debate-land/2023-paradigms huggingface dataset:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!