut (pronounced Zuh VAN it), and I'm happy to be judging you!

I am mostly experienced in judging speech, but have just started judging debate. I really like both, and for wildly different reasons.

For speeches, I consider both content and poise. If you have written your own speech, I strongly consider the organization, flow, use of language, and clarity of the content. Your body language, facial features, and general poise should be mature, fluid, and natural. Your speech should be clear, and pace and volume should enhance your presentation.

For debates, I am considering the clarity, order, logic, and evidence of your position, as well as how well you address / dismantle your opponent's points. To that end, if you are spreading, I may not be able to fairly and accurately assess you. Remember, you are convincing me, so I need to effectively understand your position and evidence.