debate-land/flow-paradigms huggingface dataset:
Hello everyone!My name is Timothy Gunawan and I'm a student at Duke University As an American living abroad in Indonesia, I am inexperienced in full LD-format debate and will therefore not be too knowledgeable about the specifics of the debate format. I am, however, experienced in numerous other forms of debate with extensive experience in Model United Nations, British Parliamentary Debate, and American Moot Court. As a result, my preferences are as follows:
 

 I will focus on the content and quality of the debate, focusing less on how well you follow the procedures of the debate and more on whether or not you actually address the question at hand.
 I tend to take fairly extensive notes and will demarcate where certain arguments end and others begin. Be ready to signpost and ensure that your arguments have a clear, cogent structure.
 While I am not particularly harsh when addressing speaking fluency, I ask that all participants ensure that they slow their pace of speaking - speed-debating / "spreading" is not something I will look kindly upon.
 I hope to see measured, nuanced, and substantive debate between both sides but I also expect sides to be serious and respectful to one another at the very minimum. Give the topic and competition the respect it deserves.
 Good luck and have fun! Looking forward to seeing what everyone has to offer (and learning more about the LD circuit at large!)
Claire Park (she/they)
 Email: claireparkdebate@gmail.com
 Short Version
 - Read whatever you want
 - tech = truth
 - I like good evidence, I like spins more
 - "status quo is always an option" means judge kick
 - Judge direction is always good
 I prefer to evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate, and I can vote for any argument. I think slight judge intervention is inevitable, but l do my very best to limit it as much as I can.
 Online debating
 - If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know
 - My camera will be on, if it is off I am not ready
 Background Info
 - Georgetown '25: not debating
  - Major: Science, Technology, and International Affairs concentrating in Security, especially with AI.
 - Notre Dame ‘21: 2N/1A
 Case
 Please use your 1AC
 Disadvantages
 Turns case is good
 Impact calculus is close to essential
 Topicality
 Case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me
 Usually, competing interpretations > reasonability
 Counterplans
 As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and tricky counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge.
 Kritiks
 Honestly, you can read any K in front of me
 Specific links can only help you
 K affs
 The aff
 - I'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better
 - I'm more inclined to say that you get a perm
 the neg [overview]
 Framework [neg]
 - Same thing as topicality portion
 - I've voted for framework and I've voted against framework - as long as you debate it well I'm all for it
 K v K
 - My favorite debates to judge when done well, and my least favorite when done messily
 Theory
 - Similar to the topicality paradigm
 - I don't really have a strong opinion on condo
 - I'm inclined to think that perf con isn't a voting issue
 Miscellaneous
 *I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so
 *Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend the argument. Don't just point out it's dropped
 - I don't really have that many strong opinions on debate that'll affect the decision. I prefer to be convinced of your argument despite my opinion.
 SPEECH PARADIGM
 wsd & extemp
 I've judged only some wsd & speech, BUT I have done some debates in wsd and know a bit about speech and understand the structure. Honestly, just debate, argue, and convince well and I will judge to the best of my abilities.
I am able to flow speed, but if I can't understand you- I will just not flow it.
 I don't care if you're mean as long as it's not personally mean. Attack the arguments, not the person themselves.
 DO NOT STEAL PREP or I will dock points from you and feel obligated to vote for the other team.
 DO NOT ASK FOR CARDS if you aren't going to use it somehow in your next speech. It's so annoying and wastes my time. I will also dock points and feel obligated to vote for the other team. BUT, with that being said, ask for cards if you think your opponent is lying. If you don't have the card, I will dock points. Know your case, and don't waste my time.
 I am currently in debate, so I am caught up on arguments; run whatever you want.
 I'm not familiar with policy strategies, so please don't run those if you would like a chance at winning.
 I would consider myself a flow judge, so speaking pretty doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Just make sure your arguments are cleanly extended, so I can vote on them.
 I love heated crossfires, so make it spicy!
 Tell me why you win in your summary and in your final focus, make it super clear why I need to vote for you. If you don't tell me what to vote on, I'll vote on what I think is the most important.
 Speaker points should be pretty good unless you do something to tank them.
 Don't stress too much and do your best!
 Copied JaLeigha Kambeitz partly as my inspo, and I love my bae Isaac Mazariegos!!!
Meghan Clark (she/her)
 Experience:
 –competed in LD on the Texas UIL circuit
 –coached LD for 7 years, policy for 5, also on the Texas UIL circuit
 –currently coach PF for Vines High School
  
 PF:
 --I am a fairly typical flay judge. 
 --Truth over tech. I do not particularly like kritiks or other non-resolution based arguments (not a huge fan of progressive debate). Don’t run theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, etc. - I have zero interest in judging this. I strongly dislike frivolous theory arguments and tricks. Don’t run them.
 --Make sure that you extend your arguments and signpost clearly. No sticky defense.
 --I care a good deal about weighing impacts in the back half of the round. Make sure you do this. Don’t introduce new arguments in the second half of the round, and I don’t want arguments that consist of three blippy arguments with buzzwords. I would vastly prefer substantive weighing of impacts. I generally default to probability over magnitude.
 --I care about quality rather than quantity of evidence. You must have clear taglines for your evidence. Don’t paraphrase.
 --Make sure you are courteous to opponents and don’t speak over them during crossfire. I expect professionalism, respect and civility towards me and towards your opponents. If you are verbally or non-verbally showing disrespect towards your opponents or me, expect to lose speaker points. It goes without saying that you should not be racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/etc. in any way during the round. 
 --I do not like spreading. PF should be accessible to a wide audience, and spreading makes that difficult. Speak at a normal rate of speed if you expect me to flow your argument. Extreme speed will most likely result in lower speaks. If I call “clear,” slow down.
 --In final focus, make the case for why you deserve my vote - don’t demand my vote.
 --Strike me if you’re reading a meme or social experiment case. 
 --Stick to the time structure - no skipping grand cross. 
 --If a card is heavily disputed during round, I will call for it.
I'll evaluate any argument you run as long as you warrant it properly. I lean tech > truth on everything and if you point out technical concessions I'll drop arguments accordingly. Be respectful to your opponents (banter is fine just don't be bigoted or cuss them out) and have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions after the round, I'm here to help.
 Email is ChefBoyardini@gmail.com, yes I want to be on the email chain
I have judged Lincoln Douglas for one year., although I have assisted with judging for Lincoln Douglas for three years. I have not participated in debate . I taught for thirty-nine years. In addition, I was co-owner of a media company that specialized in legal depositions. My primary directive in the company was the recording of objections for the depositions, as such, I am well aware of the crux of of a valid argument. I will be flowing during the debate, and prefer a 8/9 speed but will accept a speed that is comfortable for the debater. I will be noting research based arguments.
Did 4 years of PF at Montville.
 You can consider me flow but i haven't judged for a bit and have no topic knowledge so it would be better to treat me as a lay judge, but I will still do my best to flow whatever.
 You should be writing my ballot in final; please tell me why you win and warrant out those reasons and tell me why it matters (impacts, weighing). Can and should include defense but you should be winning on your side of the flow (or turns). I think first summary should have some defense with 3 minute summaries. Don't bring up new args in final, they should've been in summary.
 I wont flow cross but might listen to it; if something important happens in crossfire, bring it up in a speech. If you want me to call a card, tell me in speech and why it matters.
 pls no tech (theory, Ks, etc) ill prob auto drop u
Glenbrooks:
 Experience: Two years of policy in high school, in third year of APDA/BP in college at UChicago.
 Theory: It's annoying, I will vote on it if necessary but will be looking for other places to vote, so be convincing if you do run it.
 I am tech > truth, but please still substantiate and warrant your arguments, if they are not warranted then it will reflect in speaks and decision and will impact how the round is weighed. Dropped arguments are absolutely conceded, but make them good arguments to begin with. Crazy arguments are fine if you give warrants (e.g. you must convince me that the U.S. has one billion nukes, instead of simply asserting it). I will not vote on good arguments for which warrants were not given if I can help it.
 Evidence: I am of the mind that evidence should support your arguments, they should not be your arguments. That is, you can say "X will happen because Y source says Z occurs, and Z causes X." This is a fully fleshed out argument, and then you can weigh X against other impacts. Obviously the way your arguments and evidence is constructed will probably vary a lot, and that's fine. Being convincing is the most important part so this is not a hard and fast rule.
 Framework: Give one if you want, otherwise I just use cost-benefit analysis. Conceded frameworks are taken as true and I will use them to vote on the round; if you're giving a counter framework then you must prove why yours is better.
 Generally: My average speaks is a 28. Collapse strategically and on what you win on; my ballot is decided by what are in the final speeches. If you talk about something in those speeches, I take that as a sign that you want me to vote on that issue. Some speed is ok if you're clear, if I can't hear then the things I didn't hear just won't be on my flow. Do not spread. Speech docs is fine, just send them. On crossfire, I am not flowing but I am listening, and if you want to use a crossfire response in your speech then by all means please do.
 Please don't just say the name of a card. Have a very brief summary of what the card says because that is how I remember it.
 And weigh, weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh
 Be nice and respectful, use the proper pronouns, give content warnings where needed. Just be a decent person please; not being a decent person will be reflected in speaks and/or in decision. And of course, have fun :)
 Email: sdjohnson@uchicago.edu
Rex Kidd
 Add me to the email chain - rexwkidd@outlook.com
 University of Houston Debate 2025
  
 Online Debate 
 Speed - I am fine with spreading through the body of cards, but if you want something flowed (taglines, authors, analytics, etc.) you need to slow down, -75%-60% of top speed allowing me pen time to keep up with the debate.
 Microphone quality- if I am unable to understand you due to microphone quality, I will give multiple “clear” warnings, but if the issue isnt resolved I simply will stop flowing.
  
 I welcome arguments in all their forms. I mean this quite literally. Denounce modernity or impact turn innovation - within the parameters of debate, I don't care. My only request: whatever form yours may take, please be considerate and take the time to outline for me the claim of the argument, the warrants to support it, and the impacts of its significance. Even better, organize these arguments so the ideas are unambiguously clear; and at the end of the debate tell me in no uncertain terms why you win and why they lose. At the end of the day, I think debate is an enjoyable game with lasting subjective consequences. What these consequences are, and the extent to which they can become desirable or malignant, is open to interpretation. I believe this responsibility to interpret ultimately resides with the debaters, not the judge. I won't superimpose. I'll try my best to simply evaluate. Have fun!
  
 Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.
Emory ’26, Calvert Hall ’22, yes email chain- lcsrlobo@gmail.com
 This used to be much longer, but I abbreviated lots of it because it wasn’t super relevant to my decision calculus. Do line-by-line, judge instruction, warrant arguments, and narrow the debate as it progresses. Any ideological preference can be overcome by good debating. I really don’t want to vote for dropped, arbitrary theory arguments. If you introduce an ethics violation you must stake the debate on it. Tech > truth on most everything that isn’t death good or clearly problematic.
 AFFs: good case defense is a lost art, will reward with high speaks. 2AC/1AR should fully answer case arguments with warrants not blips. 
 T: persuaded by reasonability when impact/internal link differentials are tiny, less receptive when big- “good is good enough” alone doesn’t make much sense. Include caselists, do impact comparison, and make answer defensive arguments contextual to your interp.
 CPs: No judge kick unless told to. Evidence quality and impacted deficits matter lots. No advocate is likely not a reason to reject the team but probably justify new responses. Links less is usually unpersuasive, sufficiency framing usually is. Condo- numerical interps are arbitrary, logic + risk aversion make sense to me, and fairness probably outweighs education. Other theory is usually resolved with substantive arguments. 
 DAs: relative risk precedes and determines turns case- so a timeframe first or link alone turns case claim would help circumvent this. Cards aren’t necessary if logical defense beats a DA, but I’d prefer ev if you have it. 
 Ks: I want framework to be as much of a wash as possible- “no Ks” and “you link you lose” are equally unpersuasive, so winning alt solves, impact outweighs, or links turn case claims are the path of least resistance in front of mem, but that's not to say I won't vote on framework, especially if large swaths of offense are dropped/mis-answered. Links should be somewhat unique, am more persuaded by “aff outweighs” than the perm/link turn. I find myself voting for the team that best compartmentalizes the moving parts of the debate.
 Planless: Anything can be an impact (aff or neg) contingent on comparison and turns case. Extremely persuaded by SSD and TVA when contextualized to AFF offense. It’s hard to toe the line between C/I + link turn and impact turn, so picking one or the other is best. KvK debates almost always come down to the perm, so win a theoretical objection (meh) or material DA (better) to it. Debate prob shapes subjectivity but individual rounds don’t.
Above all else, I am interested in you showing me that you have listened to the opponent’s argument and shown me why your team has the superior plan, be it how we should orient ourselves in terms of our values, or how a government agency should carry out a specific proposal. I will be listening especially closely to the moments of clash. I will flow your arguments to the best of my ability and quickly summarize who I think won the debate and why. I will be weighing logos over pathos, but I want to hear a bit of both.
 Secondly, I want to hear appropriate modulation in tone, pacing, and volume. I am interested in clarity. As an English teacher, I am probably more interested in these elements of rhetoric and style then the average judge.
 I want to hear a clear moral philosophy guiding your value debates and all arguments, be they based on value, policy, or history.
 Across Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum, I want to hear credible sources, compelling warrants, and impacts that appeal to actual governing bodies and issues in the real world.
 I will be listening closely to the clash. A winner will be the person who shows mastery over all the arguments in the topic’s orbit, and who puts that mastery to work by either developing a compelling and unique case or showing why the status quo and your counter-plan offer a better path forward.
 Don’t be a jerk. I will be docking points if you are unnecessarily rude to the opposition. I have little tolerance for bigotry of any kind. Let’s make debate an activity that welcomes everyone, no matter their gender, socio-economic standing, race, or sexual orientation.
 Some notes on specific events.
 

 

 Policy & Public Forum - While I understand it is the norm to “spread,” I am more interested in hearing quality evidence and arguments rather than quantity. If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I won’t consider the contention.
 

 

 Lincoln-Douglas - I’m aware that some like to steer the argument always toward their philosophical area of expertise. If you are interested in K-debate, please be prepared to explain your positions in plain English.
 

 

 Parliamentary - Be respectful; I’m not really interested in hearing any heckling. If it seems you are using POIs to disrupt, I will dock points. I care mostly that you are able to listen closely and counter the opponent’s argument than your ability to summarize research.
 

 

 Speech Events - I will place a higher value on style. I like a bit of humor, but be careful to not be offensive.
Revision Date: 09/13/2017
 Affiliation: University of Houston
 It's been awhile since I've been involved in the activity, but there are some things that I still maintain:
 Topicality: It's a prior question, especially for the early season. I normally view topicality through a framework of competing interpretations. Negatives who want to go for topicality should have be able to tell (1) under their interpretation what affirmatives actually are topical and (2) what arguments the negative couldn't read. 
 Disadvantages: What's not to like? Do the evidence comparison for me. Tell me why a disad outweighs/turns case and vice versa, or else I might impose my own worldview. Relevant sidebar: Saying "our evidence postdates" isn't enough. Make it contextual, and tell me how a sequence of events interact with one another. 
 Counterplans: There should probably be a solvency advocate and a well articulated net benefit. 
 Critiques: I used to be comfortable with critiques, but arguably far less now because I've been removed from the activity. If you want to win, your critique should be able to articulate why the critique turns case, and an alternative that resolves the links. 
 Framework/Topicality: I don't particularly care for these debates. That being said, I understand why they happen. Affirmatives should probably read a topical plan in front of me just to avoid these questions. 
 Conditionality is also probably good, unless there are 4 (arbitrary number) different positions.
Background: I am a Chief Operations Officer of a food service company. While I myself did not participate in debate, with a son who previously was the captain of a prestigious high school debate team, I have an intimate understanding of the processes of public forum debate. I am a parent judge who will always take every round of debate seriously and will do my best to judge fairly and honestly.
 My expectations of debaters: I expect clarity above all else:
 Clarity in speech is a requirement for the best points in the world mean nothing if they can't be understood. Speak clearly and in a pace that allows me as a judge to both follow your argument and also to annotate keys points.
 Clarity in one's point of view is essential when trying to convince someone of your opinion. If you waver or do not present your argument clearly and concisely, it becomes more difficult to rule in your favor. I want to know precisely what your opinions are by the end of the round. Your goal after all is to persuade me to agree with that point of view.
 Clarity for the rules is also important. I do not want to have to enforce timing and prep rules. Know the rules and self enforce them but also be civil to one another and handle all matters as a gentle person would.
Experience: I'm a first year at Yale who did LD for 4 years in high school. I primarily competed on the local level, and at a few circuit tournaments. I competed in Public Forum during middle school, and have judged rounds on my local circuit.
 PF Paradigm:
 Speed: Reasonable. Decently faster than conversational speed, but everything should be clear.
 Weighing: Do it, especially at the end.
 Speaks: I generally start at a 28.3 or so. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.2-0.5.
 Brand new arguments in final speeches will be ignored and ding your speaks.
 Be kind to your opponent.
 Don't run racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. arguments.
  
 LD Paradigm:
 Arguments I like: Unless otherwise mentioned in my next section, I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you want to run. I’m most familiar with Policy, CPs, DAs, and traditional arguments, but have also run Phil, Ks and theory in several rounds. Just make sure you explain your points clearly, and EXTEND your arguments across speeches. Be sure to collapse and weigh in your last speech.
 I don’t like: Blippy arguments and tricks. Dense arguments that neither I nor your opponent understands due to your intentional obfuscation. Being mean to your opponent (e.g. rudeness, or spreading out an obvious novice) will likely result in a low speak win at best. Clearly racist, xenophobic, etc. arguments will be a loss. Meme cases are allowed, but my threshold for your opponent responding to them is fairly low, unless both debaters decide to run meme cases.
 Speed: I’m pretty comfortable with speed for all but the fastest debaters IRL. If the debate is on zoom, you might want to consider some combination of speaking slower/clearer than normal, signposting well, or sending the doc. If your internet is questionable at times, I strongly encourage you to record with your phone.
 Speaks: I generally start at a 28.3 or so. If it’s a notably messy win, it could go low as a 27/27.5. If you do a really solid job with weighing and speaking overall, you can easily get a 29. A 30 is generally reserved for rounds that are incredibly memorable in their quality. If you make me laugh, you get +0.2-0.5.
What I am looking for while judging debates:
 The first thing that I look for in a debate is that the debaters clearly lay out their arguments. Without clearly stating the argument, it is difficult to understand the points that are being debated. Many arguments have nuanced issues that can be easily confused.
 Being respectful of the opposing position is also crucial. While it is important to be competitive, there is no reason to be rude to the person you are competing against. The facts and the arguments should make the debate.
 Well-research facts and statistics are another critical point. Without sound, well-researched arguments a debate can quickly devolve into bickering.
 Listening to an opposing argument during the debate is instrumental in scoring well. The best debaters are able to use their own research to refute specific arguments that are made by the opposing team. This can only be done when the debaters are paying close attention to what their opponents are saying, not just waiting for a chance to speak.
hi !! i'm lilly - I debated for Northland Christian from 2019-2022. I qualled to the TOC my senior year, got 2nd speaker/made it to octos, and bid/broke at a few tournaments.
 EMAIL CHAIN: lillynicole643@gmail.com
 

 Defaults
 Tech > Truth
 Fairness > Education
 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory
 T/Theory > K
 Comparative Worlds
 No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD
 (obviously my opinion on these can be swayed if u make the arg - these are j defaults)
 

 HOT FLAMING Ls
 Racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/anything else that makes the debate space unsafe
 clipping
 

 SHORTCUTS
 1 - T/Theory
 1 - LARP
 2/3 - Trix
 3 - Phil
 4 - Ks
 

 T/THEORY
 What I mostly debated and am most comfortable with
 Pls explain semantics
 Friv theory is good but the threshold for responses is lowered
 

 LARP
 Good for all types of positions + enjoy cheaty counterplans
 weighhhhh oh my godddd
 In depth scenario analysis in rebuttals/a display of understanding of plan nuances will make your speaks happy
 debated heg good v bad debates way too often and now kind of enjoy IR debates
 

 TRIX
 are for kids but i will evaluate
 need. warrants.
 threshold for responses is pretty low tbh
 your speaks prob won't be fantastic
 

 PHIL
 it's not that I don't understand I just don't spend that much time thinking about this
 pretty good understanding of: util, kant, hobbes, prag, ilaw
 anything else please please explain
 

 Ks
 good for k affs but also pretty receptive to t-fw
 the argument i spent the least amount of time with in debate
 alt explanations/analysis are extremely important
 willing to vote on anything but the burden is on you to explain your literature
 

 SPEAKS
 30 - breaking @TOC
 29 - late elims of any given nat circuit tournament
 28 - you'll prob make it to a bubble round
 27 - well youre def here and you def said words
 26 - you said something shitty/just had really bad strat/incomprehensive after warned
 25 - racist/sexist/we had a problem in the round
 

 if u include a haiku ill boost ur speaks by .3 :)
I did policy debate for seven years in high school and college. I coached college for a few years afterwards (MSU, UMich, and Harvard). I don't have an exhaustive profile so please ask questions before the debate if there is anything you want to know. I am comfortable with policy, critical, or other styles of debate. I will vote on a wide range of arguments. I am a relatively flow-centric judge. I tend to use evidence to mostly just to resolve factual disputes when they occur, so probably weigh cards less than usual than just like a well reasoned analytic.
 I do my best to let the participants debate and minimize my own judgement of particular arguments (to the extent possible). Having said that, I reserve the right to not vote for something I think is total nonsense or against behavior I think is unethical.
I am a PF parent, a beginning judge and also a Finance executive (highly analytical, primarily with numbers - but certainly also with issues, evidence and logic). After reading over many other PF judges' paradigms in order to evaluate my own preferences, I'll summarize:
 1. Clarity, organization / signposts and flow are critical - remember that I have not heard your particular construction of support for your position before so in order to follow along it needs to be woven together tightly.
 2. Evidence and a very sound logical foundation for your case are critical - to me these are table stakes upon which speaking ability and style rest. If big leaps don't make sense, they aren't going to resonate. Sometimes simple and succinct is better than overly complex.
 3. PF Debate implies . . . debate - your ability to continuously support your position by really listening to, processing, analyzing and responding (professionally) to your opponents' arguments while demonstrating a very deep and nuanced understanding of the issues will be a key differentiator.
 4. "Cute" underdeveloped extensions/arguments wont win with me. To borrow from another judge paradigm "Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event - so do that with some humor and panache.(Bilal Butt)"
 SCORING: (also borrowed - thank you Bilal and Mollie Clark)
 30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
 29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
 28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
 27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
 26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
 25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
 Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
Maria Cook (she/her)
 I would like to be on the email chain please: mmariacook@gmail.com
 I debated policy in high school for four years, ending with the water topic.
 General Thoughts– I try to be as tab as possible. However, I think everyone inevitably comes in with some preconceived notions about debate. Please don’t feel like you have to adapt to my preferences--you should do whatever you do best. But if what you do best happens to be judge adaptation, here are some of my thoughts:
 Framework – Please try to engage each other's interpretations and arguments instead of just extending your own. Look to my comments on topicality if you're interested in how I try to evaluate standards-based debate.
 Case Debate– I think the case debate is really under-utilized -- case-specific strategies that integrate intelligent on-case arguments into the 1NC can be really compelling.
 DA/CPs– The more specific the better, but I’ll vote on anything.
 Critiques– I did mostly critical debate, but please don't assume that I'm familiar with your literature base -- I'll evaluate your arguments as if I'm hearing the literature for the first time. I think critiques are most persuasive when they interact explicitly with the 1AC/2AC, so I appreciate specific 2NC link analysis (doesn’t necessarily need to be carded) that points to arguments being made in the 1AC/2AC, and I like 2NC attempts to gain in roads to the case by suggesting the alternative is a necessary precondition to case solvency. I like critical affirmatives so long as you explain the significance of voting affirmative.
 Topicality– My threshold for T is the same as any other type of argument, but like all other positions, there are central issues that the 2NR needs to resolve in order for me to vote on T. If neither team articulates a framework within which I can vote, then I’ll default to competing interpretations. Assuming I’m voting in a competing interpretations framework, I think of standards as external impacts to a vote for a given team’s interpretation. That means comparative impact calculus has a huge place in a 2NR that’s going for T. Explain to me what debate looks like if I vote for your interpretation and why that vision should be preferred to one that would allow for cases like the affirmative.
 Theory – Please engage the other team's arguments -- don't just read blocks and talk past one another. If you expect to win on theory (independently), you should probably give me some kind of substantive reason why a given violation merits rejection of the team, and not just the argument.
 Nontraditional Debate– As long as I’m provided with a standard for evaluation that I feel both teams can reasonably be expected to meet, you can do whatever you'd like.
 In Round Decorum– Don’t be mean. Try to have fun.
 Speed– As long as you’re clear, I’m fine with speed.
 Speaker Points– 28.5 is average. I'll add points for things like clarity and efficiency, and I'll subtract points for particularly messy debating.If you have any specific questions, please ask! Feel free to email me after round with questions :)
Shannon Feerick-Hillenbrand 
 2n/1a
 Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart'22
 Brown University '26
 Add me to the chain please - shannon_feerick-hillenbrand@brown.edu
 Read whatever you are most comfortable with, I'd rather see a debate where you are confident than one where you read something to impress me.
 I have judged a handful of rounds on this topic but I do not have the type of topic knowledge I would if I was debating so please explain arguments and don’t assume I have heard them before.
 TLDR - Tech>truth, Clarity>speed, Quality>quantity, Debate is a game, Fairness is an impact, Turns case are amazing, Be nice, Have fun!
 T - I like T and think it can often be the best strategic option if the aff makes it very difficult to find a link to your generics. I ran T a lot on both the cjr and water topics but I don't know if there are good arguments for NATO. That being said, I default to competing interpretations - if you can convince me that your interpretation creates better debates and have good enough evidence - I will vote for you.
 Counterplans - I don't know anything about specific cp's on the NATO topic but I will read the evidence and defer to the team that explained their evidence better. Process CP and PICs have a place on this topic but you have to defend them against theory. If you tell me to judge kick the cp I will unless the aff tells me not to.
 Theory - I will probably reject the argument and not the team except for conditionality. Answer each other's arguments and contextualize them to the debate - please don't just read generic blocks. IF you want to go for condo on the aff it needs to be a large part of the 1ar!
 Disads - I love a good DA and CP or DA and case strat. Politics, T, topic DAs and CPs were most of my 2nrs during my career. Turns the case arguments are great but they should be supported by evidence and have logical warrants. In the 1ar please try to make an answer to these otherwise they can come back to bite you. Impact calculus is a must! For the aff, attack the link and internal link starting in 1nc cross x.
 Ks - I don't love k v. policy but if you can contextualize your link to the aff and explain how your alt actually solves or why your framework is preferable I will vote for you. That being said I don't think people actually meet this threshold that often. I generally think that the aff should get to weigh their impacts but I will listen if you say they can't. All that being said I am not the best judge for the k.
 K affs - I honestly don't really like them and err very neg on T USFG - that being said if you read one and you win the debate I will still vote for you but you have to explain why no other model of debate can resolve your impacts.
 Case - engage with the case - framing arguments on BOTH sides should be contextualized to answer the other team's arguments. advantages are usually not awesome point out logical inconsistencies in cross ex and rehighlight evidence if it doesn't support the thesis of the advantage (you must read rehighlightings)
I am a volunteer lay judge. I've judged a variety of rounds, however, keep in mind that I'm still a parent. Spreading is frowned upon solely because it's hard for me to make sure I put everything on my flow - I might have to stop flowing just to be able to understand your arguments. I'll let you know if you're going too fast for me. 
  
 Lincoln Douglas: 
 LD Debate is my favorite debate form to judge. I have a good amount of experience in LD debate, and I enjoy judging it. 
 I believe that LD is a very framework-oriented debate. Make sure you can tie your arguments back to your framework, as well as having some cards that support yours. I infer the word ought in the topic to mean a moral obligation, however, good reasoning for any particular framework can change my mind. If you're running frameworks such as Kant or other literature ones, please have card(s) explaining them as I am not familiar with them.
 In general, I expect to see a polite and smooth debate from both sides. My speaker points start from 26 and go up from there. I like to see emotion, emphasis, facial expressions, and projection in your speaking. Mumbling and spreading will definitely be reflected in speaker points. Hand gestures are welcome, but don't go overboard and don't cover your face. I'd appreciate it if you kept your cameras on throughout the round, but if you have a technical issue, that's OK too. Don't be mean or insulting in any way to your opponent. 
 I love to judge Lincoln Douglas, and have met so many wonderful debaters in tournaments. If my feedback can sound negative, it's just that I can see so much potential in your future in the debate world. Keep on going debaters, and shoot for the stars!
I am the currently an Instructional Facilitator for Broward County Public Schools on the county-wide debate program. Prior to my current position I was the debate coach for 10 years at Coral Springs High School in Coral Springs, FL.I am generally open to any type or style of argument, as long as it is relevant and topical. Explain to me why you have upheld your standard (which can be as traditional or creative as you wish, as long as you establish why it is topical), and/or (preferably "and") your opponent has not upheld theirs, and you will win the round. I will judge the round based off of my flow, but that does not mean that dropped arguments are an automatic disqualification. The weighing of arguments is incredibly important to me, and if I judge the dropped argument to be a comparatively minor argument, then I won't vote based on that argument.The only arguments that I generally find unpersuasive are arguments that are completely non-topical and have no relevance to the resolution or the specific cases being debated. Any theory you decide to run should be in response to actual, legitimate abuse from your opponent. Other than that, be creative and have fun. Just make sure you tie it into the resolution and/or your opponent's case.I will not explicitly factor speed into my decision. However, I am not terrific at understanding speed. Pay attention to whether or not I'm flowing. If I'm not flowing, I'm not understanding you. I won't say "CLEAR"; it's up to you to be understandable.I award speaker points based on general clarity (Which does not necessarily mean speed. You can be fast and clear.) and the quality of support for your arguments.
 Justin Weaver, Instructional Facilitator for Secondary Debate, Broward County Public Schools
I have been coaching and judging High School debate since 2003, though I have spent the better part of the last decade in tabrooms, so don't get to judge as much as I used to. :-)
 If I had to classify myself, I would say that I am a pretty traditional judge. I am not a huge fan of Ks, because for the most part, I feel like people run Ks as bad DAs, and not a true Ks.
 I cannot count the number of times I have had a student ask me "do you vote on [fill in the blank]"? It honestly depends. I have voted on a K, I have voted on T, I have voted on solvency, PICs, etc., but that doesn't mean I always will. There is no way for me to predict the arguments that are going into the round I am about to see. I can say that, in general, I will vote on almost anything if you make a good case for it! I want YOU to tell me what is the most important and tell me WHY. If you leave it up to me, that is a dangerous place to be.
 Important things to keep in mind in every round.1) If your taglines are not clear and slow enough for me to flow, I won't be able to flow them. If I can't flow it, I can't vote on it. I am fine if you want to speed through your cards, but I need to be able to follow your case.
 2) I like to see clash within a debate. If there is no clash, then I have to decide what is most important. You need to tell me, and don't forget the WHY!
 That leads me to...
 3) I LOVE voting issues. They should clarify your view of the debate, and why you believe that you have won the round.
I encourage debaters to have quality over quantity with clear logic and evidence to substantiate their arguments that lead to logical conclusions. Please avoid speaking at a super-human pace and in general keep it simple. 
 As I would like to focus and listen to the debaters, please be prepared to time your team and that of your competitor's.
 I would like to emphasize the importance of professional decorum. Please do not be toxic or exclusionary in any round as this will lead to dropping you or your points. Please avoid speaking over one another during CF. 
  
 Best of Luck and have fun!
I debated at the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022). 2-time TOC qualifier, 2-time NDT qualifier, cleared at the NDT.
 

 In brief, assume I know nothing about the topic. You do you. Debate is a game but how you play it is up to you. Make the debate simple to flow and explain the impact of winning your arguments. Please be entertaining and pretty please, do impact calculus.
 

 Policy Paradigm
 Framework and Topicality: I have been on both sides of this debate. I think a TVA is useful but must be topical. Non-traditional affirmatives must define how I ought to evaluate solvency and conversely, teams going for topicality and/or framework need to define their impacts in a tangible manner. In short, fairness can be an impact but I find it more strategic to explain fairness as an internal link to research/arg refinement.
 Kritiks: With exceptions, I generally evaluate the consequences of plan implementation versus alternative solvency unless an alternative framework for judge evaluation is won. A negative framework is incredibly useful as a way to evaluate links. I enjoy links that simply impact turn to the affirmative. I think more affirmative teams should impact turn. When I vote neg, it is generally because of tricks such as impact uniqueness. When I vote aff, it is generally on an impact turn to links or impact calc. Moreover, your alt or model of debate must solve the links you go for. Please do not assume things like "heg is good" or "the game is unethical" but rather provide a reason and impact to these large claims.
 Counterplans: Too many advantage counterplans link to the net benefit. I strongly believe it is useful to explain if your net benefit is a yes/no binary question or a sliding scale [ do not just say this but explain how the link to the net benefit makes this framing argument function ]. Perm "do both" means "both things at the same time". If you want it to mean more, then explain it as such.
 Theory: You need a counter-interpretation that solves your offense. You need offense. You need impact calc. Please do not go for bad theory arguments if you are winning substance. If conditionality is dropped, you will lose if the argument has a claim, warrant, and implication.
 Topicality: I do not like topicality debates. In short, have good evidence and explain debates under your version of the topic looks like. Limits for limits sake is not compelling. I have not judged many debates on this topic, please explain the trajectory of the topic.
 Speaker Points: Please start the round on time. Email chain should be sent as soon as the round starts. It's just that easy. Be convincing, be clear, and be technical. Good luck.
 

 Public Forum Paradigm
 Please do not spread and explain your arguments as if to a lay audience. I likely have little understanding of your topic and would greatly appreciate simplicity. I do not recommend extending three million link turns to your opponents' claims as that would make the debate quite messy. 
 

 Put me on the email chain --- reznikdeb8@gmail.com
This is my 4th year as a parent judge of an LD debater.
 Like most parent judges, I favor traditional lay debate. So know your audience. If you are going to use technical terms, be sure to explain what they mean
 Clarity and persuasion are what i am looking for. If you want me to be able to flow your speech, I would advise against spreading. In your final speech, please lay out the reasons why I should vote for you. This means weighing AND explaining the weighing justifications. make my job easy!
 **Do not confuse me for someone who understands technical terms and such just because I have some here - my son wrote this for me :)
I am a policy centered cross-x judge. I am pretty open to most arguments.
 Topicality-I like topicality debate but I am looking for examples of cases that the other team would allow. I am looking for specific arguments that you will not be able to run. 
 Disadvantages-Make sure they are unique and the links are specific. Do impact calculus and compare the impacts. 
 Counterplans-I like counterplan debate. I like all types and am open to counterplan theory but just don't go too fast and be specific.
 Kritiks-Sure but I am not the most up to date on kritiks. I sometimes don't understand really dense theory and philosophy. I do prefer specific and timely links that interact with the assumptions of the case over generic links of omission.
 Case Debate-You probably are going to need this and it needs to specific and recent.
Dear Debaters,
 I am a lay judge, but I will provide the following guidance:
 Please consider the amount of evidence that you need to present to support your contention or your refutation of your opponent's contentions. Being able to clearly and logically present your arguments is as important as the volume of data that support your argument.
 Being able to present your data without rushing too much is a fine balance.
 Good luck and have fun.
 Ram Miller
National Tournament Paradigm Available through National Tournament Site.
 Beyond the filled out card NSDA requires, I'm interested in accessible debate. Don't gatekeep the activity by making it harder to understand. (This is especially applies to K's, some kinds of Theory, speed/spread, and unnecessary jargon that clutters the debate space). Every time you use the phrase "cold concedes", J Scott Wunn sheds another tear.
 Debate IS an educational communication activity first and foremost. To that end, passing a card to your opponents and not reading it aloud, or any other version of the debate being "on paper but not verbal" (which includes reading at a pace that exceeds public retention of ideas) is a self-defeating practice in the activity that I strongly discourage. If you're right, but you can't articulate it in a way someone who has never watched a debate before can appreciate, it doesn't matter!
 If you can't trust your partner to give their speech without your constant input, don't do a team debate. I want to vote for good teams, not someone trying to carry or someone who is too controlling to maintain decorum.
 In every form of debate, there should be detailed voting issues!
 If you cannot appear civil, it doesn't matter if you're right in a space like this. People don't want to listen to shouting. Decorum is a part of debate, always.
 More words don't make better arguments.