debate-land/2023-paradigms huggingface dataset:
rileydwing@gmail.com

Debate:
I am a firm believer that this is your debate not mine. As a result I view the round how the debaters ask me to.
The few things I request is professionalism, fairness, and politeness. This stops being an educational experience when you sacrifice any of those 3 things for a win. I ask that all debaters be polite and do not partake in any sort of shady behavior.
I am more than ok with spreading if I have the case in front of me.
Lastly write my ballot for me, tell me why you won. I can make connections mentally, but I vote off the flow so vocalize everything.

Speech:
Speech is equal parts argumentation as it is presentation, I believe that both are imperative to a high ranking. I will always prefer average speaking and great analysis to average analysis and fantastic speaking. If you have both expect a high ranking.
I am a parent judge, please be mindful of that.for prefs:

No speed
Do better with contentions
I highly highly prefer speaks and will likely vote you up if you speak well
NO kritikal or theory arguments, I have a very basic understanding of these and it’s honestly a gamble with me
Be respectful, any bigotry results in immediate 25 speaks and down vote

more info:

The only info I have is what my student has explained to me, no previous debate experience, so I may not know debate norms
I prefer disclosure, put me in the email chain: jcharyulu@hotmail.com
Email chain: bmnushkin@gmail.com
I have done no research on the topic and have been out of the activity for 5 years, assume I have no knowledge of acronyms on the topic.
Judge intervention is horrible - tech always determines what is true.
I am not a good judge for affirmatives without a plan.
As for going for the k on the negative, my biggest piece of advice is to go for unique offense. Your links to k things should be a predicative statement that doing the plan will cause something bad to happen. Links that aren't about the plan need to be resolved by the alt but not the perm.
Try to impress me with your understanding of the material, execution of the strategy, or stylistic ability and I will do my best to adjudicate.
*If you make any morally reprehensible claims in the round, I reserve the right to drop you. If you are spreading hateful rhetoric, you should be removed from the tournament.*
I've been coaching speech, debate, and interp for seven years and I'm currently the head speech and debate coach at Southlake Carroll in North Texas. 
Public Forum: Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you're unclear in PF because of speed, I probably won't tell you because you shouldn't reach that point in PF. Don't be overly aggressive, rude, or shout. Lack of clarity or respect will lead to a serious drop in your speaks.
You should provide me with a clear weighing mechanism and justification for using it. If I have to do this work for you, you don't get to complain about my decisions. Remember that public forum is meant to be understood by anyone off the street so don't expect me to be impressed by sloppy attempts at policy tactics.
Second speaking teams don't have to defend their case in rebuttal, though it doesn't hurt to. Just because something was said in cross doesn't mean that I'm going to flow it, though I will be paying attention to it. Please don't waste cross. This is my biggest pet peeve. Give clear voters in the final focus and do your best to go straight down the flow. If you jump around the flow and I miss something, that's on you.
I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, and USC for 1. I've been out of the game this season, fair warning.
I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.
I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.
I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.
Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.
Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.
This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.
I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.
I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.
Former HS Policy and NDT debater.
But, it has been a long time....
- Tabula rasa, if that is still a thing. Open to all lines of argumentation, but please tell me why I should care.
- Very rusty flowing, but should be able to keep up. Most important is that you speak clearly to help me follow your speech.
- Have fun, but please be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to be rude.
1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.
2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a manner that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude.
3. Please don't go too fast.
4. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.
5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.
6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.
Name: Evans Chen
School Affiliation: Potomac Debate
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2 years
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4 years
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0 years
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years
 
Speed of Delivery: Please speak at a reasonable pace. Slower/clearer speeches > faster/denser speeches. 
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Focus on the big picture, I won't care much for small dropped arguments. 
Role of the Final Focus: Crystalize your arguments and do not bring up any new points or evidence. 
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: If it's a voter, extend. 
Topicality: No.
Plans: No. 
Kritiks: No kritiks or theory. 
Flowing/note-taking: I will try my best to flow all arguments, but I am quite rusty so bear that in mind. Speaking slower will be to your advantage. 
Do you value argument over style?  Style over argument?  Argument and style equally? Equally 
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, mention the argument in every speech until your opponents respond or the debate ends. Do not mention an argument in constructive, have it be dropped by your opponents, then never mentioned it again until the final focus. 
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Begin with the opponents' case and if time permits, cover the opponents' rebuttal. 
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Do not bring up new arguments in the grand cross. The last speech I will take new arguments is the summary.
Dan Evans
Tabroom Paradigm January, 2023

Interlake High School Speech and Debate Advisor
dan.evans@comcast.net

I am new to my role as Debate Advisor. I debated high school policy and college CEDA debate long ago. I was involved in the speech and debate community from 1979 as a freshman at Sehome High School in Bellingham, WA, through 1987 at Western Washington University.

HOW I DECIDE

I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative/pro advocacy versus those of the competing negative/con advocacy.
I am NOT the judge to present lots of theory to. Please just run a topical, well-reasoned case if you are on the affirmative and run your disadvantages (with specific links, clearly stated implications/voters) or counterplans when you are on the negative.
Save your strength and voices for theory rants in other rounds.
Finally, be nice, be funny and act like you enjoy the activity and the people you are competing against.

STYLE ISSUES
Please speak loudly, with emphasis and meaning.
Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the last speeches.
Please extend evidence clearly with a reference to where it was on the flow (e.g. 3rd answer).
I really appreciate when debaters can bring their arguments down to earth and provide some tangible impacts to decide on. Paint a picture of the AFF/ NEG world for me, so I can understand why the argument you're making matters. Tell me why to vote for you!
I dislike 1) when debaters try to speak faster than they are able to clearly, 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I really dislike personal attacks on opponents. Such behavior usually results in loss of speaker points and if carried too far could be the cause of a loss.
Good cross-examination/crossfire matters a great deal to me. Questioners should ask questions to expose holes in their opponents’ cases and use follow up questions to answers to gain an advantage and ask questions in a way that is clear but tough for the opponents to answer. Respondents should directly answer the question or talk about good arguments they have made related to the question. Citing sources and specific warrants in your answers is a bonus—as is answering right away without delays because you are trying to figure out an answer.
SPEED (Sorry, please no)
Open Policy, LD: I don’t do well with excessive speed. I’ve been out of the activity for years and frankly it’s hard for me to write as fast as I used to or read my flow when I do. I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.

In Novice/JV divisions of Policy, LD, and in ALL divisions of public forum debate: I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.
Hello Debaters,
I am a lay judge who is just out of college. I do not have any debate experience.
I am more truth > tech.
Please do not spread!! I will tank speaks. However, if your case is over 900 words long, I would like to be shared with your case.
I am fairly new so please make sure you are patient and turn away from using PF words.
Instead of saying AA or anything with abbreviations, please say the whole name of the subject out.
If you run theory or any k’s I will give the other team the win without a second thought.
Thanks! Please remember to have fun!
1. Experience: I have done three years of PF and extemp. I can deal with most spreading in PF; I was a second speaker.
2. Framework: If you don't say anything else, I'll assume cost/benefit. I won't like anything abusive though.
3. Extensions: I'll weigh whatever is extended through to final focus. But don't just extend, tell me why your argument is more important.
4. Evidence: I prefer authors and dates. If the evidence is self explanatory, then that's fine; it can speak for itself. If it isn't clear, then you need to link it to the resolution. I'm fine with paraphrased evidence, as long as its not abusive/misleading, and its used to sum up some non-text evidence or long essay.
5. Cross: I don't flow this, but I pay attention to what is said. It's important for clarifying what is happening.
6. Defense: extend it in summary; however, in summary, narrow it down to a few responses, not a shotgun approach.
7. Theory: In PF, I don't think we should have theory unless an abuse happens. Public forum is about the arguments, not who can argue theory that doesn't apply to the resolution, but I'm not going to vote against you for reading theory.I honestly don't care that much about disclosure. My circuit doesn't do it.
8. Analysis and evidence: I like analysis. Not all arguments need to be based on some prewritten evidence or block if you can explain it well. However, if your analysis and response is based on something that a debater wouldn't know, then you need a card, or explain it really well.
9. Sign posting and road maps: please sign post, I can deal without road maps, but if your speech is, or will be, all over the place, then please do an off time road map.
10. I've seen tricks on some other paradigms. I don't know what that is. Take that as you will.11. Other stuff: I don't have cards or authors memorized. Tell me something beyond just the author's name in round if you're referring to a card. I don't like underdeveloped arguments, but I understand if you tried something and it fell through. Just don't put out something you know won't work for the sake of a shotgun approach to responding to arguments. You win based on persuasion, not on saying words really fast and hoping something sticks.
12. I swear this is the last thing: Debate is about communication, so do your best not to be really dry. I prefer some humor.
Although I have judged multiple tournaments, I have never debated or actively coached or taught debate. I prefer you explain everything clearly and to the point. Prefer debaters write the resolution on the whiteboard (if available ) and their names who is in affirmation and who is in opposition along with order pf speakers.
1. No spreading (speak slowly)
2. Be articulate and speak clearly and loudly
3. Off-time road mapping is preferred
4. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time.
Hello Debaters,
I've been judging debate for last 3 years. I enjoy good factual debates, professional courtesies and sportsmanship. I love to see teams challenge each other on facts and evidences rather than just through sound. Tell me how and why should I vote a particular way.
Add me on the your Google Doc or Cards: cmu2010@gmail.com
For urgent issues, you can SMS me at +1 408 391 9027
Please add me to the email chain: dudewand@umich.edu
Truth Over Tech: I tend to support the more traditional style of debate with a strong focus on making the best, and most plausible, argument possible. I don't mind more technical debates, but just be sure you're not making unrealistic claims or impacts. Part of this can be done by providing and clearly showing strong internal links in your evidence.
Topicality: I would strongly prefer the Aff stays on topic, as I have rarely seen good Critical Affs, but I'm willing to judge it so long as it is explained fully and there are good arguments to address any T arguments brought up by the Neg. I'm fine with most T arguments. However, I'm not as comfortable with framework so be clear and thorough when making these arguments, and don't assume I automatically know what you're talking about.
K's: I'm not the best judge for K arguments on either the Aff or Neg. As I stated above, I don't mind them, but make sure you clearly explain them including their links and impacts in order for me to vote for you.
Otherwise, I'm pretty relaxed on most other aspects and will judge everything else like CPs, Disads, and Theory fairly and on a round-by-round basis. Both sides should be respectful, avoid offensive language or swearing, and try to learn as much as possible from each round.
I am Udayan Guha and I am a lay parent judge.
I would like to assure you that I have studied the resolution - however, I will judge entirely based on your arguments. There will be less emphasis on impact since I believe the impact is often subject to bias.
Please do not spread because if I don’t understand what you are saying, you will hurt your chances of winning.
I like concise arguments with proper evidence that is cited well. Paraphrasing is good with proper citation of author, article etc. However, please do not misinterpret your evidence when you paraphrase to suit your argument. I encourage teams to request the cards as necessary- I may also ask for the cards myself. If I am convinced that you are talking very fast just to include as many quotes as possible- that may go against you—your arguments should be concise with the correct interpretation of your evidence, and hence you may need to paraphrase.
I encourage you to send me your cases before the round starts. My email address is uguha47@gmail.com Be polite and respectful during crossfire. Good Luck.
emmanuesung@gmail.com
debated for northside college prep 4 years (2017-2021)
three bids and ended #15 on the coaches poll senior year
please cameras on during speeches, and even better if you have it on for the whole round. online debate gets kind of dry.
I am incredibly unfamiliar with the topic this year. Help me change that by making T and case arguments slower
ran mostly policy throughout the years, but decently well versed in generic ks (bioptx, cap, security etc.) if you have anything more complex than this please make sure you explain well. having an alt is very compelling to me, try to have one or spend a lot of time convincing me why i should think otherwise.
k's on the aff are rough for me to judge but if you would like to do it anyways go ahead
Add me to the email chain: jeff230@yahoo.com
I am somewhat new to judging. As long as you don't spread or read any complex phil or ks you should be fine. You should consider me similar to a flay judge who feels pretty comfortable with judging generic theory and *really* simple k's (like cap, anthro, setcol). I also would prefer a more policy heavy debate to phil debate, as I'm not too familiar with some of it. I have mainly judged lay debate so far, so it's always a safe idea to read lay cases in front of me. If I'm on a panel, you obviously can do whatever you want but I would appreciate some extra judge instruction if you want my ballot because there's a fair chance that I won't understand your dense literature.
Leland 22 - Michigan 26 - He/Him
Email chain: conner.shih.debate@gmail.com
Top
Tech > Truth - do what you do best, more K in high school, more policy in college. Everything below are preferences based on personal experiences and easily overcome by good debating. Judging record is typically a better indicator of preferences than a paradigm so looking at that is probably more helpful.
Policy v K
1, Links should be to the aff but what 'aff' means is up to framework debating.
2. You don't need an alternative, but make sure you have a substantive push on why framework matters.
3. Middle ground frameworks rarely make sense. I'm either voting for the affs interpretation or the negs. However, often times teams can win the debate under the other teams interpretation.
4. Framework and extinction outweighs is by far the best strategy on the aff especially when your aff doesn't have a built in link turn.
5. Most alternatives are nonsense, a good cx can essentially zero it, teams are also letting the alternative do insane things that should either lose to a theoretical objection or the perm double bind.
6. Read whatever you want, most of my 2nrs were IR, Cap, or Set Col. Not versed in high theory but if you can explain it, go for it.
K v T
1. I only read planless affs but also only went for framework against them.
2. Fairness is an impact but negs have to be able to justify it, otherwise affs will probably win on an impact turn. I tend to like fairness as an impact more than clash because I think it's easier to win.
3. Defining what the ballot means is often decisive for the rest of the flow, ie. 'If the aff wins that the ballot can't enforce a model of 'nuanced clash' but it can remedy 'in-round violence,' absent a neg response I'm most likely voting AFF even if I believe clash is important.
4. I like impact turns and think affs are better at winning it compared to a C/I that's typically pretty arbitrary while linking to almost all NEG offense.
5. TVA and SSD can be strategic arguments but aren't always necessary.
6. I do not think the act of reading T is racist/sexist/etc. but teams should be able to explain why it is not, otherwise I will most likely vote aff if that is the 2ar.
T
1. Predictable limits is probably the 'gold-standard.'
2. Competing Interpretations > Reasonability.
3. Your model should include a caselist.
4. Fukuyama is not an interpretation, if you want to go for T-A5, read better cards.
CP
1. I think competition debates can be fun but I am not as competent in understanding as I would like to be.
2. I think the topic's lack of substantive ground means that I'm more neg leaning---but this does not mean you should read multi-actor advantage CPs with 10 planks and no solvency advocate.
3. I defer to judgekick but 2Ns should flag it.
DA / Policy AFFs
1. Read good internal links, do turns case. Link uniqueness is important.
2. Smart analytics often trump bad cards. Exploit impact cards that lack warrants.
Theory
Condo is usually the only reason to reject the team. Condo is generally good.
Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!
(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).
I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.
 I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.
tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.
 I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.
Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.
 There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.
Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.
Framework should not be neglected!!!!
---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------
I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.
Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.
Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.
Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.
Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake. 
If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.
I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-
Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.
Lay Judge
If Debate: Explain your arguments in a simple manner. Don't go fast. English is not my first language.
If you make arguments about programming/computers make sure it is up to date and accurate.
The more persuasive and powerful speaker that is able to play the policymaker role
If IE: Make sure to speak clearly, make sure to have good volume so I can hear, English is not my first language but I am still proficient enough to judge, and follow the rest of the rules for your respective events.
Good Luck and remember you're bold for competing and your words hold power
I am a banker by profession but an engineer by training. As such,

I like fact based opinions. So please support your arguments with data.
Respecting your opponents without getting personal will be highly valued.
Please be concise and to the point. For me quality of the argument matters more, not the quantity.
Your stage presence is important. Debating is also about showing a confident persona.

The fact that you choose to participate in the debate competition in itself is remarkable. Good luck!
BACKGROUND: I am a sophomore at Harvard College who competed for Regis High School with moderate success (some bids, a lot of elims) in PF (and very infrequently in LD and Parli) for four years on the National Circuit.
PARADIGM: I used to have a bunch of super-specific technical preferences, but I now tend to think that paradigms are dumb and advance a notion of debate that is overly restrictive and inaccessible to those with less experience/fewer resources. Honestly, just debate how you debate, be kind, be honest, be clear, try to engage with one another in a way that is educational, and try not to do anything that I would likely view as excessively progressive, technical, or inaccessible given that my understanding of debate remains normed to what this activity looked like when I was introduced to it roughly 5 years ago (no theories, no Ks, etc). Most of the time, the team that wins just does the smartest things analytically (great comparative weighing! response grouping! weighed resolution of clash!), and if you have to speak super fast to do that, you're probably missing the point. Also, please keep in mind that I don't do high school debate anymore (obviously), so my knowledge of the topic will usually be that of a reasonably well-read person and not much beyond + my ability to comprehend speed (especially if you don't enunciate!) is not what it once was.
Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021
I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take acronyms or topic-specific laws for granted in your speech.
Be nice.
I prefer that you read a plan.
Infinite condo is better than no condo.
If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.
I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.
I'm not great for high theory.
email: dylanmichalak2003@gmail.com
UIUC '26 - industrial engineering
GBS '22
Topics: Immigration, arms sales (my beloved), CJR, and Water
2N for all
T/L
anything goes (yes you can run that impact turn)
- i gripe a lot about stuff later on but i legitimately do mean the above
a dropped argument is a true argument 
yes even aspec/no neg fiat but...
...an argument is a claim, warrant, and implication
the troll theory's gotta have all three to count
hkdebait@gmail.com
I do not do college debate but am active in electoral politics and policy stuff so you don't need to explain anything beyond the most crucial/niche acronyms and T definitions
- i have done almost nothing debate related since april 22 so 75% of this is me having hot takes about the activity
send a card doc after the final speech
What you care about (policy v k)
Policy
The last time I went for t-usfg was as a sophomore (every 2nr was an impact turn v k affs)
single digit amount of K 2nrs throughout my career
if i somehow end up judging a clash debate i wouldmuch rather see an impact turn debate
More stuff since people lie in paradigms all the time
I am most familiar with standard DA, case, and CP debates (obviously)
I am relatively familiar with T and standard Ks (you know what I mean)
Least familiar with non-standard Ks and K-affs
senior wiki for reference > https://opencaselist.com/hspolicy21/GlenbrookSouth/KhKi
case debate is underrated (everyone says this but i actually mean it) (seriously)
Mechanics
call me whatever the hell you want
- yes inserting re-highlightings unless it's from a different part of the article
- yes open cx
- average speaks are 28.5
- asking for a doc with the cards removed is prep time - a marked doc is a doc with marks on the cards that were marked
- I will not vote on things that happened out of round
- i try to decide in a reasonable amount of time (>30 min decisions are a crime)
- ptiv is stupid (just win the c-i???)
#teaminfinitecondo
Random thoughts you can read while your partner does pre-round
You don't need to crack jokes or whatever for speaks, but if you do want to min-max speaks here's some thoughts
- i like creative strategies (cliche i know) - if your strategy has me thinking you put hours of research into this one subject (my favorite 2nr senior year was nuclear energy bad and junior year it was adv cp+crypto regs good or transhumanism)
- no such thing as too many adv cp planks
i never paid attention to this when i debated but making it easy to flow is really helpful especially considering I have terrible engineer handwriting
saying 'this is {ideology} propaganda' etc. is not a warrant or an implication
indicts are usually stupid unless its refuting something methodological/scientific
Stuff you can read while waiting for a decision
it seems like people aren't going for NATO bad which is understandable but i feel like the block could go ham but idk its not a great argument
Plano West '22, UT '26
he/him pronouns
PF for 2 years, WSD for 1 year, qualified to Nats & TOC
Please add both sona.om78@gmail.com & planowestdocs@googlegroups.com to email chains
Don't say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/etc, read content warnings for justified arguments, respect ppl's pronouns, and make sure that debate remains a safe space.
Key Tips:
1. Prioritize warranting & weighing throughout the round. I will only vote on arguments extended through both Summary and FF.
2. Treat me like a lay judge: I will vote on theory, Ks, prefiat args, etc. if properly explained, warranted, weighed, and implicated in the round
3. Frontline all offense in 2nd rebuttal or 1st summary to minimize the time skew and preserve fairness
4. I have no topic knowledge so please explain jargon and contextualize arguments
5. Signpost, collapse, send speech docs if you're spreading
6. Will average 29 speaks + extra for humor

Ask any specific questions before the round. Good luck y'all!
Debators can run any (I mean ANY) argument to me as to why they should win the round from the arguments that they are making.
PLEASE give me examples, solvency, and impact analysis in the round, as well as clashing with your opponents and on their arguments.
Tech/Flow/Tabula Judge, but I get skeptical in very blippy arguments so keep that in mind.


The issue of Tech/Truth happens when deciding clash/which impact worse since debaters didn’t do it themselves (cleaning the debate) (Ex: Ontological violence vs. nuclear war)



I hate intervening



I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…
For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”
For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...
Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".
SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW
Any questions? Ask me before round
Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments
Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has
Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism
Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,
Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics
Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism
Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche
Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan
Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx
Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism
Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille
Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio
Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle
Borders Gender Language, Subaltern
CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep
Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism
please put me on the chain Email:Rose.joel2003@gmail.com
I debated for 4 years at Lawrence high, I mostly did Fast kritical debate but I feel comfortable judging any style of debate
 
basic rules-
- I don't do hand shakes
- don't be mean for no reason if I think your being over the top rude it will reflect that on your speaks
- I will automatically vote you down for being discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or creating an unsafe debate space
- if you go top speed on anylitics put them in the speech doc or I'm likely to miss arguments
- you cant win a round without offense.
**TOC Update: List of people I am coaching or have coached in the past who are currently at TOC---Durham SA, King CP, Lynbrook SY, Millburn ST, Scripps Ranch AS, Academy Of Classical Christian Studies JM, Dulles NJ, Lake Highland Prep HL.
I did LD debate at LHS for four years. I qualified for the TOC twice and currently coach the Lexington Debate Team.
Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics, so send them.
Email: vmaan03@gmail.com
If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to email or messenger me.

General Things:
1) If you are unclear and as a result, I miss arguments it is your fault. I will yell clear when needed - if an argument was half a sentence and unclear in the 1AR/1NC assume it doesn't meet the litmus test for having a warrant... meaning I won't vote for a collapse on it.
2) I am not debating, so I don't have a right to tell you what you read. Please do and read what you like.
3) Truth over tech is wack - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true.
4) I have a low threshold for 1AR and 2AR extensions for dropped arguments - just mention the tag or interp - but I need explanations for its implications and applications on the flow.
5) Debates a game
6) I do not vote on ad hominems
7) I will boost speaks if you sit down early or/and take no prep only if you can still win.
---Varsity LD---
Quick Prefs
Theory - 1
Kritiks - 1
Phil - 2
Tricks - 3
Policy/LARP - 4
-
For specifics -
Tricks: I'm well versed - people give this style of debate a bad name by extending every dropped sentence and throwing crap at the wall with no weighing or implication - impact out a few well and explain why they justify a ballot.
Theory: No such thing as frivolous theory, reasonability is strategic if well justified, do standard weighing between multiple shells or I'll default substance. I'm not very well versed in grammar rules so err on the side of over-explanation. 1AR theory makes being aff so easy so read it lol. Yes, RVIs is a good argument.
Stock K's/Topical K's: Please err on the side of heavy LBL rather than reading a 5-minute overview with loads of embedded clash. I view the K as a philosophical argument so framing is important. Have a counter-interpretation to weigh the case and read case defense (extinction inevitable is smart) or else you'll lose. I'm open to VTL arguments, debate bad, ID pol tricks, K tricks (e.g. floating PIKs), and death good. K v K debates are fun as long as there is good impact calc, link analysis and examples.
Non T: I read a lot of these. I enjoy the "debate good-bad" debate. T Framework makes the game work though so have well developed impact turns.
Policy/LARP: Getting better at evaluating it.
Philosophy: I'm confident in evaluating this correctly. Please make framework interactions (hijacks are good). Don't shoehorn terrible offense just so you can read the Phil you want, you will probably lose. if you justify epistemic modesty, explain how I resolve the round correctly under it. I have a high threshold for winning extinction o/w against deontic theories - you probably won't win this if you lose util under epistemic confidence.
Pronouns: she/her
Experience: I am a college student and this is my first year judging LD but I was a traditional LD debater for 4 years.
I will be flowing the entire round so if I am not looking up at you don't assume I am not listening. I will do my best to provide in-depth ballots for each debater to help you understand my decision.
Tech Problems: If anyone in the round cuts out or disconnects time stops and it will resume once everyone is reconnected.
Speed: I can handle speed but if you chose to spread, share your case to this email: nswilliams2022@gmail.com 
Also, if there is contentious evidence in round or if evidence is called for I want it sent to me at that same email or in the file drop. 
General debate comments:
I have only debated/judged traditional LD so cut me some slack if you chose to run circuit arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.). But as long as you flesh them out I should be able to follow.
Framework: State your value and value criterion at the top of your case. I find it easier to follow cases where I know what I am weighing each contention under. I love to see a clash between opposing frameworks! If you both just agree on util it boils down to impact weighing (not necessarily a bad thing but it feels more like PF than LD).
If you have a super obscure framework make sure to flesh it out well and tell me how to weigh under it! 
Rebuttals: Before each rebuttal please give me an off-time road map of how you will be going down the flow. I love line by line but don't let your line by line distract from the main points of the debate and the overall bigger picture. 
Cross Ex: BE POLITE. This doesn't mean you can't cut off your opponent if they are rambling and avoiding answering your question but just don't be condescending or rude. I will take away speaker points if you are being disrespectful to your opponent. Talking over each other in an online tournament isn't helpful for anyone (especially the judge). 
Last speeches: Give me key voting issues in your last speech or crystallization of the round. AFF, I would prefer if you didn't go line by line in your last speech unless you think it's extremely necessary. 
If you have any other questions about this paradigm or in general please ask them before the round!!
If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.
General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.
I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.
I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.
Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.
LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.
PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.
I am an attorney who handles appeals, so I guess you could say that I am a professional debater.  I will judge your debate the same way that a judge decides an appeal.  I will identify the contentions, evaluate the arguments and evidence presented by both sides in support or in opposition of each contention, and then choose which side made the more persuasive case on each contention.  The side that wins the most contentions, wins the debate.
I should note that I strongly disapprove of the practice of spreading (or speaking very, very quickly).  The purpose of debate is to exchange ideas.  If a debater speaks so quickly that neither the judge nor the opposing party can understand them, we are no longer having a debate.  Please speak clearly, so that everyone can follow your arguments.
Hi, I am Darshan. I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.
Good Luck at the Tournament!
Michael Siller Paradigm
About Me: I have judged many high school public forum and middle school parliamentary debate tournaments. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.
Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:
(i) Identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.
(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly and focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.
(iii) Signposting, or signaling the parts of your presentation, is important both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence, or impact. It will help me better understand your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals.
(iv) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible.
(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.
"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged on how they address the assigned topic.
Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise and ability to think on your feet).
I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!
Updated Nov 2022
I competed for four years under Notre Dame High School (2014 - 2018), primarily in Parliamentary Debate and National Extemp. After 2018 I left the debate space and now judge on an ad hoc basis.
I am no longer capable of following speeding but still judge entirely on the flow, especially the last speeches from each team. That being said, call points of order.
Tell me the most important issue in the round and I'll vote there if I can. I will flow crossfire. Clear signposting will help both me and you. I love overviews and road maps.
I find links are most often the weakest part of any argument - give me a clear link story and I will give you your impacts. Weigh your impacts too. Please also remember to give me offense I can vote on.
On tech debate: If you don't say it's a priori, I'll probably avoid voting on it. I don't really like judging tech debate. That being said, I will be favorable to T shells where there is legitimate abuse (whatever the brightline for "legitimate" is, which I'll admit probably comes down to judge discretion). I don't like judging Kritiks, mostly because I think the base philosophy generally gets warped beyond repair.
Do not be exclusionary. Have fun!
I did debate for 4 years while I was in high school, primarily congressional debate and world schools debate. I look primarily for quantified data and good uses of rhetoric. Being rude to fellow competitors will not reflect well on you upon my ballot. I fully expect refutation after the first cycle or two of the round. When judging Pf or LD, I don’t particularly enjoy spreading unless you know you are speaking clearly.  I am looking for strong arguments and again heavily favor quantified evidence. I highly favor traditional LD.