debate-land/flow-paradigms huggingface dataset:
Michael Siller Paradigm
 About Me: I have judged many high school public forum and middle school parliamentary debate tournaments. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.
 Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:
 (i) Identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.
 (ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly and focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.
 (iii) Signposting, or signaling the parts of your presentation, is important both while setting up your contentions and when rebutting your opponent's contentions, evidence, or impact. It will help me better understand your case and cross-reference it to the rebuttals.
 (iv) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible.
 (iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.
 "Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged on how they address the assigned topic.
 Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise and ability to think on your feet).
 I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!
Updated Nov 2022
 I competed for four years under Notre Dame High School (2014 - 2018), primarily in Parliamentary Debate and National Extemp. After 2018 I left the debate space and now judge on an ad hoc basis.
 I am no longer capable of following speeding but still judge entirely on the flow, especially the last speeches from each team. That being said, call points of order.
 Tell me the most important issue in the round and I'll vote there if I can. I will flow crossfire. Clear signposting will help both me and you. I love overviews and road maps.
 I find links are most often the weakest part of any argument - give me a clear link story and I will give you your impacts. Weigh your impacts too. Please also remember to give me offense I can vote on.
 On tech debate: If you don't say it's a priori, I'll probably avoid voting on it. I don't really like judging tech debate. That being said, I will be favorable to T shells where there is legitimate abuse (whatever the brightline for "legitimate" is, which I'll admit probably comes down to judge discretion). I don't like judging Kritiks, mostly because I think the base philosophy generally gets warped beyond repair.
 Do not be exclusionary. Have fun!
I did debate for 4 years while I was in high school, primarily congressional debate and world schools debate. I look primarily for quantified data and good uses of rhetoric. Being rude to fellow competitors will not reflect well on you upon my ballot. I fully expect refutation after the first cycle or two of the round. When judging Pf or LD, I don’t particularly enjoy spreading unless you know you are speaking clearly. I am looking for strong arguments and again heavily favor quantified evidence. I highly favor traditional LD.
I am an experienced parent judge (3+ years) and most familiar with traditional debate but if it is within the rules I will do my best to judge it fairly. I am interested in hearing what debaters have to say so please be mindful of your speed. If one debater’s argument goes unchallenged then I will assume it is valid. You'll get dropped and the appropriate tournament officials will be notified if you say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Good luck and have fun!
Bryan Choi
 Add me on email chains: bryanc0502@gmail.com
 General:
 Good debating can overturn any preference I explain below. I'll vote for who wins the debate.
 It doesn’t matter if an argument was “conceded” or is a “voting issue”. Explain why that matters.
 I come into the round with very few rigid preconceptions about how the round should go and I will try to intervene as little as possible.
 Experience:
 I have debated LD for 5 years, ranging from lay to circuit, so speed shouldn’t be a problem as long as I’m part of the email chain. I have judged public forum and parliamentary from middle school to high school level as well, but at the end of the day I am most comfortable with LD.
 Framework:
 I like to see clash between frameworks. If there is not a single word in the entire debate that mentions anything about fw, I will default to util. When you're extending your framework in your 1AR or 2NR, don't just say "extend the Pappas card"; you should explain why that card supports the idea of your framework being the more apt one for the round.
 DA/CPs:
 I like to see all parts of the DA being pretty clear. Make sure you impact out all your arguments and you weigh in the 2NR. I like creative counterplans quite a bit, but don't go too far. Counterplans should solve the case and avoid the link to the DA. Conditionality is usually good, but 3 or more is pushing it, and I’ll be more easily persuaded by theory arguments.
 K’s:
 I personally didn’t read a lot of K’s as a debater, but I will vote for it regardless. I think that the link should be very clear to the aff, and don’t give me trash alts that just say “reject the aff”. Please make it very clear how the alt actually addresses the problem that you are pointing out with the kritik.
 T/Theory:
 If you’re one of the debaters who comes into a round knowing you’re going to collapse to theory, please strike me.
 If there is abuse in the round, for sure run theory, but that doesn’t warrant running friv theory just to get a ballot. Also, I have been noticing that everyone just defaults to “drop the debater”, but don’t make every single one of theory shells with drop the debater, especially when the abuse doesn’t really warrant it.
 Personally believe that when judges have to think for a long time, that just means the debaters did not do good enough jobs. Be sure you give clear judge directions in your later speeches and tell me the really important issues and arguments you are using to win the round.
 Won’t vote on tricks.
I am an LD debater from the distant past (2009-2012). I did 4 years of high school debate and coached Palo Alto for 4 years as well.
 I'm not up to date with all the fashionable arguments and I'm a little rusty in terms of flowing speed, so go easy on me and explain your args. Other than that, I don't have strong preferences. I'm happy to go along with whatever the debaters tell me to do. If I had to pick a favorite style, I'd pick framework debate with strong warrants and good explanation of how fw interacts with the arguments in the round.
I am a lay judge who has judged at a few tournaments this year, primarily PF debates.
 Rule # 1: Be civil and polite to each other, respect boundariesRule # 2: See Rule #1
 Rule # 3: Speak slow and steady, do not rush yourself, and do your best.
 Strongly advise that you stay within the prescribed time limits. And yes, I will deduct points if that doesn't happen.
 Off time roadmaps are appreciated. Eye contacts (not awkward ones), hand gestures and voice modulations would it make more engaging for me.
 I do take a copious amount of notes during the round. I intend to provide 3 levels of feedback: overall, individual, and round-specific at the end of every round (if possible within 15 minutes of the finish)
chain- harsan998@gmail.com
 kentucky '26 debater
 nato: absolutely zero niche topic knowledge, or on community consensus/the meta rn.
 T/L-
 -You do you. For the most part, I think the burden is on me to adapt to you and not vice-versa.
 -I'll say "clear" if I need to.
 -I think debate is a game and generally should be fun. I'll award good speaks if it's obvious that you're passionate.
 -Tech > Truth
 -I'll only be voting on the knowledge I get from being in that round.
 -I'm not gonna vote on things done outside of a round.
 -In order for me to vote on an argument, I must be able to explain it back to you in a coherent manner. That means quick and blippy arguments have an uphill battle when I am resolving the round.
 -everything below is just my own opinion to preface my thought process as to resolving a round. It isn't an inherent bias coming into the round, and I am willing to have my mind changed on anything written below.
 -Also, I haven't updated the blurb below since the CJR topic. I don't particularly care to either. Again, just do you.
 K affs- I'd like to see some engagement with the topic. While I am familiar with most lit bases, don't assume I know the creaks of your specific lit base. Good explanations go a long way, especially with high theory. In terms of framework debates, I think debate is a game that has a terminal impact on education. I am predispositioned to see and/or vote on a model of debate that maximizes clash and fruitful engagement, however this isn't a set in stone statement and could go both ways.
 I generally dislike having to flow 20 different das on the T-FW flow that all functionally say the same thing.
 Policy- I think there should be some good [actor] key warrants. If you run a soft left aff, I'll resolve the framing flow first (unless the neg goes for sufficiency framing), however I don't generally think spending a lot of time on framing is the most strategic use of your time.
 T- I love a good T debate as much as the next person. I'm looking for good evidence quality and comparison. Generally, I'll vote for whichever side presents the better model of debate.
 I love when 1NRs (or 2ncs) actually give a carded caselist that preempts or answers arguments on said caselist getting destroyed by states/agent counterplans.
 CP- I need to explicitly hear judge kick arguments being made in order for me to do it / not do it.
 Agent CP / PTX DA- I understand the need for these, given how wack the current state of the topic is. However, I'd still like to see some actual engagement with the aff. Whether that be turns case analysis or CP solves better.
 K- I'm fine with anything, just as long as good explanations are being given. I generally prefer a K that turns the aff in someway and provides an alternative that solves both.
 Theory- I love a good theory debate. I generally dislike blippy theory shells if it becomes relevant in the debate.
Hi whoever I'm Ryan!
 Currently a first-year at Yale; I debated PF for Fairmont Prep for four years and traveled/zoomed to Kentucky four times.
 Slow flow is my ideal debate.
 Read that again!
 Please go slow :/
 Debate to win, but debate jovially (when possible) and kindly (always).
 Logistically...
 - Don't worry about adding me to an email chain. I'll let you know if I need to see a card at the end of round.
 - Less offense is easier to evaluate.
 - I follow the weighing to figure out where to vote.
 - I'll presume the team that lost the flip unless presumption arguments are read.
 - I don't need any specific structures in responses to progressive arguments. If you read theory, don't go for substance. I evaluate RVI's.
 - If you say an argument or card is conceded, and it's not, I will be very sad.
 If you have any question, ask!
I have experience judging LD and PF in the last two years.
 · I prefer a slower debate, it allows for a more involved, persuasive, and all-around better style of speaking and debating. Debaters should make sure that their speech is clear and understandable.
 · A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
 · Rebuttals should address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
 · Citations as evidence are preferred. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples.
 · Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support.
 · The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a person’s style or flaws of method.
 · To win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It’s hard to be in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent.
 In summary, putting forth good arguments at a reasonable and understanding pace, answering opponents arguments with better evidence, logical and staying on topic will be the criteria for the winner of the round.
yes, i do want to be on the email chain, my email is hannahritner97@gmail.com. any questions can be directed there!
 about me:
 i'm a policy debater who graduated from the university of puget sound. most of my debate career has been focused on k debate. as someone who thinks about debate as a space to think about radical alternatives to our existing world, i enjoy performative arguments and debates about liberation. that being said i think it's my job as a judge to adapt to you. debate what you care about and i'll do my best to evaluate you.
 i take rhetorical violence very seriously and it is important to me that everyone respect each other in the round. if you say something violent to me or another debater, it will show in your speaks and could lose you the round.
 other things:
 frame my ballot for me! the last speech on both aff and neg should tell me why you have won this debate, why the other team has lost (eg. impact comparison). i'm willing to evaluate "non-traditional" frames if you tell me why i should. otherwise, i will default to offense/defense.
 i like analytics much better than reading cards the whole debate. read the cards you need to read, but especially after the two constructive speeches you should be doing mostly analytic work. i find it much more persuading when you are analyzing an argument in the context of the debate rather than reading a card.
 i tend to think rotb's are silly and that the only rotb is to judge who did the better debating but again, if you have claims, warrants, and evidence for why your rotb should be evaluated i'll evaluate it.
 i think presumption flips neg unless the neg reads a counterplan at which point the neg is no longer defending the squo. neg has to convince me why the aff makes the status quo worse or would be worse than the squo.
 lastly, debate every speech like you're wining and care about what you're reading- debate should be fun!
In high school, I mainly debated in World Schools and British Parliamentary, but I also had a decently long history with Public Forum debate (though I haven't competed in the format for a good 4 years now). Hopefully I can finally break out of this coercive cycle of debate in university, but I'm likely to continue debating in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats.
 As a result of my Worlds background, I tend to prefer the use of analysis (i.e. reasons why claims made in the debate are likely/unlikely to be true) over that of evidence or examples when it comes to justifying claims. This means that I am much less likely to credit arguments that rely solely on a specific historic/current event to justify its validity. To quote the prophet of World Schools debating Matthew Weibin Song, "One drawback of relying too heavily on examples is that such evidence can be circumstantial and fail to apply to many other cases."
 Please WEIGH. It is very rare for teams to be able to completely discredit all of their opponents' argumentation, or cleanly win every clash that existed during a round. Obviously this doesn't mean that you shouldn't offensively engage with your opponents' material, but I would also appreciate it if teams would add an additional layer of analysis that proves why their strongest lines of argumentation are more important than your opponents' strongest lines of argumentation. This gives me much more clarity when it comes to the adjudication of the round, especially during messy debates where it is unclear how effective the rebuttal of both teams were.
 Excited to hear an amazing round everyone :)
I am currently a freshman at Brown University.
 I debated public forum for four years I am very well versed in debate jargon and terminology. Some key things:
 

 I am fine with speed, but if I miss something due to your speed it is your fault.
 I will flow your arguments, but please signpost it makes my job a lot easier.
 I will not make assumptions for you, I want you to walk me there and be specific.
 Comparative weighing is important. Tell me why you win, not why your opponent loses.
 Warrant everything out!
 Please implicate! This includes turns or responses. I do not want to just hear "this is wrong because Reuters 22 says so" tell me why!!!!
 Have fun! As formal as debate is the goal is to have fun. Be kind to your opponents, treat them as equals. Do not be condescending
 Don't card dump.
 Compare sources. If you have opposing cards tell me why I should vote for yours. ie. postdating, sample size, etc.
 NO THEORY, Ks, Critiques or anything like that. I am here to see you debate the topic, not 1 offs.
 Extra speaks for Drake references.
 Include me on email chains.
 Feel free to ask anymore questions during round or email me at max.gelber123@gmail.com
General:
 - Pronouns: he/him
 - I have experience judging/(kinda) coaching in CD, PF, and LD
 - If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).
 - Be kind and have fun!
 - Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.
 Congress:
 - IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.
 - Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!
 - If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.
 - I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.
 PF:
 - Keep me in the email chain, please!
 - Organization is more important than ever!
 - IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.
 - Don't make assumptions, go through every step.
 - If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.
 LD:
 - I prefer a traditional debate
 - Keep spreading to a minimum but if you must, it should still be clear.
 - Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.
 - Organization is more important than ever!
 - IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.
 - Don't make assumptions, go through every step.
 - If your opponent drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.
I am a parent judge, and was never a debater myself. I have judged both Parli and OPOFO.
 Your approach with me should be different than with an experienced judge. I appreciate outlines/roadmaps. I also appreciate you speaking clearly and concisely. I will not draw conclusions, or make connections, rather I expect you to make them for me.
 I will drop speaker points if there's any sexist, racist, homophobic, or ableist actions or rhetoric.
 Be polite. Have fun.
Email: acmrquez@gmail.com
 Affiliations: downtown magnets high school & Cal debate 
 For the most part I decide the debate through tech over truth. The baseline for speaker points is 28.5. Please don’t say anything racism, sexist, homophobic, ect…
 Kaffs: I tend to think that having a strong link to the topic is better and more persuasive. If you want to run a kaff that doesn’t have a link then it would be best to give me reason for why that is important. Especially for the theory of power it is important to me that you explain the warrants behind the claims that you make. 
 Framework: You should definitely run it and I tend to think that whoever has a better articulation of their impacts tends to win the framework debate. I default that procedural fairness is an internal link to education but can be convinced otherwise. Giving examples when it comes to debating limits and grounds is especially key for me and for my emulation if the aff does explode limits. You should spend time and flush out your arguments beyond light extensions of the 1nc. 
 T: I tend to default to which interpretation creates better resolutional debates however can be convinced otherwise. An important note here is that a lot of teams should spend more time comparing impacts and giving me reasons why their model of debate is better than only focusing on standards. 
 DA/CP: Having great evidence is cool but you should spend more time impacting out why it matters. Oftentimes I think that there should be more work done on the internal links of your scenarios or explaining the process of the CP. 
 Have fun and do what you do best! :)
I am a parent PF judge and am an attorney and legal consultant.
 Please make your framework clear and, when necessary, address why your framework should prevail. When you clash with your opponents, I will judge your case based on how you weigh your arguments' significance relative to your opponents' arguments.
 Please do not spread (or talk too quickly). Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.
 Citations without explanations or explanations without citations are not persuasive. Please do not use debate jargon.
 Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause. I encourage tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in cross fire.
 I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. The final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (including why I should vote for your side by explaining why the other side's arguments fail and why yours don't.)
Hello Everyone.
 

 This is the first debate I have ever judged. I am here as a chaperone. Please, do not speak fast, do not go off topic, do not run "tech" arguments - I will not be able to evaluate the round properly if you do, given my lack of experience. Be aware that I am a first time judge, and use this opportunity to work on delivering clear, concise, simple arguments, otherwise you run the risk of me not understanding what you are trying to say.
Hello- I am looking forward to the tournament. Here's my paradigm: 
 - I am a parent judge
 - I didn't debate in high school or college but I have judged a number of high school tournaments virtually
 - I have judged a variety of events but primarily parli
 - I am lawyer and appreciate concise and cohesive arguments
 - Please speak at a reasonable pace - I take notes
 - Please avoid debate jargon
 - I appreciate sign posting or you telling me where you are in your argument e.g. My first contention is ...
  - I don't care for dramatics, theatrics or exaggeration- be substantively persuasive
 - Be respectful not aggressive
 - Have fun!
Speaks
 1) 30 speaks if you bring me good food
 2) +.5 speaks per minute of speech not used (make sure to let me know).
 3) +.5 speaks if you do ad-libs in between each flow
 4) Unique debate pickup line in the doc
 5) Making the round funny
 6) Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
 7) Sending all pre-written analytics in the doc
 Email: yutom.622@gmail.com
 I default not flowing unless said in the speech
 Hey, I'm Tommy. I debated for Dulles and graduated in 2022. I qualified to the TOC twice. I primarily read tricks and theory.
 I will vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact. I'm bad at flowing.
 1 - Theory/T
 1/2 - Phil/Tricks
 3/4 - Larp/K
 Theory: Probably what I'm best at judging. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. I don't care how frivolous your shell is.
 Phil: I only read Pragmatism and Kant, but I'm familiar with skepticism, hobbes, contracts, Levinas, etc. Over explaining always helps. TJFs are strategic. So is permissibility and presumption. Religious philosophy is really cool.
 LARP: I only did it when I had to. Weighing is good. Assume I know nothing about the topic or any current events though.
 Kritiks: I have an okay understanding of stock kritiks but nothing more than that. I think K tricks are strategic.
 Tricks: I'm bad at flowing. Too many can be a hassle. When done correctly they are strategic.
 Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent, please do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time!
Please add me to the email chain: debate.zhu@gmail.com
 Public Forum
 General Note
 This event was created as an accessible alternative to policy debate, and I will judge as such. I will value and consider the arguments presented on the flow; however, I am not the judge to present blippy, under-developed, card-dumps to.
 Round structure
 1) Make sure to not go overtime. I will stop flowing and not consider any arguments presented after your time has elapsed.
 2) Defense is not sticky. You should be extending all of your arguments in each round. If you do not carry through your arguments into each speech I will not magically carry it over for you.
 3) Second rebuttal should respond to the arguments presented in first rebuttal as well as your opponents case.
 4) No new in the two.
 5) Read theory and kritiks at your own risk; however, I am partial towards Schopenhauer.
 6) Impacts are essential. It is your responsibility to make it clear why your arguments are important and which ones should decide the outcome of the round. If you do not have an impact, you do not have a reason for me to value the argument.
 7) If there are competing frameworks or definitions, it is important to establish at the top of the speech which interpretation I should be taking and why. Do not just extend through ink without any nuance.
 8) In a similar vein, it is essential that you compare your arguments. A simple repetition of your arguments is not nearly as convincing as clear weighing that shows why I should choose your side.
 9) I will not intervene unless you leave me absolutely no choice but to end up picking a side without any help from the debaters. I do not want to do this and you do not want me to do this so make sure you have clear and comparative weighing throughout the debate.
 Views on evidence
 1) I will approach the round tabula rasa, so it is your responsibility to make it clear when your opponents are misrepresenting their evidence.
 2) I am ok with paraphrasing; however, misrepresentation will be reflected in your speaks and round result.
 3) Have your evidence ready. If your opponents ask you for evidence you should be able to produce it within a minute. After that you are wasting my time and your opponents time.
 4) A last name and year is not a sufficient presentation of your evidence. I expect to hear at least the full name, month, year, and organization. Additional qualifications of the author are also recommended.
I've competed in PF, Informative and Impromptu. I've ghosted in Congress rounds and am familiar with most types of speech and debate. As a judge, I like signposting and good arguments with heavy evidence support. I'd prefer that you don't spread; I shouldn't have trouble trying to flow your round. In PF rounds, specifically, I'm looking for clear signposting, heavily supported arguments, clear impact emphasis attached to your arguments, and scope. Tell me why you should win the round. Consider me a lay judge.
 For IVIs and K’s: I, 9.5 times out of 10, will ignore them for the vote. Again, consider me a lay judge.
Policy
 I still believe debate is a communication event. I do not like rounds consisting of throwing as much as humanly possible at the proverbial wall and hoping that something will stick. Debaters should focus on well-reasoned arguments that actually apply to the case being debated. If I can't understand what is being debated because of speed or because it isn't clearly explained, I will not consider it in my decision. I do not prefer kritiks or other random theory arguments. I will vote as a stock issues or policy maker judge. 
 LD
 I am a traditional LD judge. I like to hear a value and contentions that apply to the value and the resolution. Communication is important to me. Debaters should weigh arguments and tell me why they should win the round. 
 Public Forum
 Debaters should communicate and run arguments that clash with those of the other team. I flow arguments and do consider drops, but debaters need to point out which issues are most important. The final focus for each team should be where the debaters frame the round and tell me why I should vote for them. I expect debaters to be polite.
Please put me on the email chain: sammywinchesterwalsh@gmail.com.
 I debated for Northside for four years and graduated in 2022. I am not debating in college.
 I lean policy, but I will vote on anything if you are winning it.
 Clash is especially important, go a level further than the tag, tell me why you are right and they are wrong.
 Please do not forget about Case. 
 T and Theory - If you lose any T or theory arguments that are ran against you, I will usually vote against you. Though the standards of the argument need to be impacted out to be considered. For example "They lost T." is not enough for me to vote on, you need to go a level.
 DAs and CPs - Very comfortable with them, go for it.
 Policy Aff v. K - As I lean policy, if you are running a K, turns case arguments work best with me. On framework for both sides, make sure it is consistent. Please try not to change your interpretation or standards throughout the round. Unless it is an integral part of the K to ignore Case, don't concede or forget about case in the 2NR. I am decently comfortable with the standard Ks, but anything super specific or academic, you will need to make it make sense to me. I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately.
 K Aff - I will not vote on something I do not understand by the end of the round. If you are going for it, you should be able to explain it adequately. Especially since academic K's are about learning. However, if you're framing is based on being confused, you're going to need to do some explanation there, but if you win it, I will vote accordingly. Arguments against K Affs that I like are other Ks and Cede the Political, though anything can work.
I am a trial attorney that has been practicing law since 2000. I never participated in speech or debate competitions as a high school or college student, but through the past twenty years and law school I have been actively arguing on behalf of my clients. I have two children with several years of speech and debate experience so I know the hard work and commitment that it takes to be prepared for these tournaments. 
 Important to Me
 Debate:
 I want to understand your arguments. Do not speak super fast as I don't understand what you are saying. I would like for you to speak at a normal pace and provide the facts and resources that support your arguments. Simple vocabulary words are great. A 6th grade student should be able to understand your arguments and all the words you use. Listen to your opponents arguments and state specifically why you disagree with them. Do not restate your argument as a reply to the opponents positions. I want to feel like you believe in your argument and really understand it. I assume you have requested your opponents arguments prior to the round, and if you have not, then you should do so. 
 Speech
 Relax and have fun. I don't know anything about your topic so I am looking forward to hearing it. If you need help with timing, please let me know.
Tech>truth
 Put me on email chain amn321@lehigh.edu
 I debated LD in the mid-80s and then policy in both high school and college and have judged at several tournaments in the last three years.
 Nothing is off limits for me except trix and speed is OK with articulation; since I haven't been listening to spread for about 20 years (until 2-3 years ago) it is really nice if you slow down for tags and major arguments and then spread through the evidence; it is also better speaking form. The winning debater will make my job easy by writing my ballot. I may not be up to speed on all of the current terms and approaches, so please avoid the use of jargon and define terms. I can follow logic. Anything can be argued (i.e. theory) as long as it is clearly explained and there is proof that it should be argued. I like creativity, but the logic has to be solid.
 The winning debater will make clear arguments, with clear links, consistent with the winning the framework. Rebuttal arguments should state an argument with clear proof; simply stating an argument does not prove it, unless its a well known fact like x person is president of x state.
 Debaters who earn high speaker points will state a road map, follow the road map, use logic to prove arguments supported by evidence (not just refer to cards), use their speech time wisely, and treat their opponent and judge with respect. As mentioned above, slowing down a bit for tags and major arguments will improve both my flow and your speaker points.
email: mike.del.brown@gmail.com
 Make your most compelling and coherent case. Less is more. Don't make a flurry of weak arguments just to suck time from your opponents and then drop them. Mostly this just sucks my motivation to vote for you.
 Provide clear signposts, be articulate, and enunciate so I can easily flow your case. Pauses, emphasis, and eye contact on key points are powerful tools. I flow from your speech, not the email chain. Don't bet that I won't miss something; use your delivery to stack the odds in your favor.
 I'm so old that I was around when spreading was spewing, and spewing was cool. I'm increasingly convinced that a monotone, hyperventilated list of bullet points and mumbled reading of evidence is the death of compelling, argumentation. Rather than throw out as many arguments as possible, find the weakest part of your opponent's argument, and put a big, persuasive hole in it.
 Neg conditionality isn't a get out of jail free card. If you are making a bunch of arguments, I'll look at them together. For example, if you run a counterplan that violates your K, you are telling me not to vote for either.
 Explain your arguments. Don't assume I understand the jargon or theory. Even if I do understand it, don't use jargon as a shorthand substitute for effectively explaining the substance your argument.
 The starting point is a debate on the resolution. If you'd prefer to read poetry, discuss the pointlessness of existence, or posit that debating the topic is a bad idea, then you will have to be extra persuasive to win.
 Frame the debate and justify your arguments. If you don't make it clear why an argument is worth voting for, then I probably won’t.
 Respect your opponents and have fun - enjoy the experience, learn something new, and make friends!
 Or, ignore all of this, and spend the next week complaining about your judge!
grantmstringham@gmail.com - please add me to any email chain for the round if there is one, if not no biggie :)
 History: This will be my second time officially judging on the high school level, having judged LD at various levels in the past. At Reagan HS I participated in both LD and Extemporaneous Speaking for all four years. In LD I mainly ran Heg arguments with an occasional PIC or Cap K thrown in.
 Cool With: Anything explained clearly and persuasively. Ks, DAs/As, CPs, PICs, performance, whatever you want to read as long as I can understand it and given a reason by you to care about it.
 Not Cool With: Spreading through all the not explained, complicated stuff. I'm talking specifically about theory arguments. If you spread through a theory shell I'm likely not going to clearly understand the argument as I have not really ran much theory in the past. If you want to run theory, go for it, just make sure that it makes sense and you present it clearly. Also, make sure to make the debate space a place of inclusion. Don't be rude, don't spread if your opponent is uncomfortable with it, etc. Let debate be in a sense a 'home' for both you and your opponent.
 Flex Prep and Open CX: If your opponent is cool with it, I'm cool with it. Rule applies for basically anything similar in the round.
 I may end up judging for PF, if I do know that I will base my decision mainly off of impact calc. You need to give me a reason to care about the position. If you want to read the more LD/CX type arguments here, go for it. Please though, please, please, please extend your impacts through the round.
 If you have any questions or want something clarified, feel free to email me or ask before the round. Can't wait!
Public Forum:
 I am a tech>truth and flow judge. I am okay with spreading during your speeches however as I am a flow judge I will vote on arguments that I have on my flow sheet, with that being said please be mindful of the clarity of your speech and arguments. Please have your cards ready when asked to present by the team so that there is no unnecessary time wasted. Make sure to not only focus on the argument presented but also the deliverance of your speeches. Give me an off-the-clock roadmap before going into a speech.
Howard Frey (he/him) Langley High School
 Background: I was a policy debater for four years of high school (1983-87) and one year of college (1987-88) and coached at the University of Michigan and American University summer programs. I debated on the national circuit--I participated in many round-robins, reached the finals of the Harvard Debate Tournament, and won New York States. But it has been a while.
 Note: I am relatively new to PF. Help me with the format.
 Key Issues:
 

 Respect and inclusivity are essential to a proper debate round. Attacking your opponents--in CX or as part of an argument--will not help you win.
 Spreading is OK (it was part of policy debate) but it can get in the way of a good PF round. Keep an eye on whether I am following; if you choose speed over clarity, you do so at your own risk. It is hard to convincingly weigh while spreading.
 Tech will outweigh truth; it's an artificial environment.
 I will always choose quality of argumentation over quality of presentation and am not afraid to give low point wins.
 I am willing to listen to kritiks, but it will need to be very clear and well-argued to convince me to consider it in my decision.
 I most likely will hear out but not consider theory in my decision. See bullet 1.
 Nothing is more important in the round than weighing. If you don't do it, I will, and you don't want to leave it up to me.
 Clash is the next most important component. I will reward those who argue directly with the other team.
Experience/Background
 I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach at the middle school and high school levels (modified parliamentary and public forum) with nearly 20 years of coaching experience. I'm also the founder of a non-profit debate league in California (OCDL).
 Win/Loss
 In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me. I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish.
 Speaker Scores
 Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation. I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).
  
 *Please avoid fast talking, hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents and off time roadmaps.
  
 Education
 B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)
 M.A Education (San Diego State University)
 California State Credentials: Social Studies, English Language Arts, Administration Services
 Current Employment
 Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)
 Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)
Justicewdebate@gmail.com
 My goal is to judge debates with the least intervention possible. This does not mean I do not have ideological convictions, but those can easily be overridden by good technical argumentation and execution. Debate is hard and I appreciate the time and effort debaters put into the activity. Given this, I have zero interest judging debates about anything other than efficacy of political advocacies. Treating ad hominems and ethics challenges as case negs is a terrible norm for the community and can almost always be resolved without using character assassinations to get the ballot.
I am a parent judge and judged mostly PF since 2020 including some TOC bid tournaments this year. But please strike me if you don’t want deal with lay judge 
 1) I am OK with above average speed but please don’t speak too fast
 2) Key points clear and well supported
 3) Make good and logical arguments
 4) Be respectful to your opponents and try to not interrupt too much during crossfire.
 Have fun and good luck!
Debated at Greenhill for 4 years. Debated at the University of Kentucky for a year and a half.
  
 Do your thing, I think (almost) all styles of and content in debate can be done well and made interesting. The (almost) there is to indicate that you shouldn't say things that are clearly harmful towards any specific group of people.
  
 The only knowledge/experience I have on this topic was watching a lecture online in preparation for judging this tournament. I did debate on the NATO college topic so I have more familiarity with information related to that part of the topic.
  
 Please put me on the chain: chriseckert3@gmail.com
My name is Christine DeStefano, and I am a lay judge. Although I do not have much experience with LD debate, I am a researcher by profession. Therefore, I will be able to flow. Additionally, through my work in qualitative research, I have been formally trained in recognizing my own implicit bias.
 I request that you do not spread. Also, I prefer fact over technical, so please be able to support your contentions with references. I also want you to know that I take LD Debate very seriously. I have a child that does debate, and I know first-hand how hard each and every one of you work. I try to work just as hard educating myself to become a better judge. Looking forward to a great debate!
Hello! I spent three years competing for Point Loma Nazarene University in NPDA, and have about seven years of total experience debating. 
  
 TL;DR: I was a K and theory debater while competing, so I am the perfect judge for you to run your projects and experiment with unique positions, but ultimately, my most important value in debate is tech>truth. I will vote on the flow and observe our round in a vacuum. 
 Speed: go as fast as you can maintain your clarity. I generally dislike spreading aggressively online especially if your internet or software/hardware isn't great.
 Kritik: I strongly believe in the educational benefits of K debate. I won't get into what I prefer, what arguments I tend to vote on, because the only thing I will value in a K debate is the flow. If you can outframe your opponent, win the perm, or are granted your link story, these are places I am likely to vote, but my vote is completely dependent on the flow of the round rather than my opinion about which K I buy or not.
 T/Framework: My appreciation for the K does not mean that I won't vote on framework principally, I think framework equipped with critical standards is convincing offense. I also think it's a worthy time suck, and at the end of the day, everything in debate is about a balance between strategy and education. 
 Conditionality: I go either way really, run as many CPs as you want and can. To me, condo is just a strategy in overwhelming your opponents, and if your opponent has decent time allocation it's just not a worthwhile strategy. I will go by the flow.
 CPs: not enough decent DA-CP debate for me these days. I think not enough competitors know how to write a solid disad which has impacts resolved through the counterplan, which then is the mutual exclusivity against the perm. I love PICS, I think PICS bad is pretty weak, but like I said I will judge completely off the flow.
I competed in high school speech and debate for three years, and I take the event seriously regarding the quality competition. There are a few things that I will consider, no matter the debate event.
 

 Be Civil; far too often, I witness debaters who take the event to an unfortunate extreme and get unnecessarily aggressive with their competition. This makes for a worse debate overall, but it will also cause me to not even pay attention to what you are saying as a debater. So Please act civil with those you are debating.
 Impact your arguments; as a debater, it is far too easy to state what your ideas are and assume that those observing know why your argument matters, but please IMPACT them to me. Tell me why your argument matters more than the others in the round or why your opponents don't.
 DO NOT SPREAD. I am a flow judge, and I can flow at high speeds, but just because I can, does not mean I will. The purpose of debate is to cause you to become a more effective communicator; speaking as fast as you possibly can does not do that. No one talks like that during their day-to-day life; you are debating and while speaking at a slightly faster rate than average conversation is normal there is such a thing as talking too fast, so speak quickly but still fast enough to be understood by a normal individual. If you start spreading or talking at an incredibly fast rate, I will put my pen down and cease to flow until you slow down your speech, so please debate as if I knew nothing. 
 Have fun; in the end, this event is to further your education, but ultimately most of you are here because you enjoy the activity and the competitive aspect.
Kate Baxter-Kauf (Kate or Katie is fine, previous last name Kauf, she/her pronouns)2022-2023 NotesUnaffiliated, but conflicted against St. Paul Central
 Past useful info: I debated in high school in Kansas (Shawnee Mission East, 1995-1998), and in college for Macalester (1998-2001) (all policy). I coached at Blaine High School (2000-2002), then the Blake School (2002-2003), some freelancing for Mankato West, Shawnee Mission East, and others (2003-2007), then for Como Park briefly when I came back to work for the UDL (2007-2008). I coached college at the University at Buffalo and the University of Rochester (2003-2007). I ran logistics for the UDL from 2007-2011, when I graduated from law school and became a lawyer. I have judged 5-10 middle school or high school debates a year since 2011.
 General notes: (1) don't be a jerk; (2) I don't care about tag-team cross-ex, just don't yell at each other; (3) speech doc email is katebaxterkauf@gmail.com (4) don't steal prep; (5) debate is fun and I'm so glad you get to experience doing it, and I'm honored to get to participate with you; (6) I am almost certainly too earnest for this particular political moment, but that's not your problem.
 Argument notes: Look, I don't care what arguments you read. I want you to do what you think you do best and have a good time doing it. I have general proclivities and stuff I know better than other stuff or literature I've actually read (and I have a fairly low threshold for gendered/racist/hate-filled/exclusionary behavior and/or language), but it's your debate, and I will do my absolute best only to evaluate the arguments that get made in the debate round. If you have questions about specific arguments, I'm happy to answer them.