debate-land/2023-paradigms huggingface dataset:
*For Yale Invitational 2022
Background: I am currently a sophomore at Yale studying Economics, Politics, & Ethics. I debated public forum on the national circuit for NSU University School from 8th until 12th grade. I qualified to TOC, nationals, states, and made elimination rounds at many national circuit tournaments. I would consider myself a flow judge, but take that as you will since I have been removed from the community for a couple of years. 
General: I won't be timing speeches. It is up to you and your opponent to keep each other in check in terms of timing. Please be respectful. Debate is an amazing activity and being rude during rounds discourages people to do it. Your speaks will suffer if you are disrespectful and you probably won't win. There is a way to be assertive without being mean. I don't like theory or k's. I will vote on them if I have to, but I just don't like them. If I were you I would refrain from running either. Your job is to make my job easier to vote for you. The way to do that is to collapse and weigh. I beg of you. Don't go for your entire case, it just makes the entire debate messy.
Topic: I should not know more about the topic than you. The extent of my knowledge is reading a couple articles last night. However, me not being well versed in the topic does not mean that I won't understand the argument if you present it well. 
Cross ex: Again, just be respectful. Bonus speaks if you say something funny (or a Kanye reference). 
Summary: Anything that you mention in final focus and want me to vote on should be in summary. 
Evidence: Although I don't prefer it, I am fine with paraphrasing. Just don't misrepresent the evidence. I will only call for evidence if its validity is contested in the round and it's a major voting issue. I do encourage you to call for evidence from the other team that seems sketchy. 
Speed: Don't full-out spread. You are not meant to spread in PF. Speak fast if you want as long as I can clearly hear you. Just please don't spread.  
If you have any questions feel free to reach out. caleb.samson@yale.edu
I am the parent of a Varsity Public Forum debater at Bronx Science, an intellectual property attorney, and former university professor of sociology and education. I hold degrees in biology, sociology, and the law. You should consider me a flay judge.
I would appreciate your speaking at a reasonable pace to better enable me to understand your contentions and rebuttals. I value logical, well-warranted reasoning and analysis presented with clarity and precision. Signposting at the beginning of your speeches is also advised, especially during Summary and Final Focus. This will help me follow where you are going. Tell me clearly and precisely why I should vote for your side.
Finally, respect your opponents. Allow them to speak without constant interruption during Crossfire. I appreciate spirited advocacy but expect civility and decorum during the debate. Have fun!
Hi,
Welcome to Nationals
This is my first year as a judge, so I’m looking forward to judging at the National level for the first time. Please know that I am always listening, but I do look at my computer a lot during the round. I want to make sure I am giving fresh feedback, and I want to be sure that I am following the rules of your individual event if I haven’t judged your event before. In worst case scenarios, I can just go with my gut
1) I am completely opposed to “k” or KS” or any of the practice of progressive debate. If you try to change the topic, or move the topic to another item, I will drop you and give you zero speaker points. I cannot express how serious I am about this issue.
2) I do not disclose - ever. Please do not ask
3) Do not spread. If I can’t keep up with what you are saying, I will drop you. You will also lose all speaker points for this infraction too 
4) Never bring me anything about shell theory, or anything related to debating about the value of your event, or the importance of debate as a whole. You’ve made it this far using your event. I don’t buy that you’ve suddenly decided that the event that has gotten you this far is somehow thoroughly flawed. 
Additionally,
Please speak so that I can hear you. Enunciate and show your passion for your topic and event.
In terms of my philosophy, I feel that it is important to study all parts of the spectrum of political ideology to connect with all potential debaters. I consider both far left and far right theory. I just finished The Courage to be Free by Florida governor DeSantis, and I will be starting Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger by Traister next.
Finally, be respectful and try to have fun. Nobody is being given a college scholarship today. Perspective is important. I have three more degrees than you do. Don’t come into your round with me thinking that you’re going to show that you’re smarter than me.
I am a parent Judge. I have the most experience in congressional debate, judging many congressional rounds in the past two years. I have also judged extemp (limited), and several speech events.
I want to be persuaded by arguments and moved by speeches. Please limit rehash by listening to each other. I will look for creative arguments and strong sources. Did you do your homework on the topic. I will also look at the way you are addressing and using the space. I will look for passion, logic and creativity
For dramatic and humorous interpretation, I will be looking at character and use of space. In general there should be a dramatic arc and I look for detail in the characters. I find the better you can stick to Aristotle's unities the more effective you will be - unity of action, time, character, place, etc. This are my favorite events.
Let me know how you want time indicated and I will be happy to give you the appropriate signals.
Debate is communication and it should hit me in the head and the heart.
Please add me to the email chain dciocca@columbushs.com
I am a debate coach with experience judging at national tournaments at the novice and varsity levels. I prefer arguments to be well structured, articulated clearly (please no spreading but I can understand a considerably faster than conversational pace) and supported by convincing evidence. Please slow down on the tags so I can accurately flow. I don't mind listening to a unique or interesting argument but somehow you MUST link it back to the resolution if you are going to get my ballot.
Plans: All good, just make it relatable to the topic
Counter-plans: All good.
Theory: If there is significant violation or abuse in a round that warrants running theory, I will vote on it but generally not a fan of debating about debate.Ks: Willing to listen to a good K as long there is a really strong and convincing link back. Not a fan of generic links or links of omission as an excuse to run the K you want to run.DA: I'm fine with them, we are all good here
T: I think aff has an obligation to be somewhat topical and neg has the right to question whether aff is in fact being topical. That being said, while I generally will not vote on a straight RVI, running T for the sole purpose of creating a time suck for aff and then kicking it in the NR is not a strat that is going to sit well with me.
Conditional Arguments: Anything more than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and puts aff in an impossible situation in the 1AR. I will vote off “Condo bad” in these situations.
Disclosure: Seems like it gets run a lot for no purpose other than trying to get a cheap win. However, If the affirmative is reading a case that is so unique, such as a specific plan text, that the negative would have difficulty engaging with then disclosure is the fair thing to do.Feel free to ask me if clarification is needed
Georgetown '17
Stuyvesant '13
You should debate what you're best at. To me, the game of debate is more important than any particular argument. I think it's most important that debaters try to write the ballot in their final rebuttal and leave as few issues unresolved as possible. 
While I am doing work for Georgetown this year, I'm probably somewhat less familiar with the topic than you are, so please try to be clear and explain specific terms/acronyms. 
Be respectful of your opponent, partner, and judge. 
Counterplans
I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states. Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. 
Disasdvantages
"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical. 
Topicality 
Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic. 
Kritiks 
Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well thought out case arguments. 
Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels
As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient.
Hi! I’m Shehbaz, a senior studying Biochemistry and Public Health at UC Berkeley. I did Lincoln Douglas debate in high school mainly in the lay circuit. I have not done anything debate related for a very very long time and have no knowledge of current topics.
I am a lay judge. I’m not comfortable with K’s, T’s, and spreading. Please speak clearly, at a reasonable speed, and signpost your arguments so so can easily follow. 
Have fun and be respectful!
because of this article posted in may, i've wiped my paradigm until ~august (or until right wing attacks on niche subcultures die down). if you want to read my paradigm before mid-august, feel free to email me at lukebagdondebate@gmail.com.
my paradigm will remain relatively unchanged, so if you've seen it once, you don't need to check back constantly.
as always, you can email me for anything else, too: to chat, to hire me, to ask questions about college or adulting or debate or life. just trying to keep us all safe in these deeply horrific times.
Public Forum
I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.
Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.
Content:
-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons
-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate
-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange
-I do not care much about flowing everything through in summary and final focus. There are no auto-drops. It should mostly be used to clarify the round for me. If some point is not mentioned again in summary and final focus, then I will judge as that point stands from material in the first half. However, this usually means the weight of the point is up to my discretion
Stylistic:
-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude
Misc:
-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round
-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer
-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained
-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.
Parliamentary
I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.
I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you. As for theory or whatever, make it simple for me, I'm not a fan but I will always be happy to hear them out.
Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points.
Hi! I'm a sophomore at Stanford and competed on the PF national circuit as College Prep HO for 3 years. Add me to the email chain please:
hhekmat@stanford.edu
tldr - I'm a pretty standard tech judge, w/ tech > truth, and simply put the more work you do for me, the less likely I am to make a decision that you disagree with!
Heads up, I know damn near nothing about the topic lol so please spell out acronyms the first time around and all that to make sure there aren't any leaps you're taking that I miss.
For non substance arguments (e.g. theory, Ks, etc) while I've seen a fair amount of rounds and find them super interesting, I don't have a lot of direct experience myself. Basically just a quick disclaimer to proceed with caution and make your advocacy very clear for me if that's the direction the debate is headed, and it should hopefully make for an interesting round!
Tech > Truth
Make sure you weigh your arguments vs your opponents'! It'll make things a lot easier for me and make it so I don't have to intervene with my own biases/opinions.
An argument has to be fully extended in both summary and final focus for me to vote on it. That means every step of the link chain along with the impact should be in the back half of the round! If you're speaking 2nd, you also have to frontline it in 2nd rebuttal (respond to their responses from 1st rebuttal).
To re-emphasize, extending warrants is critical. Don't just throw out card names and dates. In fact, I'd rather you have warrants than just naming the piece of evidence from earlier in the round. Final focuses should have both though.
(like I said above...) Frontline in 2nd rebuttal!!
I'll vote off the flow based on what's said in speeches (not in cross). If you get a concession in cross, point it out in speech.
Defense is sticky, you can still make my job easier by extending it anyways. If you do want to read it in rebuttal and bring up that it was dropped later, please point out that defense is sticky as you implicate it however you will.
I won't call for cards unless you specifically ask me to within speeches.
Once again (because this is particularly important), PLEASE WEIGH!! Not just the numbers and impacts, but also the warrants, links, etc. Tell me why your argument is more likely, more clear, affects more people, and/or needs to be prioritized for any other reason.
Time yourselves please.
I'm ok with mild speed but definitely rusty so I might miss some things on the flow (especially online considering technical difficulties)... aka proceed at your own risk.
Be respectful, don't say anything hateful or offensive, and fill your time; you'll at least get a 28 from me if you do those things.
Best of luck, and have fun! Feel free to ask me any questions before and after the round, and even reach out to my email way after if you want :)
PF/LD:
E-mail: Hrenj@trinityprep.org
I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level and Public Forum at the High School level, but would be no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round). I want to be able to flow everything. To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered. I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.
Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses. If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases. Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.” Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg.
Congress:
-The most important things to me are delivery and content.
-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.
-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.
-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.
-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.
-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).
-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.
-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.
Put me on chain: sebastian.rabbini@gmail.com
I vote for the team that I think won.
CX ETHOS!!
The one thing you should know if you want my ballot is this: If you say something, defend it. I mean this in the fullest sense: Do not disavow arguments that you or your partner make in binding speeches and cross-examination periods, but rather defend them passionately and holistically. If you endorse any strategy, you should not just acknowledge but maintain its implications in all relevant realms of the debate. Do not run from an argument. The quickest way to lose in front of me is to be apprehensive about your own claims.
A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant, and evidence. Absent a clear extension of all three parts, I will not feel comfortable voting on the argument in question. Furthermore, arguments are not reducible to the evidence used to substantiate them. My evaluation of carded evidence starts from the analysis of the evidence given to me by the debaters, not my own reading of the cards.
Black debaters ask for a 30 and you will receive.
Huge fan of judge instruction in the 2nr/2ar.
Debated for Winston Churchill High School in LD and some policy. Debate at UT Austin in policy. Camps worked at: VBI, Baylor, UTNIF.
Email: jacoblugo101@gmail.com
Please have the email chain ready as soon as both opponents meet before the round.
I'm pretty open to whatever you want to do and am very open to questions considering my paradigm.
A few thoughts:
- I like debates that are about the topic. Even if it is slightly tangential to the topic, I'm open to it. Find debates filled with vacuous theory arguments or paragraphs of spikes/preempts are not in my interest.
- Don't look much at the doc unless necessary. I'm only flowing the words that you speak.
- Please slow down when reading analytics. Many speed through them and I am unable to catch every word.
- I'm pretty expressive. My face is probably a good indicator of where the debate is going.
- If I'm absolutely unsure of what is going on/no arguments have been made, I'm most likely going to err neg.
- It may not seem like it, but I pay close attention to CX and auto to CX being binding.