Datasets:

debate-land
/

2023-paradigms

text stringlengths 5 41.3k	label int64 0 1
TL,DR: I value good arguments, persuasive speaking, and good clash. Don't exclude your opponents and don't run ridiculous arguments that harm the educational nature of debate. Background I debated for Berkeley High from 2015-2018, taught at SNFI twice, and coached for Berkeley High school. Case * I will default to net benefits * Organization is key: tagline your arguments, signpost, and construct voting issues carefully * Weigh your own arguments and explain why they matter Theory * Don't run unnecessary/frivolous theory, especially (!!) if it is intended to exclude your opponents * Please demonstrate proven abuse (or have a very strong potential abuse argument) if you do run theory Kritiks * I am not a huge fan of Kritiks, so the bar is going to be pretty high to get a ballot from me on one * If you decide to run a K in front of me, your opponents should also be down for a K debate and you should explain very clearly what the actual impacts are Speaker Points * I give speaker points based on clarity, strength of arguments, and persuasiveness (being funny/creative will boost your speaks) * If anyone in the room (reasonably) needs to tell you to be clear or to slow down multiple times, your speaker points will suffer	0
Email chain please: columbus.debate.team@gmail.com PF: PLEASE DO NOT PARAPHRASE YOUR CASE OR MISCUT EVIDENCE PF/LD 1. CLARITY IS KEY!! That applies to speech, organization, signposting, etc. 2. Please warrant your claims and evidence once brought up, not later in the round or next speech (see point 1) 3. Speed is fine, I only judge what I can flow however, so I cannot say I am going to get everything down if you are spreading. With that said, if you want to spread make sure your opponent is okay with it. You shouldn't spread/speed in PF, it's in the rules and norms of the event. It is called PUBLIC forum for a reason. 4. I studied philosophy during my time in university. Please do not throw out theory or K's without having done the necessary background research to really know what you are talking about. The round will be messy because of it, which takes us back to point 1 on clarity. WORLD SCHOOLS: 1. Slow down, this isn't policy. You not only need to argue effectively, you need to persuade. 2. Principled arguments > specific examples and evidence. Not to say you shouldn't have specific evidence, but often the more philosophical grounds of reasoning get left out in favor of, basically, carded evidence 3. New arguments in the back half of the debate are unadvisable and don't allow the other side enough time to have a developed response. 4. Keep your eye on the screen for POI's, if you see one but are choosing to ignore it, indicate verbally or with a hand motion.	0
Iam a parent judge. It is important you go slowly and explain your arguments clearly.	1
I competed for Solorio (policy) for 4 years and now debate for Illinois State University (LD). Chicago City Champion 22' Add me to the email chain: Francosophia91@gmail.com My face will tell you who's winning. I'm fine with speed but pleaseeeeeeeeee do not yell at me in full speed at 8am. Arguments and preferences- I love k debate. Was I a K debater? No, Conor Cameron wouldn't let me be one. Live out my dreams for me. Cap- Is probably the root cause to every issue. That doesn't mean I'm always going to vote for it. If you read this you need to have a very specfic alt. Movements and revolutions is way to vague and gets you no where in the round. Also, I am a product of Conor so I believe that cap is sustainable. Do what you will with this information. CPs- Love them, they should be in every 1nc. Consult and process CPs aren't the most persuasive but I'm not against them. I prefer agent CPs and advantage CPs. In terms of answering- don't read a billion perms, perm do both is fine unless you explain the other perms in detail. T- Hate it<3. Kidding, I only hate it if you use it as a time skew. Only read T if you intend on going for it OR are literally put at a disadvantage in the round/aff is untopical. Education> fairness. Debate is an educational activity, if you're not learning, wyd? Theory-I don't like it<3 K-I was a K debater in my past life. I like K's but explain them!!! Don't just use old blocks and random K lingo that doesn't actually say anything. If you believe in your K, chances are I will too. With that being said, be intentional with what's in your 1nc. Performance- If you have music playing in the background, explain why it's there. The more I see performance rounds the more I love it. It is so different from traditional debate and I think it is refreshing. DAs-Should be in every 1nc. Disad turns case>>>>>> K affs-Not totally experienced in them, willing to listen and learn. If it makes sense to the topic- go for it! If its a K aff that is around every year, try to connect it to the topic as much as possible because I'm less likely to vote for it.	0
I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 6 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com I'm okay with spreading. Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution. Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed. Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity. Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.	0
Affiliation and Big Picture: I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY. I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too. Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such. Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors. I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard. Specific Arguments: Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t. K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated. DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly. Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it. Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable. Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is gswall97@gmail.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.	0
I am the parent of a current debater. I am a practicing lawyer and I debated policy a little bit in high school (a very long time ago). I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.	1
UPDATE FOR BRONX: The last time I judged a tournament was Harvard last year. I didn't think I needed to clarify, but please do not run kritiks. I will not evaluate them. I do disclose speaker points, but please exercise decorum during discussion and do not post-round in an aggressive manner. I am not well-versed enough in all things debate to give you the technical feedback you want if you post-round with the intent of extracting specific advice. Your job at the end of the day is to present your argument clear enough for my comprehension. Hello! My name is Michelle, and I am a senior at Princeton University. Add me to the email chain: michelle.dai.2019@gmail.com Please consider me as a lay judge; I have judged Lincoln-Douglas debate in the past, but I was never a debater myself. Please be courteous to each other, no spreading (unless you send cases), and have fun! Debate is a game, after all. The winner will be determined by: -Who does a better job defending their own case (includes connecting back to framework!) -Who does a better job critiquing their opponent (politely, any rudeness will result in docked speaker points, including in CX) -Whoever is the most cohesive (if you run something that I don't know the meaning of, I will still judge on what I can understand but it will severely lower your speaker points)	0
Hi, my name is Zee. I'm a parent judge. Don't go too fast and make your arguments clear.	1
In-round Preferences: Weigh. Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF. Weigh. Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature Weigh. Please be consistent with your warranting. Offense must be in summary and final focus. Weigh Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too. Miscellaneous: I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time. Do not steal prep time. Persuade me that you deserve the ballot. Weigh. SPEAKS: High speaker points are earned and not given. Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.	0
Hi everyone! I'm Claudia and I debated PF for six years at Poly Prep (Poly LM/LS). I'll call for specific stuff if I need to so don't add me to the email chain unless you're sending out a TW, opt out form, or need to send speech docs- cleduc@wesleyan.edu Yale: pls bring me snacks/ drinkies, my team is depriving me of food TL;DR tech > truth. You can speak fast (but <300 wpm, you should send a speech doc). Defense is sticky if it's not frontlined. First final can do new weighing. Collapse. Extend well, warrant, weigh and you should be good! Read what you want I will vote for pretty much any argument that is warranted well. Obviously, I won't vote for an argument that is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. How I judge --1: Speeches-- Cross: I don't listen to cross. Any concession must be explained in a speech. Be nice. If both teams agree to skip GCX, that's fine with me. Both teams would get 1 min of prep instead. Rebuttal: Read as much offense as you want. Reading DAs in second rebuttal is mean and probably not strategic, but it's allowed. You must frontline in second rebuttal, especially turns. Defense should probably also be frontlined, but I'll be more flexible Summary: First summary needs to extend all offense you want to to consider. First summary also must extend defense if it was frontlined by the second rebuttal. No need to extend defense that was not frontlined (defense is sticky). I'll evaluate new offense in first summary if it is in response to an argument made in second rebuttal. Final focus: You can weigh new in first final as long as its not like crazy prereq stuff or new overviews. You should probably try to expand on weighing from summary- it'll end up being more strategic in most scenarios. Second final cannot weigh new or give new implications. The best finals are the ones that slow down and clarify tech rounds. --2: Technical Stuff-- I default to util but I'll evaluate pretty much any framing argument. I presume neg. I'll disclose after the round. If you ask me to disclose speaks, I'll also do that. Evidence: I really don't like paraphrased evidence in case. If your opponents call you out for paraphrasing poorly, your speaks will be severely hurt. If the round is being decided on evidence, I will almost always vote for the non-paraphrased card. You need to have cut cards available on demand. If it takes you longer than like 2 minutes to find a card, it comes out of your prep :'( -> Misconstruing evidence is bad for you. It will either hurt your speaks, or, depending on the severity, lead to you losing. I would MUCH rather evaluate an analytic than poor evidence. -> I also don't think evidence is that important. I will evaluate a good warrant over badly explained evidence. Prep time: Don't steal prep- it's so annoying. Flex prep is totally fine. Speech times: I'll allow like a 5-10 second grace period. Just please don't abuse that. If you start weighing or move onto a whole new area of the flow after time, I probably won't evaluate it. You can finish your sentence in cross ig but I'm probably not listening so it won't matter lol. Speed: Send a speech doc over 300 wpm. If I miss something because you're going too fast without a doc, that's your fault. Disclosure: I do not care lol- I'll vote for disclosure theory. I will also vote against disclosure theory. Speaks: I think speaks are kinda dumb and random. I do them based on strategic decisions and clarity. I will disclose them if you want. Postrounding: Go ahead :P Trigger/ content warnings: I think it's better to be safe than sorry. TWs aren't required, but I think they are good. If someone is actually triggered in the round, the round should be paused anyways. Please let me know if something like this happens. I will also vote for TW theory (I won't hack for it, but I think there are some pretty good arguments so). --3: Progressive Debate-- I am pretty experienced in theory rounds, with framing, and with topical Ks. Read what you will, but do it at your own risk. I will try my best to evaluate it as best as possible. Overexplain rather than underexplain please. You can read prog on younger debaters, but please help them try and understand rather than dunk on them. Preferences: Theory/T - 2 LARP - 1 Kritik - 2, 3 Tricks - 4 Non-T Kritik - 4 Performance - 4 High Theory - 5 Theory: I don't really think disclosure does anything. I think paraphrasing is bad (especially in case). I will not hack for any theory despite personal opinions on it. I don't like frivolous theory. I will evaluate it, unless it's literally heinous. But, you will probably get low speaks. You should read a counterinterp. I will also vote on RVIs unless one team reads no RVIs and wins it. Theory has to be read in the speech after the violation. You must extend your shell in every speech after you read it. Kritiks: I ran a Cap K like twice and I've watched/debated in some K rounds. I'm less familiar with Ks so I would appreciate some extra explanation. I will evaluate non- T Ks and performance Ks. I just need some extra help because I'm not as familiar. Tricks: Alright ig. They're dumb, but whatever.	0
Basic Information I coach on theDebateDrills Club Team- please clickhereto access incident reporting forms, roster, and info regarding MJP’s and conflicts. Debated Freshman-Junior year doing Policy debate and Senior year switched to LD, this shapes lots of my views on debate. After graduating I have been coaching for the past few years, coaching over a dozen bids and multiple deep TOC runs primarily coaching Policy and K. email chain: Jacksonh428@gmail.com Last update- Bronx 2022 This paradigm primarily applies to high level debates and Elims. if you are a younger debater don’t change your strategy for me I am here to provide feedback on whatever your style of debate. If you are in an Elim or frequently Make it to elims this paradigm should outline my full thoughts on debate for your prefing needs. Important notes about my philosophy regarding debate you should read before having me as a judge If your strat relies on highly contextualized clash debate I am the correct judge for you, Whether you debate critical or policy I will be able to evaluate the debate from a very neutral and knowledge stance. If your strat relies on spreading out your opponent or going for small blips on flows I am not the judge for you. I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks.- Bill Batterman I have become a lot more ideological open to philosophy style arguments in the past year that being said, I have not worked within any of the literature bases for a substantive amount of time. Philosophy that is purely read to integrate trix will never win my ballot in a round. But I am open to well developed philosophy strategies. Because I have not judged these styles of debate for any amount of time you will need to make sure explanations are very clear and robust regarding how to evaluate your arguments. I am going to be more biased towards util which means it is going to require vast more explanation to overcome than the inverse. It is really hard for me to vote on terminal defense, I will almost always vote on risk of offense. I strongly Dislike Nebel and versus core affs that have been read a lot am very very hesitant to vote on it, this largely comes from the majority of my debate career being in policy but is a bias I hold. I Will not vote on evaluate the debate at any point but after the 2AR. If you are asking for a marked doc you need to run prep, I dont know why people are not flowing by ear anymore Specific Arguments Critical debate- My standard for critical debate is college policy which entirely skews what a good K round is and lowers the argumentative burden to beat LD K affs. If you are reading affs that are innovative in some sense that shows you have really engaged within the literature I will be a great judge for this. I am starting to get upset at the level of recycling that is occurring within the LD K aff world. An additional point of gripe I am starting to have is combining theories of power that are entirely distinct into one affirmative or kritik, The most absolutely frustrating part about this is that when you do this versus a debater who is unaware of this contradiction justifiably given it not being a required aspect of the topic it becomes impossible for me to evaluate given there not being an arguement I will likely dock .5-1 speaks for theory of power contradictions. All of this being said if you read a K aff you have to understand that you should show extreme levels of mastery. T Framework falls under this discussion point. This is one of my favorite types of debate to watch and even as someone who read tons of K affs, Against K affs T was always my number one strategy. I think that most shells that are being read now days are very bad and generic. Good Framework debates need to have clash starting in the 1NC, Pulling lines from cards and referencing the 1AC is crucial to avoiding large 2AR spins. I believe that Fairness is a terminal impact but can be convinced otherwise, and believe that Going for fairness is probably a better strat versus Pomo and non Id-Pol K's and In round skills are better versus Id-pol. Teams that go for one standard in the 2NR with lots of impact weighing and comparison are going to win my ballot. I will shield the 2NR from more 2AR spin that most judges I believe. I really dislike the K aff meta of going for Impact turns or one dropped arg on framework in the 2AR and believe strongly that if you can beat back the framework flow you can also beat back the cap flow. All of this holds true reading a K on the negative with a few specific points to be had. First is that I believe that links should be contextual to the aff. This does not mean the links need to be predicated on the action of the plan, but if you are going to read reps links based on extinction or nuclear war I expect to see lines that are pulled from evidence and past speeches to build every link. If you are reading the same blocks every round when you read a Kritik I am not the judge for you but If you engage at a substantive level truly clashing with the aff whether that be on plan action or representations you will not only likely win more debates in front of me but you will definitely get higher speaker points. I also think in LD specifically framework is extremely underutilized by the negative, you can make lots of strategic decisions on the framework debate that implicate the rest of the debate and 2NRs that centralize around framework are usually my favorite, and should be a staple for any K debater given the current debate meta of every K 2AR being extinction o/w framework. Why does framework only need to be area you have to hedge back upon and not make that shift early in the 2NR given you anticipate a 2AR on Extinction o/w. Policy Debate I am a very good for any type of policy debate given you have read the important notes about my overall debate philosophy. Reading bad arguments is always going to lead to a major loss of speaks for me. Da's with no substantive internal links are my biggest pet peeve right now within policy debate. The first point of research past the link should be internal link. I find a lot of value in politics da debates, the college meta of uniqueness dumping is really enjoyable for some reason to me, the hyper contextualization required for evidence contextualization is unmatched in this style of debate. I feel that in most types of debate evidence comparison is really declining but politics requires you to put thought into evidence comparison. Counterplans that have robust solvency mechanisms will gain you a lot of speaks process counterplans that don't just consult are amazing, counterplans that have thought put into them are always going to be better than a counterplan that is used over and over. A counterplan that solves all of case such as a process counterplan should be its own 2nr, I don't think its smart to go for anything on case, if you choose to go for defense, a 2ar can spend like 10 seconds making superficial responses and then make the arg, we win the cp risk of aff means you vote aff. Obviously if you are reading an advantage counterplan that doesn't solve the whole aff you should have offense on the advantage not solved. Theory/T Theory should only be used as a last resort, If a team is reading 2 or less condo It will be nearly impossible for me to vote on condo bad. I am fine for debates such as Pics Bad, Process Cps bad, Consult Bad. Do not plan on blowing up a 5-10 second shell in the 2ar for this, It should be a flushed out shell as I will draw lines from the 1ar to the 2ar. Theory that I am extremely unlikely to vote on include; Spec shells, Nebel. Theory that I will not vote on; Any clothes or clothing related theory, Friv theory.(The gut check for this is would you read this argument in from of a college policy judge if you wouldn't don't read it In front of me) Topicality that is grounded in actual literature based definitions are good. Shells such as Nebel, Leslie, and other extremely semantic based interps are not going to win in front of me. Examples of T arguments I am absolutely willing to vote on with 0 bias; T Medical Necessary(SepOct 22),T Lethal Autonomous Weapons(JF 2021), Most policy style interps if you look at the college wiki minus T SUBSTANTIAL. While I am harsh towards Theory in LD debate I think T is a great avenue for the negative to contest the aff and utilize time tradeoffs. I do not think that this should be done with generics or things such as Nebel. OPEN SOURCE IS AMAZING- I read it two off versus K teams my senior year with Cap or impact turns. I Think its just a very good model for debate and for that reason I am Extremely likely to vote on open source. The burden though is full open source, I don't really care if you have round reports of cites. I am only good for full open source or open source after 30 minutes for missed rounds or missed tournaments. PrefsPolicy/K with clash-1Policy/k with no clash-4Phil/Tricks- Strike Speaks- I rarely give below 28 speaks but rarely give higher than 29.2. Very good strategy execution and a very well thought out strategy combined will lead to the highest speaks. Thoughts I’ve had about debate in 22 season- read if bored or want to know more about my judging style The person I have learned and look up to the most in regards to judging is Bill Batterman if for some reason you do want to read his paradigm I agree with every aspect of it. The only note I would add is I am 10000% more charitable to critical arguments and hold the same threshold as policy arguments to them and my thoughts on Critical debate are outlined above. Pessimism K’s have gone rampant, college policy only reads afropess, set col, and to a much smaller extent queer pess. Your job is to find out why college policy only reads a select few. Speaker points are super inflated right now, teams getting 30s every other round.	0
Pronouns: She/her/hers Pre-req: I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence, rape, or suicide/suicidal ideations that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll be very receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote against you based on the introduction of that issue. I believe that problematic arguments are problematic whether the opposing team points them out or not. I believe that this is not a space where any argument can be made. Problematic arguments at minimum impact the people in the round and can impact discourse outside of the round. I want the opposing team to point out problematic arguments and abuse. However, arguments that promote sexism, racism, or other forms of hate will not be persuasive for me and are likely to result in a down ballot. Speed: I don't like speed. I can follow fast talking, but if you are spreading, then I will put down my pen and stop flowing. If I stop flowing, it probably means I am confused. Either because you are going too fast, or I don't understand what you are saying. Style: I need to have a weighing mechanism in PF debate. I need to know how to decide who won the round, otherwise I will get very frustrated. I do not want to decide using my own metrics, I want YOU to tell me how to judge the round. I will be using this weighing mechanism as I look at my flow to decide who won the round. I tend to be a flow a judge. By that I mean that I flow and will be following the flow to see who has the strongest arguments at the end of the round. You should stand when speaking. It is not something that will impact your perception or speaker points, but research shows that you speak better when you stand up. Since this is a speaking activity, you should want to maximize your ability to speak well. Evidence This is also very important to me. By that I mean that I need evidence that is clearly cited and explained. Actually READ me your evidence, don't just give me your summary of the evidence. Analytical arguments are great, and I will vote there, but when disagreement is happening about what may or may not be true about the topic, I would like to hear evidence. This should also connect back to your weighing mechanism. Please call for evidence in a timely manner. Please use an email chain or the evidence sharing that Tabroom provides. I want to be included on the email chain. If there is conflict about evidence, I need you to do the work of telling me why I prefer your evidence over your opponent's evidence. Just telling me, "It post dates," is not sufficient. What has changed since that date? Why is your source more reliable? Otherwise, I will just get frustrated. If your opponent asks for evidence, per the NSDA rules, you need to provide them with the cut card and the full article in a way that allows everyone to see and read the evidence. I expect to be included in any email chain, so I can also see the card that was called for. I also expect this exchange of evidence to happen promptly (less than 30 seconds) when asked. If there are questions about the validity of the evidence or the way evidence is being used, you are likely to lose my ballot. On a related note, I do not believe that everything needs to be quantified. Just because numbers cannot or are not put to an impact, does not mean that it cannot be weighed. This is ESPECIALLY true when it comes to impacts to human beings. I do not find the argument, "we don't know how many people will be impacted," persuasive. Prep Time: I expect competitors to keep track of their own time. I will also be keeping track of prep time. This will be official time used. If you use all of your prep time before the end of the round, I expect you to start speaking promptly. That means you should take no more than 10 seconds to begin your next speech. Background: I am a math teacher, so if you are going to throw around math terms and mathematics, you need to be certain that you know what you are talking about and are correct. As an example, there is a difference between exponential, linear, and geometric growth, so make sure you say the right one. I have debated PF 4 years in high school, 4 years of college PF, 4 years of NPDA/parli in college I am happy to give you feedback after the round, if you find me. :)	0
I am a traditional judge that likes to see contentions well developed through strong, logical arguments supported by evidence and designed to uphold a sound value structure (in LD). Spreading is tolerated at a minimum level, but certainly NOT appreciated or rewarded. Ad Hominem attacks, implied or explicit, are a pretty sure way to get a loss and are not appreciated. Civilly presented, compelling, and supported arguments and counter arguments will be measurably appreciated.	0
I’m a parent volunteer judge in my for the fist time.I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action! PFD: As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence. Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped. Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time. All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined. I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points. Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost. CONGRESS: Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper. Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking. After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand. When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity. While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods. SPEECH: Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance) Originality of piece Personal connection Structure Vocalization Phrasing, pacing and fluidity Speaker presence Character development Emotion Transitions Introduction/Conclusion Looking forward to a wonderful competition!	1
About me: A proudly African woman from Kenya who is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents, and is a debate and judge coach to African debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Studies computer science as a university degree, and spends her free time debating, judging, listening to music, dancing, eating great food and of course, travelling! Judging rubric: In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches: 1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization. 2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebut them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true, and why it is not only important in the debate, but the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization. 3. Weighing: take the best case scenario of the other side, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why, you've scored a solid win. 4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side, or try to water down their points without giving me proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems hard to engage with. Try your best! 5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Complexity does not win debates, simplicity does. Clear structure and simple but detailed analysis makes it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signaling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech. 6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case is important. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments, and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity is key! 7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions, and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from everyone's different perspectives! Good luck everyone!	0
Hello, I'm Jay Deshmukh. I'm a recent Georgetown alumni. I am new to public forum but I have a background in extemporaneous speech. General rules: I can keep up with most link chains (even the more complicated ones) so don't worry about running a slightly complicated argument. You can go fast but if you spread I may not be able to hear everything. Anything I can't hear can't be evaluated. Be polite. How to win my ballot: Weigh (don't just repeat your impact, tell me why its the most important in the round) Warrant your arguments well (don't just tell me something will happen, explain why it will). Things that will help you in the round: Make sure to provide a consistent narrative throughout the round. This will help me understand your argument better. Warrant your evidence as I may not understand why something will happen and analysis would help me understand your argument. Even if you're going fast, speak clearly. I hoped this helps, and good luck in your round!	0
TLDR: PLS SIGNPOST (:3). Tech over truth (unless problematic). I like tech debate a lot more but keep in mind the other judges on the panel with me and your fellow opponents. Be nice & have fun. Do risk calc for me when ballot framing cuz the easiest way to yeet the win home. I laugh or smile when I hear something I think is funny--just ignore me cuz it doesn't affect the ballot. i don't care about the NPDL online rules for warranted claims = unwarranted. warrants will always be more important than a lack of them. Weighing: Do comparative analysis when you weigh your arguments; modules are cool--but why your module should come first before their modules. Theory: I like theory (haha friv theory go brrrr). I run theory (all but speed). I allow RVIs. I have higher standards for theory. Case: Links should correlate with all the UQ and IL to IMP. Y'all should totally signpost and give off-time roadmaps ;). I think trichotomy is fake news -- feel free to make it evaluated through a policy lens with NB. K & FW: like a 7/10 feel for them. Identity Ks are a touchy subject -- prefer not to see them. I know most of the lit that ppl are running on the circuit. I best for me are Kappeler, Queer Eco, Anthro, Buddhism, and the more common Ks. I guess this doesn't ring as true anymore since I'm now in college (frosh). So I guess air on side of caution for more complicated stuff. I like to think I still have some solid handling on most lit bases. Feel free to msg me and ask! ;))))) Speed: I don't really mind the speed, but note that I haven't properly flowed in a while. Thus, I would air on the side of caution with my capabilities. Everything else: Speaks only go up w/cringe humor (29+ 4 all). I protecc, but still POO (I might notice even while protecting). Don't steal prep between speeches. Read content/trigger warnings as necessary for this should be rudimentary respect. Don't call me "judge" pls. Also, "Protected Time" is fake news. Shadow extension is fake news too mates. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask before the round, DM me on FB: Amar Gao, or email me at amargao@stanford.edu. You all can also buy me some Shrimp Chips if you are feeling generous.	0
UW'23 If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain: prabhat@interlakedebate.org LD Paradigm I prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot. I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality. I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”. Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them. Cross Examination Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech. Speaker Points If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate. If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument. Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR. I disclose if it is the tournament norm. If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins. Public Forum Paradigm RESPECT and DECORUM 1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire". 2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans. I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework) I really like signposting of all of your contentions. I really like short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I really appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions. I like direct clash. All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot. I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate. In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate. In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.	0
I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled claims and warrants.	1
Peninsula '22 \| UCLA '26 Add me to the chain: blakedee58@gmail.com I haven't been active in the debate community for a little bit so clarity and a clean flow would be very appreciated! If you're exploding down your block I will not be able to follow most of your args. Arguments must include a claim, warrant, and impact. Philosophy:Pretty mediocre at following these debates. I did policy for two years and LD for the last two years of HS so keep in mind I have a foundational level of most philosophy concepts. Keep arguments clean and well-warranted! Theory: I'll vote on anything if it's well-argued enough but I have a moderately high threshold for theory. If it's legitimate don't be afraid to go for it! I did policy. Reasonability and DTA are powerful, especially if explained thoroughly. Kritiks: Your critique should directly disagree with the plan. I do not like links of omission. Links should be clearly explained and turn/ow case. Case is critical in the debates, if you do not touch it I won't touch the K. DA: Zero risk and terminal defense do not exist. Politics and Riders are probably legit unless convinced otherwise. Best advice is keep it clean and simple.	0
LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~ PF Paradigm- I'm most familiar with this event since I learned debate from it and competed the longest with it. I'm not too big a fan of spreading or progressive arguments as I feel pf should be a more accessible event, but I do understand the bind that time restraints can put people in so my general rule of thumb is that if you feel you can properly extend everything go for it; but I'm not going to do extra work for you if you drop things in round. Anything else I dont really have an opinion about just do whatever you think is fun/comfortable. Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.	0
Philosophy Updated 9-5-17 Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com” Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet. 1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it. 2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you. 3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out. 4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option. 5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc. 6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out. 7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document. ADA Novice Packet Tournaments: Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.” If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.	0
Hello! I'm Sam (he/him), and I am a member of SUNY Binghamton's Speech and Debate Team. I just started debating last year, but I'm really passionate about it. In my debate career, I've been both a 1AC and 2AC speaker with a K aff. I'd prefer it if you keep me in your email chains (sstiller114@gmail.com). Please set the order at the start of each speech so I can flow, and we'll be good to go. Just be respectful of each other and have fun!	0
Updates for TOC 2023 (1) If the negative is making a claim about the future based on structural analysis about the world I need to know why the negative's theory about the world makes this claim about the future true. "the plan won't solve and nothing will get better because e.g. capitalism exists and capitalism is bad" is not a complete argument. I will vote aff unless the negative explains why it is the case that the existence of e.g. capitalism means the aff's understanding of the world, the future, etc is wrong/cannot be true. (2) I like it when the 2nr/2ar cleanly outlines what's going on in the round and tells me what to do with all of the pieces: "If I win X, it means Y"/"They need to win X in order to win Y", that kind of thing. This is especially important to me in debates that aren't about whether or not the 1AC plan would bring about a world that is better than the status quo. I am very impressed by debaters who have the ability to distill a complicated round into its most fundamental questions. (3) My flow template has space for the 1AC + 5 off case positions. ****** Please put me on the email chain: myersanna2019@gmail.com I graduated from Greenhill in 2019. I have coached a bit and judged here and there and worked at camps since then. I have talked a lot about debate with Rodrigo Paramo, Bennett Eckert, Aaron Timmons, Eli Smith, Chris Randall...so if you have technical questions maybe their paradigms will help give you a picture about how I tend to think about things. I have thought the most about "policy style" debate (plans, counterplans, disads, kritiks, topicality) and this is the style of debate I am most comfortable judging. Mostly I am at a point now where I want you to show me that you have some strategic grasp on what's going on in the round. This means I'd like you to both thoroughly explain your arguments and thoroughly explain what winning these arguments means in the context of the round, i.e. why winning X,Y,Z, means you win the debate even if your opponent is ahead on A,B,C. I think it's important that your cards say what you tell me they say. And when you implicate a card to address a particular argumentative context, I think it's very important that you remain within the bounds of what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of its text. I find I tend to vote affirmative when the negative "splits" the 2nr (e.g., when the negative extends both topicality and a kritik as separate reasons to negate). I'd prefer it if you thoroughly developed your strongest ballot story and kicked out of everything else. I don't think you should read arguments that you think are bad because you want to waste your opponents time. You are only wasting your own time! "severance/intrinsic perms bad" is DTA	0
Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information TLDR: Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments. Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc. Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc. I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com Run anything except tricks! How to pref me: Reps/K: 1 T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics) Larp: 1-3 Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics) Tricks: strike Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args. Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story. General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy. How I view rounds: Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind) Reps T Theory K Substance My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence. Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC. K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well. T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them. Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them. 1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing. DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead. Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris. Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice. CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick. Long U/V: Go for it. Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment). 30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism 29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service. 29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round. 28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for. 28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate. 27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together. 27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot. 26: You are not nice.	0
Greetings, by way of introduction, my name is Eric Emerson. eric.emerson@kinkaid.org I coach debate (policy, LD, World's, congress, extemp and public forum) at the Kinkaid school. I have actively served on the Board of the Houston Urban Debate League since 2008, the year of its inception, and have also directed the UTNIF. As a judge, I evaluate arguments (claim, warrant, data and impact). I prefer arguments grounded in literature rather than regressive debate theory (take note LD). My preferences are flexible and can be overcome by persuasive, smart debaters. I take notes, sometimes quite quickly. If I think you unclear, I will let you know in my facial expressions and on the occasion, hopefully rare, when I yell 'clear'. If I find you/your arguments, unpleasant then your speaker points will reflect that. I disagree with judges who give out high speaker points to everyone. You gotta earn my points. I am easily distracted and I prefer debaters to be both engaging and entertaining. If I appear distracted, it may be your fault. Debate is a powerful educational tool that should be accessible to everyone. I try to approach all of my interactions with empathy and concern for others. I find unpleasant debates to be just that, unpleasant. I would ask that you avoid being unpleasant to your opponents, spectators, and me. Unpleasantness that threatens debate, to me, should be avoided.	0
Hi, I am a new parent volunteer. My Philosophy is to judge debates based on well-reasoned arguments and overall communication delivery. I prefer slow pace of speech and appreciate a combination of substance and communication style. I also appreciative of a good attitude. I am looking for teams to identify waterdown/winning arguments (Identify on what basis the debate should be judged on, why and what's the impact ) then defend them against any new counterarguments the opposing team raises. I am not super familiar with debate jargon and will rely on teams to clarify to me how you think you won an opposing team's argument.	1
Talk slowly No more than 2 POO Looking for argument with max net benefits. Good luck.	0
I'm pretty open minded to any technique/approach with respect to cases and debating (spreading, Critiques, Theories etc). I expect both debaters to exhibit sportsmanship and decorum when engaging with each other. Be sure to provide adequate evidence and to link back to your Contention/Value Criterion. Try to provide distinctive arguments in a claim-warrant-impact format. Also, be sure to crystallize your arguments in your last speech. This is important on the flow and I will weigh the round based on this. Email: Akridgea989@gmail.com	0
Updated – 2019 General: Yes I want to be on the email chain --> bosch.e2010@gmail.com I FLOW ON PAPER. I judge debates much more effectively / think harder about the debate / give better comments when I flow on paper. This is the only thing that I wish debaters would more effectively adapt to – give me a little pen time when you transition from card to card / arg to arg and please consider that I have to flip sheets between arguments. I believe judges should adapt to the debaters, not the other way around. I will do my absolute best to objectively and fairly judge your debate, regardless of the arguments you choose to read. I would much prefer that you read the arguments you’re interested in / are better at debating than attempting to adapt to what you interpret as my preferences based upon what I have written here. I find myself to be a much more “technical” judge than I once thought, and by that I mean I tend to pay a lot of attention to the way arguments evolve as the debate progresses. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy the 2NR / 2AR spin game, but that those “spins” need to be traceable to previous speeches. In addition, I have and will vote on technical concessions SO LONG AS there is an IMPACT to that concession – debaters concede irrelevant arguments all the time, as it turns out. I evaluate debates in segments – I think each flow has compartmentalized “mini-debates” that take place within them that I evaluate piece by piece (for example, on a critique, the “link debate” “perm debate” “alt debate”etc etc, on a disad the “uniqueness debate” “link debate” “impact debate” “impact turn debate” etc etc etc). If you label these segments clearly and follow these segments throughout the debate, I will be a great judge for you and your speaker points will reflect your organization / flow tech. WITH THAT SAID!! I do enjoy non-traditional flow and speaking styles, so do not be afraid to pref me if you debate with a different style – I judge these debates a lot and have no problem following / figuring out what needs to be evaluated. I’m a very expressive judge. You will know if I am feeling your argument if you pay attention to my non-verbal communication. I believe debate is a communication activity and you, as debaters, should know how I’m vibing with your arguments throughout the debate. Note about speed: Speed is fine, but please make your card / argument transitions clear with vocal inflection. If I miss an argument, 97% of the time it’s because I didn’t hear you say “and” and I thought you were still reading evidence. Your speaker points will reflect it if you SLOW DOWN on tags and don’t just read them like another piece of evidence. IMHO, debate is still a persuasive activity, and being persuasive gets you bonus points. I will always be fan of a slower, persuasive rebuttal. I don’t think you will have an issue reading almost any argument in front of me, but since folks seem to just read philosophies to find out how people feel about K debate and framework, I guess I’ll say some stuff. Affirmatives: I think affirmatives should, AT THE VERY LEAST, be in the direction of the topic (but being topical is so much better). I think the best K affs have a resolutional component and have literature that is inherent to the topic. I can and have been persuaded otherwise, this is just my baseline. Affirmatives should have a solvency method - I don't particularly care if that's an instrumental affirmation of US(fg) action or not (see FW discussion below), but you've gotta have a method that you have solvency for - I really don't like affs that state a lot of problems and argue that the revelation of those problems somehow does anything - that's not negatable. This is along the same lines of "advocacy" statements that don't take an "action" (I use the word action very carefully - I think a lot of things are actions). Statements are quite difficult to negate. Framework/Topicality: I think topicality debates need to be SLOWER than other arguments - you want me to write down more, you need to give me more time to flow. In general, I DESPISE T debates that are read entirely off blocks and read at the speed of cards. I don't think this is helpful, I don't think this creates depth, I don't think this is good for education, and I'm probably flowing like 2 words / argument tbh. I am significantly more persuaded by topicality arguments (ie: the affirmative needs to defend international space cooperation bc that’s key to limits) than framework arguments (ie: debate is a game, the affirmative needs to defend instrumental USFG action bc them’s the rules and and it's unfair and they are cheater cheater pants). I think negative limits arguments have the capacity to be quite persuasive if teams go for the correct internal links based upon the aff / 2ac strategy. One of the biggest mistakes I see (primarily) 2Ns make is going for the wrong limits scenario. Just like any argument, some links are stronger than others, and you don't need every link to win in the 2NR, so pick the best ones that you think tell the most compelling limits story based upon the particular affirmative. Don't forget to contextualize limits arguments to the COUNTER-INTERPRETATION not (only) the aff itself. Topical versions of the affirmative are important, but you have to actually explain WHY they are topical versions of the aff (ie how they meet your interpretation, even better if they also meet the counter interp) and how they address the affirmative team’s offense. Ev for TVAs is preferred. I don't think you need to have a TVA to win the debate. Things that are not persuasive to me: decision-making “People quit” “Small schools XYZ” I’ll default to competing interpretations unless you tell me otherwise. Reasonability – how do I decide what is reasonable and by what metric do I use? Critiques: To make a link argument, YOU HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE AFF. The aff has to have DONE SOMETHING that you have linked to an argument. I don’t think links of omission are links. If the 2NR is explicitly going for a link of omission, you’re going to have a hard time. I don’t think criticisms always need an alternative (critique IS a VERB, after all). Make sure you explain how the "alternative" interacts with affirmative solvency / how they are different / how the alt accesses the aff (beyond just a generic root cause explanation). I'm a sucker for K tricks - affs: don't get bamboozled. Aff fw v ks: Often is an argument made in the 2AC that is just repeated over and over and not advanced in any meaningful way. If you think framework is important for how I evaluate the K debate, you need to do better than that. “Role of the ballot”: I have significant problems with ROBs. I think "role of the ballot" is an empty and meaningless phrase. The "role of the ballot" is to let tabroom know who won and lost the debate. I don't think my ballot does anything for activism / changing the structures of debate / anything at all. I tend to think most ROB claims boil down to "ROB: Vote for me" which is silly af. Now, this is different than telling me how to evaluate the debate, how I should filter impacts, how I should prioritize arguments, or in general, how I should make my decision. You can and must do that to win the debate. Perm stuff: Permutations are tests of competition, and that is all. That means if you read severance / intrinsicness - those are reasons to reject the perm, not the team (unless the negative team gives me a compelling reason for why the team should be rejected, tbh, haven't heard one yet.). There is a lot of discussion about why competition standards for advocacies / methods should change when a K aff is read – eh, I’m unconvinced this is true. My default position is that your method should compete, which means, it has to withstand the permutation test. I could, perhaps, be persuaded that the affirmative shouldn't get a perm if the negative is willing to commit the time and energy to explaining why competition standards should change, how they should change, what debate looks like with those competition standards, how it applies in that particular debate, etc. Sound like a lot? Yeah, it kinda is... just beat the permutation with disads and solid link explanations. You can be certain that I absolutely will not reject a perm on an assertion of "no perms in critical debates" or "no plan, no perm." Case debate:is highly under-appreciated. Oftentimes 2ACs just assume the neg doesn’t know anything about the aff and entirely mishandle case arguments. Punish. Them. I have and will vote on case turns if they outweigh the aff or if the aff has such diminished solvency that they outweigh the aff. Theory: most theory debates are garbage. Prove me wrong. If there is one conditional K or CP, don’t waste your time. If the alt isn’t actually vague, make a different argument.	0
Experience: I debated from 2012-2016 on the regional and national level for Timothy Christian School. I competed mostly in LD but did do some PF late senior year for fun. That being said, I have not been very involved in debate for a while and thus am not fresh with high-level argumentation. LD Argumentation: I will definitely be able to able to understand generic framework contention level debate. WARNING: Again, I haven't been involved much with debate since graduating and norms/common arguments change. Therefore, if you decide to run T's, DA's, any kind of critical argument etc. make sure you are explaining yourself clearly and outlining what level of the debate comes first, second, etc. You may have do a little extra work explaining how I should view the round. That said I'll be a little lenient on extensions if you are spending that other time with some round overview/crystallization. Make sure again to do a good job of breaking down under what framework I am evaluating the round and where specifically I am voting. Sorry if you disagree with my decision. Spreading: Please don't spread. I am cool with quicker than normal speaking, but I have not been involved in debate much really since graduating. I am not going to vote for an argument I don't understand whether it be because of its complexity of said argument/lack of proper explanation or whether it be because it was read/said too fast for me to understand, so let that be a warning. I would recommend not trying to do anything too "fancy" to avoid all of us being uncomfortable at the end of the round if I give my RFD. If you are used to a specific type of argument I am not saying you cannot run said argument, just understand where I am coming from and explain everything, specifically what I am voting off of very, very clearly. PF Argumentation: I think PF breaks down more simply with a util/consequence based framework. If you disagree make the argument and if it makes sense and is extended ill buy it no problem. I do not think I'll have any issue with any type of argumentation so that should be good. Just make sure you are being clear where on the flow I am voting for you and please please please weigh so its not just both teams extending arguments across the flow with no clear/given relative impact. Speed: Fast PF speed is totally ok for me	0
Email chain/contact: lani.frazer@sonomaacademy.org About me - I am the DoF at Sonoma Academy. I debated at SVDP in Petaluma, CA under the guidance of Laila McClay and Orion Steele, and briefly at UC Berkeley. I spent some time working in intellectual property law before returning to coach debate. General - My judging philosophy is pretty simple - you should ultimately do what you do best. I prioritize specificity, contextualization, and evidence quality over your style of debate. Really, I can't stress this enough. I don't judge many policy v. policy debates, but I am able to adjudicate them. I do, however, primarily judge K v. K/clash rounds. Organization is very important. I flow on paper. I am not a fan of huge overviews and card dumps- please do the work for me and tell me where I should flow things. Explaining warrants is crucial. Empirics and examples are great. Impact analysis is critical. Tech should be truth. Topicality - I will vote on topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation is good, predictable, and resolves their voters. You should be explaining why, as a whole, your vision of the topic is good, and have tangible impacts. Potential abuse isn't super compelling to me, but I'll vote on it if you tell me why I should. Ks of T are often pretty trifling and need to be explained in depth. "Community consensus" on T doesn't mean much to me and should not be taken for granted. Theory - I have a high threshold for theory debates and find them to be blippy and frivolous most of the time. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, but if there is a voting issue it must be thoroughly articulated and should have a very strong presence in the 2nr/2ar. Slow down, be clear, and do more than read the shell. Framework - I mostly judge debates wherein affirmatives do not read a traditional plan text. I am fine with this. Should affirmatives at least be in the direction of the topic? Probably, but not necessarily. Framework read against a K/performance aff that does something concrete is typically not a good argument to read in front of me. You should be engaging in what they do and you should do more than say that they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Provide a creative topical version, and explain why fairness or education or whatever comes first (and why this means the aff can't access their own pedagogy). Do more than provide a case list, but explain why those cases are good for debate. I tend to think that fairness is more of an internal link and not a terminal impact, but if you're winning that I will vote for you. The K - love it. I spend a lot of time reading critical theory and am probably familiar with your lit, but I will not do extra work for you, so the less jargon/more explanation, the better. Be specific and have contextualized links (the link should be to the aff and not the world). You should also answer all of the aff's impacts through turns, defense, etc. Framing is super important. The permutation is underutilized. Impact turns on the aff are cool, but not when it's something you shouldn't say pedagogically. Disadvantages - Fine. Win your link, turn/outweigh the case, impact calc. Intrinsicness is silly and I'll probably not evaluate it much unless it's seriously mishandled (though it can be compelling against things like riders DAs, which are, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of fiat). Counterplans - Great. I love a creative advantage CP. You should have a solvency advocate. I definitely lean neg on most theory arguments here, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on them. Let me know if you have any questions. Shoot me an email before the round if you want me to be aware of access needs, pronouns, etc.	0
I am new to judging, so it would help if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly. Please be respectful towards your competitor teams. Please stick to the prescribed time durations for each team.	1
Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it and look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me) 1. Please do not spread. I can handle fast talking to make your point across, but I was trained in classic LD, and if you are going so fast as a reasonable person cannot understand you, I will not be able to take notes/judge your point appropriately. I do not give warnings. 2. Please keep your cases somewhat understandable to a lay person. Remember LD debate is all about supporting your value around the topic, and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made up evidence, I will call you out on it when I disclose. 3. If possible, please roadmap your speeches for AF 4 and 2 minute rebuttals and Neg 6 minute rebuttals. By that point, we will have covered much ground and it can get confusing for someone who does not know the debater's case inside and out if they go in without an outline. 4. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech. 5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I can give warnings at a debater's request, but I will not cut off speakers when their time is up. When your time is up, finish your sentence and stop. If you go over by more than like 10 seconds I do deduct from speak points. 6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc) but unless you have a medical condition, please do not eat during a round. It's distracting and no one likes seeing someone talk through a mouth full of food. TLDR: I am a classical LD judge and my judging style reflects it (aka I will judge on value debate and how well each debater supported their style). If you want a judge who loves moral clash debate, I'm your gal. If you are running a seven off on how robots will take over the world unless we adopt the affirmative, you may want to strike me. ADDITIONAL NOTES (Especially for TOC): I tend to be stingy with speaker points. I will not go below 25 unless you are abusive in round, but the highest I have gone this year has been 29.9 and that was the best debater I have ever seen. Usually I tend to average around 27 speaker point scores, unless you wow me you are not getting super high speaks. If you are abusive, I will call you out on it in disclosure, I will write it on your ballot, and if it happens in an elim round, I will usually downvote an abusive argument (elimination rounds especially at national tournaments can be won by a single sentence). On the other hand, I give good feedback, even if I do tend to be a little harsher with criticism/speaker points.	0
***Send c24zb@dalton.org an email saying "you REALLY need some help with economics" and send me a screenshot (+1 whole speaker point and I'm not kidding) I first wrote this paradigm when I was a Sophomore and had some very questionable takes on debate. If you read this before January 31st, 2023, it has changed. If anything in this paradigm doesn’t make sense PLEASE ASK. IF YOU GET ONE THING FROM READING MY PARADIGM: Debate is supposed to be a fun environment to grow and learn. I am not ok with anyone taking away from that with offensive language or mannerisms (no racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc args), and it will not be tolerated. I am genuinely so happy this is how you chose to spend your free time and I am so happy to be your judge; do not choose to make it a negative experience for yourself or anyone else around you. If you ever feel uncomfortable in a round, do not hesitate to reach out. I am here to talk no matter what, whether that be before, during, or after a round. Debate is not that serious and your well-being is much more important to me :) TL;DR:I’ll judge any debate you want to have. Signpost, collapse, and weigh. Adequately engage with the best version of your opponents' case. Call the POO. Be comparative — tell me the counterfactual. Don't make me vote on blips. Be honest, be nice, and have fun. PF Stuff:Speed is fine but don't spread. Define why your aff is topical. Terminalize your impacts. I will most definitely not call cards. Full: For some background, I am a Junior at Horace Mann School in the Bronx, where I have been doing Parliamentary debate since my Freshman Year. I use she/her pronouns. I am pretty much self-taught, and for that reason, I do not really value any technical terms you probably learned from a coach (though I probably know your jargon). I’m a flow judge but if you’re on the west coast, I’d rather you consider me lay. Judging Philosophy: If a point is dropped, I buy it (more on how I weigh it later). Beyond that, different types of engaged with arguments require different amounts of warranting/rebutting to make them voteable/not voteable. I think it's naïve when people say they can be completely tabula rasa and non-interventionist, both because debaters often make it impossible when they don’t weigh (don't worry guys I have been a culprit before), and also because we are just rational individuals who have basic understandings of the world. That being said, I try my absolute best to be. As a general rule, I will buy anything, but the weirder the claim, the more warranting you must provide to gain access to the impact. Eg it is harder for me to buy that humans will all migrate to Mars tomorrow than it is to buy that there is a lot of gridlock in our political system, but if you can prove it to me, I will buy either. If you don't warrant and no one rebuts it, I will buy the claim but weigh the impact less (unless you weigh it for me but then I don't understand why you wouldn't have warranted it idk). I am the definition of the New York Times Rule ie I read the New York Times every day and judge rounds using that database of knowledge, so assume that an arg made in the Times every day (or an argument I would hear frequently in a classroom/friendship setting) would be considered a normal arg and the further you drift from that, the more you have to warrant. It doesn't matter if I agree with the arg or not if it's warranted well. I’m tech>truth but hate voting for lies. My debate role model will always be Ryan Lafferty. He taught me everything I know. Other incredible debate influences include Adrian Turkedjiev, Julia Schroers, Jenny Levine, Eesha Gupta, Henry Bansbach, Zach Berg (I judge most similarly to him so cross-apply his stuff), Emily Grant, Hannah Riegel, June Lin, Molly Bordoff, and so many others (you know who you are and I wish I had time to name you all). Keira Chatwin introduced me to a whole new way of thinking and altered my perspective on debate entirely. Riyana Srihari made me become a better debate person. Thanks to Rodda John for teaching me about my role as a debate human in this community. Preferences: Speed: I’m ok with speed, though my keyboard is kinda broken so don’t go too fast. I’ve never seen an East Coast round that is too fast for me to flow. Signposting: If it is possible to signpost, signpost it. Warrants: Just do it. If you make an overarching claim, I am very responsive to rebuttals saying something is underwarranted, and if pointed out, I will buy your claim less. Impacts: Do it and terminalize them. Please always tie them back to the motion — it makes my job as a judge 10 times easier. You should make sure to talk about impacts in all 4 constructives and bring up new ones in members. Weighing: This is the first place I look when casting my ballot. If you weigh and your opponents don’t, I will probably vote for you. Bad weighing>no weighing. If you are a novice, no worries, just try your best (some helpful things to think about might be probability, timeframe, severity)! You can’t just tell me why your arguments are important; you have to tell me why they are more important than your opponents’. Eg why is your argument more probable than theirs? Weigh in members if possible pretty please. Also, metaweigh if you can. You can set up your weighing as early as PMC; you should do it because it puts my brain in the direction you want the round to go. Eg if in PMC you tell me climate change is the most important impact and will outweigh all future content, I’ll already be thinking about that when I hear LOC. For opposition speakers: If you bring up a whole new case in MO or do not do any rebuttals in LOC (find the right balance), I will allow PMR to pretty much respond in any way they like to your points. Use your time wisely; don’t be exclusive. Casing: I love creative cases so so much. If you are creative your speaks will skyrocket. Challenge the premises your opponents' case lies upon. Be charitable, but not too charitable. Preempt in your first speeches if you can. Roadmaps: I don’t need them but I don’t mind them either; whatever floats your boat Rebuttals: Be intuitive; Try to take your opponents’ offense with turns. New content in members is fun :) Definitions: I hate abusive definitions. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT run abusive definitions. Be fair. If a fair debate can happen with your definitions, then be creative and go wild. If I consider your definitions to be unfair, I have a VERY low threshold for abusive calls. Your opponents don’t have to cite one of the ways a definition can be abusive. I don’t care that you have read the rule book, want a cookie? Don’t be exclusionary. Ks: On the East coast, don't do it -- they are banned anyways. If you're on the West Coast um I will try my best. I have watched K rounds before but am so so so far from an expert it is crazy. If you do it, go slow and explain it well because I probably don't know your lit. I understand the importance of Ks even if I do not run them myself. But I really don't know why I'd be judging on West Coast anyways so yeah. Theory: Again don't do it on the East Coast. West Coasters: my extent of theory knowledge is watching a debate sensei video on what a topicality shell is and how to respond to it (thanks Joel!!!). Great video if you're unfamiliar -- here's the link (responding vid linked here). Proceed at your own risk and please do it in an unfancyish way. Speaks: - I will prob average at a 26 but vary greatly (obvi higher on the West Coast) - I am certainly not opposed to giving high speaks: If you deserve a 28 I will give it to you, although you would have to change the way I view the world to get a 29 - I am also not opposed to giving 23s if I find you hard to comprehend or your name is Emily Grant (just kidding...). If you’re offensive you will get a 22. -Use TWs and use them at the top of your speech if possible. If you forget to read one at the top, just try to do it mid-speech and give your opponents a moment to opt-out Ways to boost speaks: - If you can make me genuinely laugh at something you say - If you can fit a fast-food brand slogan into your case, eg "I'm loving it" "you know its fresh" - Prove to me that the egg came before the chicken - Wear a pair of sunglasses while you speak - Introduce yourself as "the one and only (insert name)" or "the all powerful (insert name)" - Read my paradigm - Show your pets Side notes about me: - My face is very emotive -- you can most likely guess how I am responding to your arguments by my face - Talk to me before the round! - I am always willing to answer questions, give you tips, or help you in any way you would like - Don’t love to vote on climate change but I can be convinced to if you can provide a unique link and weigh it well - Run cool frameworks (FW)! I’ll vote on them if they make sense, but make sure to explain them to me and take POIs if your opponents have questions about it - Love negative util/prioritizing marginalized FWs but you can also weigh it without the FW – I prob care about FW less than I should lol -I aspire to be a cooler debater than I am - in a world where you can be a Henry and run reparations frameworks or be a Sophie and run util, be a Henry (I like seeing people do the things I can not) -Counterfactuals can't be abusive, only wrong; if the one that your opponents give is wrong, prove to me why a different one is right -I’ll give verbal RFDs by default and always disclose (lmk if you want a written RFD) -Lastly, please reach out at any time if you need anything, want to nerd out about debate, or just want to chat sophier0105@gmail.com	0
I believe that excellent debaters should be passionate, clear, efficient, persuasive and well-prepared. Well-structured reasoning and argument are always key to success. Debate can be challenging, but in the end all debaters benefit from the debates and improve their oral and written communication skills which are very much needed in many fields, including STEM. I want to see people debating each other, rather than talking past each other without having much line clash or engagement. I have a PhD degree in Marine Science and am an associate professor at Louisiana State University. I have been teaching ocean, earth and environmental topics in the science field for about 15 years.	1
email chain: shamshadali4321@gmail.com I used to debate in LD and PF and would consider myself flayish. not a fan of spreading. speech doc for over 200wpm I will evaluate two rounds of prog arguments a day. If you are the third round, sucks to suck. i will say that it has been a while, so try to be explicit with everything. no friv theory or tricks. my bar for responses will be much lower, and i will be annoyed. do not make me intervene for my decision cards don't beat logic just cuz they're cards #thepartnership @devonweis	0
Yes, I want the docs- ddollar@nisdtx.org Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated. I start my decision making process by identifying which questions my RFD needs to address. I then determine which questions are the most/least important and resolve them in order of importance, referencing my flow and the evidence read as needed. If the whole debate goes by and I am unsure why something matters or how much it matters in relation to something else I am not going to spend too much time thinking about it, let alone writing about it. Avoid this by providing me with clear judging instruction/impact framing. I vote for whoever wins a framework then proves they meet it. I do not mind being asked a few questions but aggressive post-rounding is not an effective way of soliciting reflective answers. Truth is essential for tech. Having high quality evidence and using it to make sound arguments goes a very long way. Having low quality evidence and making dubious arguments makes the standard you have to satisfy to win my ballot much higher. Make complete arguments (claim, warrant, implication). Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and impact for me to evaluate them. That means you should make a statement, provide a reason it is true, and explain its implication in the round. I am unlikely to vote on arguments that aren't completely presented in the first speech. I would prefer a lower quantity of complete arguments supported by high quality evidence. Overviews can be helpful for establishing ethos, reminding judges about your arguments, and providing a sense of narrative cohesion, but they should be concise. Get to the line by line. Please name/number your arguments and signpost so I am not lost. I am fine with speed, as long as everyone can understand you.. If you cannot speak quickly and clearly at the same time, choose to speak clearly.	0
To give you some idea of my competency, I debated policy in high school for a couple years. I was alright, not spectacular, but I at least competed in Chicago in a fairly competitive circuit. Like any good judge, all I want is a good debate that tells me clearly how I should vote. This means that framework and role of the ballot are always an issue to be covered. If it's a normal, policy vs policy round, then you probably will agree on FW and ROB and won't need to talk about it much, but at the very least tell me HOW I should evaluate a debate and WHY I should prefer your method of evaluation to others. IE: Should I prefer debates that result in better education on the topic? Or debates that promote better intellectual habits? At the end of the day, I will try to be tech over truth, but my idea of what the truth is will inevitably bias you to certain tech. The best thing I can do for you is let you know what sorts of things I buy more often than not. I'm going to be pretty partial to Ks. I tend to be more sympathetic to kritical takes on Framework (I tend to prefer debates that promote better moral/intellectual habits) but if you argue better than the other team that we should prefer policy/topic discussion, like any halfway decent judge I'll do my best to put my personal beliefs aside. Even though I prefer K Frameworks, you still always have to argue framework and argue it well. I've seen far too many K rounds so close to greatness that extoll some wonderful and interesting philosophy, but fail to mention what that has to do with debate and me voting for them. Always bring it back to the role of the ballot and why I am voting for you. Now, for speaker points. Generally, I'm going to give the lowest speaks to whoever strikes me as the biggest pain in the neck. Debate is about being right, being convincing, and to that end, being charismatic. It is not about being mean or making fun of your opponent. Unless you're genuinely funny about it. In which case I will give you speaks for making me laugh. If you misgender anyone in round who has their pronouns on tabroom, especially if they have them up on the zoom call, I will dock you speaks. If you do it repeatedly, I will eviscerate your speaks. I also think that the names of Parli speaches are really silly and I'm kind of in love with the old timey British aesthetic. If you put your hand on your head when you ask a question, I will give you +1 speaks. If someone else in the round asks you a question without doing so, and you say wig is flying, I'll give you +1 speaks. You can get a max of +1 speaks for these silly reasons per round.	0
I am looking for creative speech topics. Material should show deep knowledge, good organization, and clear evidence from source material. I like out of the box thinking. Be clear in your thoughts and use facts to show understanding of your topic. Have good annunciation, transitions, body language, and appropriate emotions. Assume I don’t know anything about the topic. If the topic allows...Be happy, Be positive, and smile.	1
Debated at Niles North ’15-’19, University of Kentucky ’19-’21 Please add me to the email chain: alanivackovic19@gmail.com The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example. I will flow and vote based on the things you said. NEGs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality is probably good. If you say death good you lose. Evidence quality is important, rehighlighting evidence is underutilized and good analytics can beat bad cards. I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic. Not the biggest fan of theory debates, but understand the decision to go for these arguments when pushed in a corner/if the negative is being extremely heinous and will be receptive if the argument is well-developed and impacted out thoroughly. OK for specific Ks on the NEG, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K AFFs. If you can’t defend your argument in cross-ex, you probably shouldn’t go for it.	0
Conflicts (ghill, memorial, Marlborough, ) Memorial '19 SMU '23 Yeah, I want the docs -- pmisra@smu.edu, Speaks: stealing a version of this from @sebastian cho since debate is a game lets play the speaks game Say you want to play the speaks games - I will put it into a random number generator - 3/4 chance of 30 speaks 1/4 chance of 28.5 speaks Good luck! 2023 note! only reason im not judging every weekend on the circuit like '22 is bc stuff isn't online like it used to be, don't let that shy u away from preffing me, I'm judging one way or another and am up to date w the topic. LD Pref Cheat sheet LARP -> 1-2 K / Theory -> 1-2 Trix -> 1-2 Phil -> 3 * *(not saying I'm inept to these debates, rather just don't normally judge them, never read them when i debated but am fine w them) I tend to prefer LARP debates over traditional debates. I never liked traditional LD (however not opposed) and was never the best with PHIL, these debates can be confusing for me, in all honesty. I was never a theory debater but if the theory flow is very cleanly explained, ill vote on it. No I'm not opposed to trix, or permissibility debates. Yes, ill vote on disclosure. I'm very reluctant now to vote on condo, but.. that can change 100%. I default to competing interps, no rvi's, and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. Please Extend the aff in the 2ar even if the 2ar is theory. You can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory (Batille, Pyshco, Baudy) beforehand though, I will listen and evaluate, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation. I will not vote on arguments I don't understand. if you think it's sus, imagine how I feel. Policy I did policy for 3 years and had some success Policy Affs > K affs Soft left policy affs> Big stick generic Affs While I have these notions, I will listen to a K aff etc and not be biased against it. Speed is fine but will say clear once before stopping flowing. Disad/Cp debate is the key to my heart I think a solid case page debate is the most underutilized tool in debate you can go for the k I don't have any issues and enjoy a good K debate, don't expect me to know your high theory beforehand though, I will listen, but will require a higher threshold of proof and explanation.	0
Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17 Georgetown University '21 Put me on the email chain: dwbdebate@gmail.com Judging Habits of Mine: --Smart and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and stupid impact arguments. --I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me." --Terminal impacts and impact defense factor into my decisions less than most judges. Impact comparison still matters to me, but only insofar as you can prove a clear link that connects to that impact. Over focus on terminal impact comparison at the expense of link analysis is an easy route to lose my ballot. --Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much in most every debate I judge. I do not tend to find this sweeping argument particularly persuasive, as it is usually invoked as a substitute for robust debating on link analysis and as a way of avoiding comparative analysis of impacts. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (such as poverty, disease, economic collapse, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation. --Although my academic and career experience is primarily policy oriented, I am likely a better judge for the K than you would expect. I have spent time thinking through these arguments, reading relevant literature, and coaching teams to go for Ks. As a general rule, I enjoy when teams grapple with the underlying premises of their worldviews, which is often best captured through a K. Operating Procedure: --I flow on paper --I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. This is mostly because I think my flow will be harmed substantially if I am flowing from your doc and not writing down full arguments. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge --Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow. --"Insert this rehighlighting" is acceptable in some instances and not others. I struggle to articulate a clear rule for this, but I tend to think inserting is legit when you are pointing out why the other team misconstrued or miscut their evidence. If you want to make a new argument (eg a new advantage CP from their evidence) you should read the rehighlighting. Theory Issues/CPs --Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well. --If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg. --I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's --Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan --I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments --Limited intrinsicness can be very good Ks --I heavily prioritize framework in these debates, especially when framed in terms of the "win condition" for both teams. Generally, I find that assumptions/justifications underlying the 1AC are fair game for both aff and neg offense; however, I still require clear framing devices for how to determine who wins the debate should those assumptions be the primary consideration. --I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it (preferably in the 1nc) so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate. No Plan/K Affs --I will vote for these affs. --I will enjoy it more when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model, particularly the role for the negative team. Pet Peeves: --Do NOT read disinformation and actual "fake news." In my experience, debate has done a good job staying away from far-right conspiracies but has a weird obsession reading cards from authoritarian state-run propaganda outlets. I will be grumpy if you read evidence from the following sources: SputnikNews, RT, TASS, GlobalTimes, People's Daily, etc. --Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.	0
Top Level -I debated policy at Georgetown Day School for 4 years and am now debating at Brown University. In HS, I had 8 bids to the TOC. -Unless your argument is in favor of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.), I’m down to vote for it. Tech>Truth for sure. -Examples are awesome, and you should use them whenever possible. A few well-explained ones are usually better than a bunch of small ones. These can be used as historical contextualizations of why something will fail/succeed, or turn out well/poorly, or as demonstrations of your praxis. -In debate, I spent more time reading kritikal args (see below), but I'm more than hyped to judge a policy throwdown. -I read evidence when asked to or when a team makes a big deal out of a card in the last rebuttals. Quality evidence makes for good later speeches, especially when you can pull direct quotes from your ev that are really applicable. Just remember, that debaters, not cards, win rounds, so you can absolutely spin a bad card into a phenomenal argument. -If you have any questions, just ask before the round! Case -Explain what your aff (policy or K) does in crossex, especially on the K side I need concrete solvency examples, and on the policy side, I need to know exactly what policy change the aff makes. -For the neg, case debate is great, particularly solvency takeouts, and recuttings of the affirmative team’s own evidence (hint: these recuttings are not nearly as hard to find as they should be). Disads The two most important things to win here are a credible internal link story and impact comparison. Too often, neg teams get away with a ridiculous internal link chain, that the affirmative should absolutely expose (affs also tend to have these, neg teams should expose these as well). The 2nc/1nr and 2nr should explain step-by-step how the aff causes your impacts. Impact comparison means not just explaining what your impacts are, but why I should prioritize them over the aff’s. For example, I don’t just want to know why the aff causes nuclear war, I want to know why that matters more than/happens more quickly than/is more probable than, the aff’s impact scenario(s). Counterplans Establishing exactly what parts of the aff you do and do not claim to solve (and why) is key here. The net benefits to your counterplan should be explained in the context of the disad (or if you’re not going for a disad as an independent off-case position, why mutual exclusivity is clear, and why your impacts outweigh). Also, the theory in these debates tends to get extremely muddled. If this happens it will make me sad. T (vs plan affs) In these debates, both sides generally agree with the theoretical impacts the neg is going for (i.e. that fairness/education etc.) are good in the abstract, so the nuance comes down to whose interpretation provides them better and/or is more resolutionally based. That means that knowing what debates look like under your model is paramount. Topical Versions of the Aff, especially ones with cards, are cool, so are arguments (on both sides) about how your model of debate produces ethical subjectivities, better advocates etc. Theory Slowing down and getting off your blocks is crucial here, especially since I feel strongly that jargon is not a good replacement for nuanced warrants. That said, if you can clearly explain why something the other team did is/should be illegitimate, I’m more than happy to vote for it. Also, please specifically explain why whatever they did is a reason to reject the team rather than just the argument, if you’re going for it that way. Kritiks These are the majority of the arguments I read in debate (aff and neg). This is both good and bad for you if you read Ks. This is good for you, because I’m probably at least relatively familiar with your arguments (particularly Afro-pessimism, coloniality, variants of the cap K, and high theory like Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Psychoanalysis). It also means that your link contextualizations can be more creative than a hardcore policy judge might prefer (note that “creative” does not mean link to the status quo, but rather that you can, if you win it in the round,link into the aff’s discourse or political telos). This is bad for you if you read Ks because I know how these arguments can be poorly executed, which means that using a bunch of jargon without explanation and not doing line by line will generally not turn out well. Fun K Tricks are fun. K affs vs Framework I had these debates. A lot. As a result, I’m probably pretty good for both teams here, for the aff because I've debated on your side a ton so I can definitely see your argument, and for the neg, because I know that a lot of K affs are ridiculous and completely unconnected to the topic area (which is distinct from using the USfg). For the aff, a counterinterp that provides a real and better model of debate + a couple impact turns to their standards are best. For the neg, I’m really cool with any standards you wanna go for, and TVAs are good as long as they actually solve some of the aff (as opposed to, “Look! We have something that is tangentially related to their lit base!”) Also, showing how the aff’s model produces terrible debates is going to make it harder for them to win on impact turns alone. The only argument I don’t like here is that being topical is a “rule.” In contrast to things like violating speech times, clipping, etc (which will result in an automatic loss), almost all judges will agree that you should not inherentlyreject affs that are not topical (i.e. vote neg after the 1ac) and I’m not sure how something is a "rule" if teams get rewarded for breaking it all the time. I, however, am open to voting for framework as a good norm. **Final Note: I'll boost your speaks a bit if you make a good (emphasis good) reference to The Dark Knight or The Matrix.	0
LD is my first love. I prefer clean, well laid out arguments that include philosophy. The philosophy must be explicitly defined and explained. I do not appreciate CX like arguments with impacts, etc. I cannot handle much speed. I won't make arguments for you, please do so yourselves. I prefer crystallization on both sides.	0
I am a PF lay judge. Few notes: -State your points clearly and concisely with researched backup arguments, avoid jargon -Make sure to cite your evidence -Please be respectful of your opponents -Make sure to time yourself -Will provide written feedback after the round, no verbal feedback All the best!	1
PF PLEASE SIGNPOST - tell me where you are during your speech Extend the full argument and explain it - don't just tell me to "extend [card name]" or "extend [contention]" Please weigh - tell me which impact is more important and why BE NICE - I'll drop you if you're rude/disrespectful to your opponents let me know if you have questions.LD I have gotten very dumb in my old age (21) so please take it easy on me and debate slowly and as clearly as possible. I am very familiar with PF but am new to judging LD.	0
Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (5 Years), Judge Experience (8 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year) TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. Debate is fun, enjoy yourselves! Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways. (LD Paradigm is below) -- POLICY -- Policy AFFs -- Advantages are good....10 advantages are not. I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me. Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential. K AFF’S –- AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these. The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold. Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns. Topicality/Theory –- Theory is underutilized. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life! I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff. Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T". Framework –- Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them. K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with. CP –- These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve. Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR. Cheating Cps you know who you are - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary. DA –- I love a good da. I hate a bad da. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block. Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!! Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc. K’s – I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I hack for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments. The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap a lot. Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything. Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission. QUOTE THE 1AC EV evidence as link analysis.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios. I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them. Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on. Speed - Go for it! Please be somewhat clear. -- LD -- Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD. Value/Crit - Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters. Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough. K's/CP's/DA's in LD? - Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics) I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case. Contentions - I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc. Theory - I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise. Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section. Speed - Go for it! Please be somewhat clear. Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.	0
I am new to the debate and speech judging. I am a parent and a lay judge. Please do not spread or speak too fast. Please be polite and time yourself. Thank you.	1
I debated for an embarrassing amount of years. Too many years. Over seven years, I did nearly 100 tournaments and probably over a thousand debate rounds. Nevertheless, debate was a critical part of my formation. I have one preference: please god, have fun! Otherwise it's not worth it. This is your debate round, not mine. You or your team are paying to be here and you have (hopefully) been putting in the work to prepare for this round (we, judges, largely just show up). So this round and tournament are rightly yours. Make it what you want to be. In my seven years of debate, I wanted debate to be both an intelligent and intelligible but laid-back conversation grounded in reality. You may want something different. Do it!	0
I am a fresh out of college Chemical Engineering Graduate. I have completed several judging courses certified by the National Federation of State High School Association (NFHS) such as Adjudicating Speech and Debate course, Cultural Competency course, Implicit Bias, etc. Email:khumalothulani.r@gmail.com Generally as a judge I value the following. 1. Clarity: outline what your key contentions are early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow. 2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matter from the other side. Be sure to make strategic consessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are true or important to the debate, and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments. 3. Conclusions: when deciding a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate in terms of strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanize each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them to make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate. Lastly, I am quite flexible when adjudicating and everyone should feel free. Let's enjoy the debate and have fun! No bullying or targetting of any sort. Cheers!	0
Gordie O'Rorke (he/him) --- Call me Gordie (gore-dee), not judge, not sir University of Texas '26 -- not debating Winston Churchill '22 -- policy debate --- winstonchurchillko@gmail.com for email chains --- gordieororke03@gmail.com for anything else TLDR: I have no familiarity with the NATO topic. Please explain acronyms, intricacies, etc. clearly if you want my ballot. I am willing to listen to any arguments that aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. Some arguments will obviously need more explanation than others. Write my ballot for me--the first part of your 2NR/2AR should be what I repeat back to you in the RFD. Yes spreading, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed--I don't care how good your arguments are if I can't understand them. Very much tech>truth. However, you need to extend an argument completely if you want me to evaluate it, even if it is dropped. Other Relevent Things: Please no small talk if I don't know you. Speed up the debate. Have the email chain ready to go when the round is supposed to start. I don't want to sit there and watch you slowly get ready for your speech. Speech drop = :( If you send a google doc or pdf, I will take off .2 speaks and be very annoyed. (download verbatim, it's free) Give an order before your speech. Example: "CP, DA, Case" not "Link, Line by Line, Impact" Topicality: Competing interpretations is probably a better metric in determining T debates however I can be persuaded otherwise. Reasonability is a question of the counterinterpretation and the literature base. Please articulate an internal link/impact -- "they explode limits and ground" is not an argument. Counterplans: It's counterplan, not "see-pee". I generally don't like counterplans like "Add a 4th Branch" or "Reverse Guidance Docs": ie. counterplans that adds something arbitrarily. I won't default to judge kick or sufficiency framing unless you tell me to. Counterplan theory is probably underutilized in the 2AR but it needs to be a substantial part if not all of the 2AR. You need a net benefit or you will probably not get my ballot. Aff specific advantage counterplans are always better. Disads: It's disad, not "dee-aye". I like well thought out disads. Zero risk is possible if debated well. Disads are generally bad and generic--please point out the logical flaws--this will go a long way even as analytics. Aff specific links are always better than generic ones but I understand disad ground is not always extensive. Turns case arguments are very persuasive and should be at the top of your 2NR. Kritiks: Slow down on overviews. These were a majority of my 2NRs my senior year and a majority of my partner's 2NRs my junior year. I am familiar with common kritiks like cap, antiblackness, set col, IR, but have almost no experience with high theory which means you'll likely need to overexplain. I default to weighing the aff. Links should also be articulated as reasons to turn the case. Often times the alt debate gets lost which I think is a detriment. Explaining the alt makes it a lot easier to get my ballot. Thus, I also find it difficult to vote for the K without an alternative. K Affs: I like K Affs as long as they have a link to the topic. Taglines that say NATO, AI, Cybersecurity, with vague or no basis in their literature is not a link to the topic. I find it hard in those scenarios to believe that it is necessary to read this on the aff. I find TVAs and Switch-Side very persuasive therefore the aff needs to have a strong response and justification for their aff and model of debate. While I did mostly go for the K v K Affs, I find these rounds hard to adjudicate and will need more judge instruction if you want a helpful ballot. Framework: I probably lean more towards voting for framework in K Aff v FW debates. Arguments about dismissing K Affs from debate, excluding literature bases, etc will likely result in a loss--these aren't persuasive. TVA/SSD is a good strategy and I find that Aff teams rarely have a good answer to strategic TVAs or a strong justification for why it's necessary to read their literature on the affirmative. Structure your debating around why your model is preferable, not whining about "cheating K-Affs". Theory: Underutlized. I also have very little experience in these types of debates but good debating, and articulating clear in-round abuse, internal links, and impacts might make it a reason to reject an argument. Condo is the only reason to reject the team. Reading your 10 point theory blocks at each other without responding to the other teams 10 point theory block will lead to low speaker points. LD/PF: I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of these events. I will probably judge these rounds like I would a policy round. This means backfile theory shells, RVIs, gotchya arguments, etc. will not be understood and likely not voted on. I don't know what "tricks" are and I don't care to learn. Please still send your evidence. I'm not sure why other events don't always have an email chain but disclosure is good. If you are unsure how to do this, please ask. Not sending evidence will result in lower speaker points.	0
I have been a parent judge for PF for six years. Though I take a lot of notes, please do not be fooled into thinking I am a flow judge. I am most definitely a lay judge and appreciate debaters who do not speak too quickly or use a lot of jargon. For example, if you must use a term like "non unique," please specify what part of the argument you are referring to, or better yet, don't use the short-cut term "non unique" at all, as it is more informative if you are more explicit in your reasoning. If you speak so quickly that I do not catch the details of your arguments, you may lose the round, even if your arguments are superior, since I will not have heard them in full. Lastly, if you are dismissive or rude toward your opponents, your speaker points will suffer, and it will impact my decision for the round. Rounds that are conducted in a respectful and collegial manner are much more pleasant for judge and competitors alike, and they tend to result in much higher quality debating all around.	1
I do weigh framework so if one team offers frame work and the other doesn't I'll default to theres. Otherwise I'll judge each around based on the agreed values/framework in each round. I am okay with critiques provided they are topical and relevant. I don't like spreading and expect that each debater will be respectful in round.	0
michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com Public Forum I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round. If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round. Policy Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument. Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm. Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win. Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K. Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc. Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns. Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links. If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.	0
As of 2022 I am a policy debater and Economics student at University of Houston. Back in high school I used to compete in debate and speaking events. I've done World Schools Debate, Info speaking, Extemp, and I did LD for a year. Put together I've been debating for 5 years. I will try my best to be a “blank slate” for the purposes of the round. If you can convince me, in the context of the debate round, that your argument is true, I will accept it as such. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and why you should win. I am open to all kinds of arguments, as long as you explain them, but prefer when you can show me concrete impacts to vote for. For policy rounds please put me on the email chain. My email address is: wajih2003@live.com	0
I am excited to serve as a judge. I have a strong background in critical thinking and logical analysis and very little experience as a debate judge. So I will follow nuanced arguments while also needing you to define all terms and clarify any debate terminology.If any rules of engagement aren't followed, please call it out if it matters to you; it wouldn't be wise to assume I would catch it. This is true in general and specifically with respect to POOs.I highly value clear enunciation, confidence, and professionalism in all interactions during the debate.	0
I am the first time Judge, please speak slowly and clearly.	1
I'm very philosophy based in LD. I don't usually vote on disclosure theory or Ks. I think the argument is more important than just regurgitating as much evidence as possible. Also please try to make your sentences coherent.	0
I am a Bronx Science parent judging PF rounds, a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and use minimal jargon. I keep up on news and foreign affairs a decent amount, but try to explain obscure things. I appreciate when you keep time honestly and diligently. Please be prepared to quickly access your evidence and make it available. I like a vigorous crossfire. Signpost clearly and weigh. Good luck!	1
I competed in PF for 4 years in high school with School Without Walls. Likes: Weighing(!!!, make it easy for me to cast the ballot for you), strong warrants and impact, common sense, narrative, lay appeal, strategic collapsing, actual clash Dislikes: Relying on theory, speaking excessively fast, unsubstantiated claims/weighing, dropping, new offense after rebuttal, being a bad sport Good luck!	0
Parent Judge who has been judging public forum debates. I am an engineer and have been working in this capacity for over 25 years. Participants should produce evidence and data to backup arguments. It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument. You are in a public forum debate and as a parent and a working professional, I am your public. Even if you have the best collection of data, how you connect with public is vital. Body language, eye contact or connecting with real life examples can sometimes tip the vote in your favor If both teams are great and as a judge I have a tough decision, one of the deciding factors has been the quality of rebuttal questions. Some of these questions can put the other team on the edge which can work to your advantage. So take good notes, look for those pointers from your opponent and strive for winning that round. Thank you and good luck!	1
Hi I’m Will! I did a lot of LD in high school and am only comfortable with traditional debates. I don’t care what arguments you use (as long as they are relevant to the topic), but I appreciate people speaking really slowly and explaining their own reasoning clearly and insightfully. I don’t like it when people spend most of their time reciting cards—most of your speeches should consist of original analysis and contextualization even if you do bring in some quotes from academic papers/articles/books. Although I take notes, I don’t flow and do not care about “dropped” arguments. Address the cruxes of your opponent’s position, but if there are just too many arguments and/or if some of them are silly, I don’t expect you to waste time going through them. My main thing is that if you speak too fast or don’t debate the topic, I won’t vote for you. Feel free to ask questions before the round, and I look forward to hearing you debate!	0
I am new to judging so please make it a bit slower and clearer for me.	1
evamotolinia@lclark.edu and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost). Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better. TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot. I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years. My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants. Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card. Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.) Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it. In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better. I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow. I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions). You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech. I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args. IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round. Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing. Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying. Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear. If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round. Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications: Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate. If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.	0
I am fairly new to judging but I like to see good sportsmanship and strong, compelling speeches.	1
For Debate: Slow down. For debate I always see great start, spreading in the middle then adding new args in the final. Look, just go slow the whole time. I promise you, a few well heard arguments will sway judges more than technical rule based filler. Plus, your speech will be much clearer and they will be in complete sentences. I look for speakers to react to the other side's bigger points. Did you hear what they said? For IE: There is the intellectual story and the emotional story. One is coherent fact storyline. The other is how it made me feel. The ideal for all performances is when your audience temporarily loses their sense of place and is "in" your story. Think of your favorite movie. If you can do that, I will be yours! Rich	1
TL;DR: mostly standard technical judge with general, but rarely ballot-determining appreciation for good evidence + smart arguments as opposed to sludge. Idiosyncrasies are: Please don't read IVIs Content warnings are probably bad Strong preference against theory I don't care that fiat is illusory I graduated in 2021 from Blake. I am now an assistant coach there and also debate in APDA for UChicago. For email chain: alperri@uchicago.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com APDA paradigm: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbLo_HaKZquPeBJUUac_ZaVW_yTpZi3JKE2FdN3xoms/edit I am less involved in PF this year, but still think about debate regularly, so I shouldn't need any technical adjustments. I follow topics loosely and have reasonable knowledge of most debate arguments, but don't know in-depth topical nuances; this really shouldn't affect your debates, but it might be worth knowing. The one thing that is probably different from how I thought about debate last year (if you had me then) is that I increasingly don't care about theory and am less willing to entertain idiotic argumentation. My general predisposition is still one of non-intervention, but winning silly positions is unlikely to be be met with high speaks or even the ballot in extreme cases. Technical proficiency is always impressive, but so is the ability to make a real, intelligent, well-defended series of claims about the world, and I'm less interested in arguments that require a trade-off between the two. This has no implications on my thoughts on speed (go for it), the importance of evidence (still high), or the method through which I evaluate debates (offense-defense). General Tech > truth. Dropped arguments are as true as the development initially given to them. Each speech must answer the prior speech (except constructives), so summaries need defense. You cannot read defense on yourself to kick arguments, but you may concede your opponent’s defense to do so. New weighing in 2FF will not be evaluated. Speed is fine and encouraged inasmuch as it enables you to communicate more ideas in more depth. Going fast for the sake of going fast is not impressive. Debate is an oral activity, I will not flow off your speech doc. Ask me for other, more specific preference questions should you have them. I will say that I seriously dislike three or four contention cases that are missing several warrants and/or internal links, and will reward debaters who punish them effectively. I'm not going to say, "the more weird your argument, the lower my threshold for response is", because I have no idea what a "threshold for response" means, but reading many shoddy scenarios is neither an impressive demonstration of your technical ability nor particularly strategic. I think about debate similarly to the other Blake coaches (obviously), but Jeff Miller, Bryce Piotrowski, Chad Meadows, and Maddie Cook also have paradigms and opinions I largely agree with. Evidence I think evidence is important and, to that end, consider most practices that improve the diffusion and discussion of evidence to be good (speech docs, disclosure, reading cut cards). In that same vein, debates that center around smart explanations of high-quality, warranted evidence are in my view the most educational and productive rounds possible. I also have a predisposition towards evidenced arguments, though not one that can't be overcome. Misconstrued evidence leads to an L-25. If you have to "strike your evidence" or otherwise aren't able to find it, you will get an L-25. If you did not read an author name/date, you did not read evidence, and claims to the contrary will decrease your speaker points. I will intervene on evidence ethics if necessary. Ethics Oppressive discourse or arguments will get you an L-20. I will not vote on arguments that death/oppression/fascism/climate change is good. Being mean could lose you the debate. The pursuit of "perceptual dominance" is not going to help you. Please just be kind, or at the very least respectful, to your opponents. Don't really care if you postround me and would in fact encourage you to ask questions about things you could've done better. If you're rude, it may affect your speaks. Theory For whatever reason, people think they should read theory when I am judging. This might be strategic, but you should probably know that I dislike these rounds. I debated two theory rounds in my career (initiating neither of them), and frankly that was already too many. Consequently, I am probably competent, but nothing more, at evaluating these debates. I am happy to intervene against frivolous theory. This includes full shells, but also procedural claims with a basis in things that are not immediately relevant to the debate, e.g school size, amount of spectators, etc. I have voted for theory arguments that are pretty nitpicky absent strong reasonability pushes but would prefer not doing so. This does not mean I am persuaded by "theory doesn't belong in PF" arguments, I think these are awful and am unlikely to vote on them unless they are functionally dropped. Disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will evaluate these debates technically and am willing to vote in opposition to my beliefs. I suspect, though, that you will have a difficult time persuading me to do so, not because I will intervene (I won't) but because I think that they are very difficult positions to win given their tenuous truth value (and my historical record judging these rounds would agree). Having said that, if you independently introduce cut cards/disclosure bad theory (i.e not in response to theory read on you), I will not flow your argument and you will receive a 26. My experience in APDA and discussions with coaches have increasingly convinced me that content warnings are bad, but I will not penalize you for providing one. I will be exceptionally suspicious of theory read about a failure to content warn some type of pervasive structural oppression (e.g sexism, racism, etc.), especially when the theory is being advanced by someone who is not of the oppressed group in question. I think there's certainly an argument that graphic or exceptionally sensitive topics should be content warned and I'm willing to follow the community norm on that. Having said that, using the specter of "safety" as a bludgeon to silence important discussions about weighty issues in the debate space and the world at large is really dangerous, and I think a lot of judges and debaters should be more careful about how they approach this question (hint; not wanting to debate a round is NOT GROUNDS for an opt-out...). For more on this, I think Gabe Rusk's paradigm is really well thought-out. I think most big school/small school interps tend to be terrible, because the definitions are arbitrary, self-serving, and lend themselves to marginal debates which none of the debaters have the tools to execute. I would prefer you take categorical positions, even if they are positions I disagree with, than try to win by saying the interp should apply to everyone but you. Kritiks I'm very good for the more policy-esque, topical kritiks (e.g security, capitalism, etc) and at least ok for basically everything else, although PoMo might go over my head. For non-topical kritiks, I'm probably better for you than most judges, but I'm also willing to vote on T if properly executed (and reward it handsomely in speaks). Arguments that the topic is actively bad are pretty unpersuasive, although I will vote for them if dropped or won. I tend to prefer topical K rounds to nontopical ones, all else equal. I have three primary gripes with critical debate in PF. If you avoid these, your speaks will be higher: Framing that basically just says "fiat is illusory, we are pre-fiat so we win". Everyone knows the topic doesn't actually happen when you vote Aff. Please go back to the drawing board and make an argument (i.e read warrants why discourse shapes reality, why the model of policymaking is bad, or similar things). A lack of debate about the alternative. I think a lot of Negative teams are getting away with alts that are just very, very thinly veiled CPs, but I am yet to see an Aff make the argument that such an advocacy is illegitimate. It would need more than just pointing to the NSDA rulebook, but I think it's fairly persuasive and certainly the type of theory debate this activity could use. As a corollary, I think most alts are pretty much word salad and a more decisive press on what they mean would help clarify these rounds. Kritiks which aren't meaningfully described by the debaters. What I mean by this is critical positions which the debaters do not explain or seem to understand beyond the 3 or 4 lines they regurgitate from their authors. This is a recurring problem in PF because speech times are so short, and it's quite infuriating as a judge. For whatever reason, I think the position that has suffered from this problem the most has been fem IR. I often find myself wondering what a feminist conception of IR actually is, and only understand what it it is not, which is unsatisfying. Other progressive things There is almost no circumstance in which you should read an IVI. If your opponent does something bad enough for them to lose the round on it, you should almost always read theory; basically the only thing IVIs can be valuable for is calling attention to particularly harmful language from your opponents. IVIs will be the death of this activity as a rigorous intellectual exercise if they're not reined in, and I will always evaluate them on reasonability. Whoever started this trend in PF needs to be held accountable for the damage they have caused (kidding, but barely). I also will be pretty willing to grant the RVI against IVIs, especially those which should really be read as theory shells. There are both pragmatic and principled reasons for this. Pragmatically, IVIs become massively overstrategic if there is no downside to them, because they are all potentially round-ending arguments that can be made exceptionally briefly, and so enforcing the RVI is a corrective necessity. Principally, if you present an argument that some small thing is so egregious that you barely even have to explain why your opponent ought to lose the debate on it, the veracity of that claim should be assessed similarly to a cheating accusation. I will not vote for tricks (ask me before the round if you are worried your strategy fits under that term, although if it comes to that point, I probably won't like the argument anyway to be honest). Speaks Average about a 28. Less than 26 indicates ethical issues. Speaking very high (29.5+) requires a combination of excellent technical ability and creative, high-quality argumentation. Whether that is found in a critical or traditional round is of no consequence, although for whatever reason, critical teams seemed to do slightly better on speaks last year with me.	0
Keep arguments logical and clear. Make sure they can be followed by someone who may not know about the topic, and ensure that you respond to your opponents' arguments just as clearly and respectfully as you propose your own arguments.	1
I’m a parent judge, and I’m very excited to hear your speeches. As always, please be respectful to your fellow competitors and be mindful of the rules and time. Thanks!	1
My background in debate is that I was a Policy debater in the Chicago Debate League for four years in high school and I debated on the College LD circuit for one year. I was a K-heavy debater. This doesn't mean you will be automatically advantaged by reading a Kritik. They are the area of debate I am most knowledgeable of, and thus it's most clear if you're butchering the source material. However, I cannot deny that they are the arguments in debate I find most persuasive, as they are the arguments that persuaded me when I was a debater. I focused on Cap K, Security K, Social Ecology K, and Delueze and Guatarri Ks. I'll list my thoughts on each stock arguments. My general paradigm: I will do my best to be a clean-slate judge, but I'm only human. I have a high threshold for when I consider an argument valid. It is not enough to simply state a point, but you must also justify it. If your strategy is to throw out more arguments than the opponent can respond to this will both not work for me and earn yourself poor speaker points. That practice is exclusionary, poor rhetoric, intellectually lazy, and quite frankly boring. Make an effort to clash with your opponents to earn high speaks. Aff: Inherency, Harms, and Solvency are stock issues. You must defend them. I'm okay with Kritical Affs, I ran a few of them. However, they must be related to the Topic and be a high enough quality argument to justify the educational impacts of significantly breaking the rules. Neg: Prepare on-case arguments. It's just better debate practice. Impact turns are dope. DA: Debate, in general, has a horrible habit of having absolutely nonsense DAs that win rounds. So many of them are truly ridiculous and are historically and empirically proven nonsensical fearmongering. That said, it's the affirmative's responsibility to convince me in round that an impact is highly unlikely. I've always found the Impact and internal Link chains to be the most suspect part of a DA in most cases. No, I don't think a modestly higher federal deficit will cause Great Power War with CHINA. CP: Perm is a test of competitiveness, not an advocacy. I consider PIC's highly abusive, lazy, and boring. If you want to run a PIC criticizing problematic language they or their authors used, you should run a critique or run a separate off-case. Debaters used to argue CPs themselves are abusive and unjustified. The debate community has largely resolved this question in favor of CPs, but I think the community should revisit it. There are some very interesting arguments to be made and I will boost your speaker points for running this. T: The least interesting debate to be had, and I'll be more than a little salty if I have to vote on it. That said, if an AFF is GENUINELY UNTOPICAL I have no problem hearing T out and voting on it. I generally dislike the accepted strategy that you should always run T just to waste the AFF's time, and your speaker points will reflect that. K: I find Ks the most interesting part of debate, and I would love to see good K debate and I will be personally biased towards high speaks in these rounds. That said, there is absolutely nothing worse in debate than bad K debate. I would rather listen to a 1nc of T and oncase. Your alt matters. Too many critical teams, especially ones I've faced have some of the laziest excuses for alts. It must solve the impacts, or the impacts should not be weighed. Perm is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy. Read the literature. If you don't, it shows. If you want to be a good K debater, you must ABSOLUTELY READ THE LITERATURE. You will get so much more out of the experience.	0
Glenbrook South '19 \| University of Michigan '23 kellymskoulikaris@gmail.com General I've been both a 2A and 2N. I judged and led a lab at the University of Michigan camp this summer, and have researched on the topic. Be organized. Do line-by-line, impact calc, judge instruction, and evidence comparison. Do not just read evidence in the 2AC/2NC/1NR. Smart analytics can overcome bad evidence. Inserting rehighlightings is okay as long as the rehighlightings are short and the implication is explained in the speeches. For everything below, I can be convinced otherwise through good debating. Feel free to ask clarification questions pre-round! Case/DAs I love good case debating. No, this does not just mean yes/no impact. Yes, this means debating the internal link to advantages (and disadvantages). Debates can easily be won or lost here, and internal link comparison in the final rebuttals is underutilized. Case-specific DAs are preferable, but politics can be good with decent evidence and persuasive spin. Rider DAs are not DAs. CPs Advantage CPs are preferable to Agent CPs/Process CPs. PDCP definitions (from both sides) should have specific standards/theoretical justifications. Condo is (probably) good, kicking planks is (probably) good, and judge kick is the default unless debated otherwise. 2NC CPs are good against new affirmatives, but against non-new affirmatives, the 2NC should justify their new planks. The 1AR can convince me this is abusive (especially if the 2NC is adding new planks to get out of a straight-turned DA). Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team unless debated otherwise. T It is important for both sides to map out what topics look like under their interpretations, especially at the beginning of the season. What affirmatives are included? What negative argument are guaranteed? What does each interpretation exclude? Examples help frame the round! Evidence quality matters much more in these rounds! T vs K Affs Debate is a game, and competition/winning drives our participation in debate. The strongest impacts to T are fairness and clash (iterative testing, testing etc). Negative teams have had success in front of me when they utilize clash to link turn affirmative offense. Specific TVAs are good. You do not need evidence as long as you have a plan text and explain what debate rounds would look like under the TVAs. Ks I am most familiar with Anti-Blackness, Capitalism, and Settler Colonialism literature, and not as familiar with Baudrillard, Bataille etc. Please do not give extremely long overviews. Root cause claims, impact comparisons at the top are smart and strategic, but the rest of the "overview" can be incorporated into the line-by-line later on the flow. Impact out each link!	0
Hi if your looking at this, I will judge you about me/flex section: hello hs debaters. im kolitha perera and i debated for 4 years at north allegheny hs. i was that kid at my hs that was "addicted" to debate. if any of yall are like that trust me when u get to college youll realise its not that deep. anyway i accumulated a total of 4 gold bids and 1 silver bid during my career but didnt get to go to tocs bc my partner decided to go to DECA instead (lame). im a big fan of slow, flow, substance debate. IMO fast prog debate makes the activity less about skill and more about your ability to say random stuff that you don't even know about. this new age of debate is just bad. you dont have to agree but dont try to change my mind. OVERALL STUFF: prog: I encourage you to run progressive arguments so I can give you the L (the exception: arguments that advocate for the destruction of progressive debate are a dub and will be allowed and evaluated). Also, im not super experienced in theory or anything else so paragraph form shells are prolly better. spreading: I also encourage you to spread so I can give you the L pls DO NOT SPREAD i will not flow it framework: bro don't bring up some weird philosophy. framework should just be pre-emptive weighing in case extend evidenceANDwarrants or it will not be extended do not read straight cut cards thats bs, pls paraphrase y'all can evaluate the evidence for yourselves PLEASE GIVE OFF TIME ROAD MAPS BEFORE EACH SPEECH THEY SHOULD BE SIMPLE THO LIKE ex. "their case, our case, weighing" bonus speaks + things i really like: please just completely destroy your opponents in cross. i really dont care how crude your language (profanity or whatever is fine, no inherently offensive language obviously) is as long as ur attacking ur opponents argument and not them as a person. creative taglines (alliterations and just weird/comedy stuff): +1 speaks hyper unique arguments: +1 speaks These arguments will give you auto 30 speaks: Any arguments about sulfur Any arguments about helium Any arguments Sri Lanka Any arguments about apes PUBLIC FORUM: how you can win my ballot: i vote purely off of the flow so be good at that Extend defense in summary, even if it's clean extend ur case properly in summary. so many people skimp on case extention in summary its not even funny. thats literally offense how you win the round just do it with card names or else it will not be flowed no new anything in second summary except for responding to NEW defense in 1st summary weighing in both summaries NO NEW CONTENT IN EITHER FINAL FOCUS (not only will this not be considered, I will be less likely to vote for you in a tie situation) LINCOLN DOUGLAS: i debated ld for one tournament in high school substance only, and everything in the pf section still applies	0
TL;DR: I'll evaluate any argument you make as long as it isn't actively discriminatory (racism good, etc.) but also I'm bad at evaluating some stuff I talk about later. Read this if you're at CatNat quals: I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter. If you're a circuit debater hitting a trad debater, I'll judge the round as if it were a traditional round. The major implication of this is that you won't win on the "read an apriori to get william's ballot then spend the rest of my speech on substance" strat. You can stop reading this paradigm here but if you want to hear my circuit paradigm (if you plan on having a circuit round or you're just curious about my interesting and objectively correct debate opinions) go ahead. Read this if you're a novice: The rest of this paradigm doesn't really matter for you. I will evaluate the round based on the winning framework, I don't care about the truth of an argument if it's won, feel free to ask me any questions, I'm here to help! Quick note: I haven't thought about debate or heard spreading in about a year, so if you're a super technical/fast debater, I may not be the judge for you. Hi, I'm William, a current Sophomore at Columbia University. I debated LD for 4 years, mostly national circuit tournaments. wrf2107@columbia.edu for chains LD paradigm: Very Important: Send anything prewritten you have in a doc when you read it. Prewritten overviews, blocks, etc. This is important for accessibility. I'm going to evaluate off the flow, starting with framing. Whoever wins framing, that's the method I use to evaluate offense. If your offense doesn't link under the winning framework, it doesn't matter. I don't really care what you read as long as you can explain it to me. I'm more comfortable evaluating phil and tricks stuff, then larp, then dense ks/performance. I'll evaluate whatever you read, I'm probably just better at some things. This is especially important for performance, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability, but I've never understood fully how to implicate it in round. Read what you think will win you the round, but know that I go in with prior knowledge. some defaults (only if there's no argument about them, once a debater makes a claim about any of these, the default doesn't matter): no rvis, no judge kick, yes 1ar theory, competing interps, drop the debater, epistemic confidence, presume neg, T=theory>K>substance, comp worlds, theory as norm setting. If I forgot anything, ask me and I'll tell you what I default to. Random notes that might be useful 1. Non T affs: I'm happy to vote on a non t aff if you win it on the flow, but I tend to lean more to the side of T in these debates, so you're fighting an uphill battle. (not that you can't or shouldn't read them, just know that I have tended to fall on the side of TFW in the past). 2. I have a relatively high bar for 2ar/2nr explanations for phil/k theories, don't blip past a million buzzwords, tell me why your view of the world/ethics/power/etc. is true, then why I care in the context of the res (or not the res depending on the round, you know what I mean) 3. Theory: Theory is only frivolous if you can prove it is. I may think shoes theory is a bad argument, but if its won its won (but I will be sad if you read shoes theory in front of me and you'll get a 26) 4. I don't flow CX but I listen to it. This means I will hold you to your CX explanations or lack thereof, but things said in CX aren't arguments. 5. Topic lit: I have read exactly 0 topic lit, don't expect me to know what you're talking about if you don't tell me 6. The ROB is to vote for the better debater: If you read this, I will have no clue how to evaluate the round. The point of a ROB is to tell me what it means to be a better debater, pls don't just say "whoever's better" 7. I won't vote on "evaluate [x thing] after [current speech]". If you read evaluate theory after the 1ar in the 1ar, i won't vote on it, if you read it in the ac then read 1ar theory, I'll vote on it and be sad. That being said, I have a super low threshold for answering these arguments because they're explicitly designed to not have debate and punish someone for missing one blip. 8. Some disclosure bad args are probably underutilized and have the potential to win the disclosure debate. Interpret this how you want to lol. (Note for after rereading this: This doesn't mean don't read disclosure. If you think its strategic, go for it. I will happily vote on it if you win.) 9. Please consider the implications of your skepticism claims. If all truth claims are undecidable, your presumption and permissibility claims are too. I obviously won't make this implication in round for you, but I am sad when this isn't brought up. Positions I loved as a debater: Ilaw, Agamben NIB, theory is incoherent, PF paradigm: I'm an LD debater, so if there are any PF specific rules/norms I probably won't know them (I know basic stuff like no new args in FF and stuff like that). I care a lot more abt the warranting you give than the specifics of the evidence/ethos-y stuff. If you can't explain your card's warrant I don't really care that it's by some famous economist. I evaluate off the flow, tell me which arguments I should vote on and why they're the most important. Also I know PF is starting to have some K/theory stuff, if both debaters are down I'd be happy to judge that round, but if one side doesn't want to, just read normal PF stuff.	0
TLDR: lay judge: go at a moderate speed, signpost, extend, weigh, and be respectful Hey, I’m a PF debater, and I'm writing my dad's paradigm for him. My dad is a lay judge, will take notes but I wouldn’t call it a flow. He will vote off what's extended (and weighed) in final focus. He appreciates a strong crossfire round but will not tolerate any rudeness. Will give 28 speaker points on average and will be higher if you deserve it. General tips: Ask if everyone is ready before you start Read your contentions clearly, "Contention One is ____" Make your impacts really obvious, "The impact is __(lives, money, etc.)___" and be sure to quantify. PLEASE WEIGH! Tell him what you want him to weigh off of. The earlier weighing is introduced, the better! (For example, if your opponents dropped an argument, say so. This will make the decision much easier) Collapse in later speeches, giving you more time to better warrant your arguments (quality > quantity) Give a TW with an anonymous opt-out if ur gonna read stuff that needs one Give a strong rebuttal making sure to signpost the contentions you are responding to but make it more clear than "our case, their case" Second speaking team should ALWAYS frontline Do not use jargon (no "fiat", "delink", "non-unique", "offense/defense", etc.) Extend warranting on case and responses Do NOT: NO SPREADING! Read framework, theory, and anything more than just pure substance Read a tech arg/impact Number/statistic dump Read offense if you finish early Do not abuse prep time!	1
Hi! I'm Skylar, was formerly a debater at Blake. Please put skylarrwang@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com on the email chain, and don't hesitate to reach out with any questions. Notes for 12/2 -I'm not familiar with this topic, so make sure to say the full name of something before abbreviating! General: - Please preflow before the round and give an off-time road map that tells me which specific argument you're starting on - Second rebuttal should rebuild your own case and respond to theirs, and begin the weighing debate! ALL speeches after 2nd reb should have weighing - Comparatives are very important: tell me why to prefer your reasoning over your opponents (eg. maybe because it's empirically proven, maybe because you have the best evidence on the question), most close rounds are resolved this way. This can be evidence comparison too (eg. our ev is more holistic source, takes into account xyz factors). Please do this if you have conflicting evidence on a question, otherwise I have to sift through the email chain myself afterward to resolve this - Impact calc is key, but make sure it's comparative and warranted! - Link-ins and prerecs are good and useful weighing args that should be made. However, I think they're often given too much weight on the ballot and come out too late in the round, so if you want to use this mech make sure it's well warranted and well developed from summary (extra points if they come out in rebuttal). I also have a very low threshold for responding to them if they're blippy or simply asserted. - Don't hesitate to call for evidence! Also, when you're sending it in the email chain, send cut cards, not just a link. More on evidence, borrowing from Ale Perri: "Cut cards. Paraphrasing is becoming an easy vehicle for total misrepresentation of evidence. So I would strongly advise reading cut cards in front of me. The NSDA requires that you are now paraphrasing from a cut card or paragraph, meaning that if you are paraphrasing an entire pdf or article, I will evaluate the flow without that argument and your speaks will get tanked. I still strongly believe that even paraphrasing from cut cards is unacceptable because of the time skew that it enables against a team that is cutting and reading cards (i.e you are able to read 3 "cards" for every actual card they can read), but I will not drop you or the evidence for this if the paraphrase is legitimate." - I'm down to hear progressive arguments but run them well. On a relative level, I'm more receptive to Ks than theory (pref disclosure and paraphrasing theory; don't run stuff like resolved theory) - Any speed is alright, but this isn't an excuse for blippy arguments. If you're going faster this means more depth in each arg/more of the card being read. Back half specifics: - Extensions (re-explanations of arguments) in summary need to be clear and warranted - Strategy in summary/ff need to be similar, I won't vote off of a blippy claim made in summary and blown up in final focus - For the arguments they've collapsed on, defense in ff needs to be in summary - Collapse hard on a few arguments! If I see this properly executed earlier in the round, I'll boost your speaks Speaks: - I'm cool with any style. I don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. I view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. It's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language. - avg is 28 - will drop you and your speaks for exclusionary language or behavior Feel free to ask any questions before round! Best reachable by email.	0
Although I participated in high school debate years ago, I am new to debate judging, so please have patience and help me improve. Some things you can do that will help me: Speak at a normal speed so I can take better notes on your arguments. Use sign-posting to clearly communicate the arguments you are answering. Stay within your time limits. Have some fun! Thank you.	0
I'm a parent judge. Debaters, please talk clearly and at a reasonable pace. Also make sure you're clarifying your main points and weighing your points against those of your opponents. I also appreciate roadmaps before speeches. I would love it if you can self-time but I'll also be keeping a timer on the speeches.	1
Hi there! My name is Kenneth (he/him) :D I mainly debated policy in high school, and now I don't WOOOOOOO!!! Add me to the email chain: kennethgaerlan113@gmail.com Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round! Run whatever you want (except tricks in LD- strike me if you do) as long as it's not discriminatory Spreading really annoys me and makes me scream, shake, cry, and throw up internally Please follow any accommodations requested Be kind, have fun, and take this as an opportunity to learn! Eat it up...devour even, and leave no crumbs behind GO YB!!!	0
Hello. I am a parent judge. I know some debate basics, but my knowledge on public forum technicalities is limited. Please do not use excessive jargon and talk at a reasonable speed. Please signpost clearly, keep track of your own time and don’t go beyond reasonable limits. Please be respectful to each other, and try to have fun! Thank you and good luck.	1
In terms of experience, I competed in some collegiate IPDA tournament's, but I mostly competed in platform and interpretation events. I competed at Mt. San Antonio College and we just recently won Gold at our national Phi Rho Pi tournament. My experience in forensics as a whole allows me to know specifically what I look for in a speaker. Some general rules: Do not be rude while you’re speaking or while anyone else is speaking.You do not need to change your style for me. I will be able to keep up.I appreciate off time road maps.No spreading and I do not disclose after the round is over.In general, I’m here to help you grow and thrive in this event. I hope it is fun and rewarding! email is megan@adcominc.us	1
Nic D Nave The N in Rutgers MN 2017 Crowns United! navenicole5@gmail.com Follow me on Linkein https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-d-nave-0b869020a/ Add me on Linkedin for speaker points Leave a review/endorsement/connect for .2 Speaker points . Just for supporting young black women professionals! If you add me on TIKTOK I will bless your points https://www.tiktok.com/discover/realdebatewifeofkentucky First, Energy is essential to me. Everyone must be respectful of the speaker and the participants in the round. Background-I debated for the St.Louis Urban debate league in high school in college. After that, I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I'm the first Black Woman to win the NDT and Unite the Crowns. I debated primarily in the D3, which means I know the actual structure of argumentation. Like many "K" debaters, I learned the foundation of debate inside and out to critique it. When I'm preffed, I typically judge K debate, and I think that's cool, but I also think that I would love to expand my reach. I also feel that debate isn't the same as when I did it.... some things don't sound the same anymore...... I have coached critical/performance teams but truly value the benefits of engaging in policy making. As an Energy Equity Strategist, I am tapped into the Energy/Oil industry and love the idea that technology can save the planet! I firmly believe in energy efficiency as solvency to combat climate change and anti-blackness. I am willing to debate this for the right price$$$. Policy Debate ProperSpeed-Do you, I'm here to support all styles and genres! T- This is probably one of my favorite arguments in debate, the idea that I can be so petty to review a word or process makes me so happy! The pettier, the better! DA's-Literally the first negative argument i learned in debate I love Enviorments and Climate change impacts anything with EV and mobility is also interesting to me. Politics obviously should be unique and have solid impacts! CP's-I believe in condo also the states arent terrible... K's,K Affs- I love learning new things! Teach me something i DON'T KNOW! I would love to hear the latest authors and see some creativity I find myself bored by some of the K debate thats been happening and think the style is declining and policy is just as entertaining at this point but thats just my take... Who am I ? K Aff's VS FrameworkBeat the procedural and win your impacts, I believe framework is one of the easiest arguments a K Aff can answer but also one of the hardest if your aff doesnt actually do anthing. Make it make sense	0
Affiliations: Middleton High School (WI), Tufts University Background: I debated PF for three years and Congress for fours years in Wisconsin, with limited experience on the national circuit. I'm a history and political science double major, so I love seeing historical examples/political theory (not to be confused with debate theory) within cases :) General Paradigm (PF): I'm definitely more of a traditionalist, but I’m tech over truth as long as you aren’t blatantly lying. Don't spread; talking fast is fine, but speak at a rate that a non-debater would be able to understand. (If you have to take giant gasps of air when speaking, it's a sign you're going too fast) I'm not the best with too much speed, so I might miss arguments. I will not read speech docs. If I do not hear the argument, it will not be a factor in the round. Use all the PF jargon you want, but please don't use any disads, Ks, or anything rooted in Policy/LD. If you’re fiating something, please make sure your explanation is clear. Also, please extend (this means your warrant and your impact) your arguments with their card tags, signpost, give me a brief road map (signposting > roadmap) and weigh. Weighing is extremely important for me. Saying that something pre-reqs something else means absolutely nothing if you haven’t given me a warrant, and I don’t see it as a form of weighing. I will vote for a bad argument weighed well over a good argument weighed poorly. Meta-weigh if you have to. If your opponents are weighing on probability and you're weighing on magnitude, tell me why I should prefer probability over magnitude. These things will both elevate the round and make judging it way easier, so it's a win-win for all of us. Lastly, if you're going to read triggering arguments, read a trigger warning and make sure everyone's okay with you running that kind of contention before case/before the round. Theory/Prog Arguments: I don't like theory, but I am willing to keep an open mind. Evidence: If there's an evidence conflict in the round that's serious enough or a card that sounds too good to be true, I'll call for the card. If it's an online tourney, send evidence to hebaemail618@gmail.com. Speaks: Please don't be overly aggressive. I won't flow cross, but I will note disrespectful behavior, so make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and be aware of implicit power dynamics due to race, gender, age, etc. Other Stuff: Have fun with it! There's far too many debaters who walk in stiff-postured and stony-faced. At the end of the day, this is a performance. Loosen up, crack some jokes, smile a little, anything that will make your side more compelling and more interesting to watch. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean, though. Don't cross it.	0
"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading. I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting. Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time. Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)	0
Hi! I debated (Policy, Student Congress) at Andover High School for four years (Education, Immigration, Weapons, CJR) Currently the policy assistant for Andover High/debater at WSU. Yes add me to the email chain, my email is gracemcmanus22@gmail.com or speech drop... I am comfortable with any style of debate/speed in the round. Impact Calc is usually the most important part of a debate round. If you don't tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents I'm likely to vote for your opponent. With that being said, you don't have to spend more than 30 seconds on it. Framework- Usually debates inevitably come down to competing models of debate. You need to be able to explain why your model of debate is best. I will vote for the framework that has the best impacts(obviously but just making sure I put it out there) I have voted for education before (with fairness as an IL) but I am comfortable voting for literally anything. K- I am super comfortable with K's, just make sure you are able to explain the alt well. Explain the roll of the ballot and how the alt is able to function when I vote for a K, you know... the usual K things. I won't do the work for you when it comes to these types of arguments. Theory- I love theory, but make sure you execute it properly. Not much else to say here, but if you have questions you can definitely ask me before the round begins. T- I have voted for T in the past. I expect their to be competing interps when T is presented. Unless something is dropped or someone is outrageously not topical, I probably won't vote for it. I think with this years topic, a lot of teams are running effectually topical cases, I will vote for this if the argument is ran correctly. If you do by chance run a case that is effectually topical, don't fret, just explain why T isn't a voting issue or that you are reasonably close enough. I have a lot of opinions on a lot of different arguments, but I will always defer to what is said in the round. I mentioned that I rarely vote for T, that doesn't mean that I will never, just that up to this point, the T arguments have been weak. I will vote for anything, my paradigm is only a suggestion of what I like to vote for. Just make the best arguments in the round and you will win the debate Above all be nice to one another. That doesn't mean you can't be assertive just don't be mean, it's pretty simple. If you have any questions, just email me.	0
Please pre-flow before rounds!!! Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a freshman at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy. Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision. I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you. Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep. I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary. Returning to in person debate norms: You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk	0
TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang. Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time roadmaps/orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak, don’t shake my hand. If disclosure is not the norm I am willing to disclose. Pronouns: he/him/his. I did policy in high school and NPDA at University of Oregon. My partner Gabe and I won the NPTE in 2022. Preferences that matter for my decision Debate is a game Hard debate is good debate Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith I default to magnitude first sans weighing Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori Alts that are lit based are better than alts you made up Topicality violations are not derived from solvency Collapsing is always better than not collapsing For the love of god extend the aff For the love of god answer the aff Preferences that matter but less for my decision Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance I think condo is fine for debate but will vote on theory if won Going for RVIs is usually cowardice Perms are defense, defense is a suboptimal collapse strategy Links of omission are weak Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious Decolonization is not a metaphor Nuclear weapons are tools - irrational nukes don't exist Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks Science is a very useful ideology HS Parli specific: Spread if you can; don't spread if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary. Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. A pet peeve of mine is arguments about germaneness with no warrants or impacts. These arguments are winnable, but often have little or nothing to do with the argument it attempts to answer. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution (however wacky it might seem), it is probably germane. Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com	0
This is my second time judging public forum debate and I consider myself an amateur parent judge. I am an attorney with previous moot court experience and so am familier with the art of persuasive advocacy. I flow the debate and make my decision on the contentions. You win on the basis of evidence and weighing in the Final Focus. I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but recommend you not go too fast. Please keep track of your own time. Most importantly, have fun.	1

End of preview. Expand in Dataset Viewer.

Dataset Card for Dataset Name

Dataset Summary

This is a list of approximately 4,700 judge "paradigms" sourced from Tabroom as a part of Debate Land's scraping. It comes from the 2023 National Circuit tournaments hosted on the website.

Languages

English.

Dataset Structure

Data Fields

Field	Description
Paradigm	The raw text of the judge's paradigm.
FlowType	What the judge's flowing behavior was interpreted as. (Flow, Flay, Lay, if classified).
ProgressiveType	What the judge's outlook on progressive argumentation was interpreted as. (Progressive, SemiProgressive, Traditional, if any).

Dataset Creation

Curation Rationale

This dataset could enable analysis of judge behavior and the autonomous classification of a judge based on their paradigm.

Source Data

Initial Data Collection and Normalization

Sourced from Tabroom, data were extracted and cleaned from the raw markup using BeautifulSoup.

Annotations

Annotation process

A proficient debater (state champion, nationally ranked) with experience with a variety of judges was responsible for annotation.

Who are the annotators?

Adithya Vaidyanathan {adithya [at] debate.land}.

Personal and Sensitive Information

Judges' personal email addresses are often included in their paradigms as a way to provide debaters a point of contact. Since this information was publicly available on Tabroom, no new data is being revealed.

Considerations for Using the Data

Other Known Limitations

This data only considers national circuit paradigms and it is known that judging philosophy (and subsequently, their paradigms) vary greatly between the national and the local levels.