debate-land/flow-paradigms huggingface dataset:
TECH >>>> TRUTH
 Debated PF at Park City for 4 years (2019-22) mainly for nat circuit but local too.
 Idk the resolutions that well so explain them but you should do that anyway. Extend throughout the round pls.
 Speed is fine, send me the speech doc tho and add me to the email chain: mobrienpc2004@gmail.com
 Sign posts are important so I can stay organized, don't stand up before your speech and give me an "off-time roadmap" just say the order of your speech.
 I don't evaluate cross at all, if something important happens bring it up in the next speech.
 Policy: I know a little bit of policy stuff, you can run anything as long as it's explained well. I ran k's in pf so I know how they work pretty well. CP's and DA's are cool as long as they're not confusing. Theory is fine too. Disclosure is necessary for policy, if you don't disclose I'll dock 1 speaker point.
 PF: K debate and theory is more fun than stock args but I won't count it against you if your case is stock. I don't believe in frameworks for PF unless you're running something progressive or interesting. CBA is standard so I'll default to that. Weighing is very important but explain why I should weigh the round in one way and don't just say "we save a million people" and expect me to care without explaining why that matters. Disclosure is good but not necessary.
 Run anything you want as long as it's not racist, homophobic, xenophobic... If it is I'll just drop you.
 Note: If you run progressive args poorly I just won't evaluate it and that would be kinda embarrassing.
 Ask if you have questions
I've been judging for a few years now, being the parent of a speech and debater, I understand most events. For every event though, I prefer quality over quantity. I understand you have a lot to say but keep it understandable.
 Debate: I encourage you to define acronyms, organizations, or things that a person who is unfamiliar with the topic wouldn't understand. I appreciate the effort you have put in, including time and research into your arguments, but if I can't follow the flow, it makes it more difficult to judge. Along the same lines, I do not appreciate spreading, if I can't follow your thought process, I will have a harder time understanding. Another note is to be respectful to your opponents, I value professionalism, especially in cross. If I see the same case across multiple teams/same school, I will devalue the argument for plagiarism. I heavily look at the resolution and compare it with your argument, I want to see topicality. I value a clear outline (clear separated contentions, off-time roadmaps and directing your debate towards your judge). I appreciate evidence if it is used effectively to add to the debate.
 Speech/IE: I've judged all speech events, and I'm fairly experienced with all of them. It should be organized and constructed well. I enjoy impactful conclusions; I listen to speeches all day and I want to see something that will stick with me. Please speak clear and concise. Do not force emotions, represent the proper attitude for your topic or speech event. For unprepared speeches, I can identify "canned" speeches, and discourage them, I appreciate a speaker embracing the spirit of the event. Also, tell me what topic you chose. Especially for interps, make your characters clearly separated and characterized so I understand where your story is going. Have a clear plotline, as well as believable acting.
 Good luck!
Pronouns: He/She/They
 Background: Competed all four years in high school in Phoenix, Arizona. While in high school, my main event was Lincoln Douglas but I've also done Oratory, Informative, Duo Interp, Open Spoken Word, and Big Questions. I have experience judging Public Forum but those rounds were not conducted on Tabroom.
 Lincoln Douglas:
 I have experience with non-trad debate and typically welcome it in the round. With that being said, if you choose to run non-trad, keep the following in mind.
 Before the round begins, I will ask both sides their experience with non-trad and how comfortable they feel responding to it structurally. If both sides are comfortable with non-trad, non-trad is welcome in the round. If one side is confident with non-trad and the other is only comfortable with policy style non-trad, only policy style non-trad is welcome in the round, etc.
 I do not care for friv theory, trix, or joke cases.
 Spreading is welcome in the round, again, as long as both sides feel comfortable with it. At the beginning of the round we will agree on a signal for "slow down" and anyone in the round can use it at any time.
 I enjoy framework debate, however, do not rely on jargon to make your arguments and do not drop your case to focus on framework.
 I expect clear signposting during your speeches and a roadmap before you start your speech.
 I want to see good debate with clash, warrants, links, weighing, etc.
 Accessibility/Inclusivity:
 If you feel comfortable stating your pronouns, I'd encourage doing so! If you misgender your opponent purposefully, I will drop you.
 If you otherwise harass your opponent, I will drop you.
 Please use content warnings if your speeches require it.
 If your opponent runs a harmful argument (ie. a stereotype, generalization, etc) CALL IT OUT, tell me to drop the debater and why (ex: this makes the debate space unsafe) and I will. 
 If you are the one running one and your opponent doesn't call you out, I will tank your speaker points.
 If there are any accommodations you'd like me to make, I'd be happy to do so.
 I will always disclose and aim to provide as much feedback as possible. If I'm unable to do so, given policies or time constraints, I'll always leave comments/RFDs in the comments and individual feedback. Please reach out if you have any questions!
 Here is my email for email chains: nix.beistle@yale.edu
I am a parent judge, I always come with a 100% open mind to learn your perspective on different topics and resolutions. 
 I respect and appreciate that you have put in immense efforts to prepare, so please don’t rush through the content. Please state your contentions slowly and clearly. I like to hear the impacts of your contentions and am always eager to see how you bring it all together through your summary and final focus. Being respectful and courteous to your opponents is very important to me.
 Good luck and have fun debating!
Hello, I did pubic forum debate for 4 years at Lincoln Sudbury High School. I am now a fourth year student at NYU who has judged a little here in there in college. I have a very standard circuit pf paradigm (if you don't know what that means, ask). I don't mind some speed as long as it is clear. Please ask me any other questions before the round. Please have a fun and relaxed round, thank you!
 The most important thing to me is that a warrant gets extending through final focus. Otherwise I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU!
 I usually won't know the topic well so make sure to explain anything topic specific but I would like to think I have a pretty decent understanding of international politics and basic, debate relevant, economics.
 Keep track of your own prep time and if you care, your opponents prep time, because I will not be timing either.
 If you are gonna run theory or Ks, ask your opponent before the round if they are ok with it. I don't really like those argument styles but I'll vote for them if they are cleanly won.
 :)
 My email is bsh298@nyu.edu if there is any questions after a round or anything else (hopefully no death threats).
Hey!
 The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the arguments have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.
 Next up, don't be rude! Please respect your opponents.
 Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! Speak fast, but don't zoom through your speech! Calm down and speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.
 Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims. Role fulfillment is a must-do!
 Good luck!
Former CX and LD debater at Clear Lake High School.
 Put me on email chain: mluo2468@gmail.com
 CX Paradigm:
 Aff: Please have solvency somewhere in your case. I appreciate if you know your case throughly and can answer all CX questions. I love performance, critical, and progressive affs so don't be afraid to run it!
 Neg: Open to anything, debated everything in high school. However please don't run abuse - if it's clear abuse don't go ham on it because I'll probably notice it too.Theory: Don't run illogical theories like Sock Theory.Cross: I love spicy and aggressive cross but if it's too far and disrespectful I will down your speaks.Speed: Don't use speed to cover up the fact that you don't know what you're reading. Also, spreading isn't really fun to listen to if you don't emphasize your tag lines or have some change in inflection for emphasis.Please know what your case is talking about because I can tell. Have good evidence and good analytics but everything must be logical and have logical flow.
 Have fun!
I would consider myself a novice/lay PF judge having judged the most recent Princeton Classic and two previous debates over Zoom in 2021. I appreciate an organized case that is delivered respectfully. Please don't talk too quickly...I want to fully digest your arguments!
 Although I have been a stay at home parent for several years, I previously worked in the public policy arena at the U.S. federal and city (City of New York) government level. I also have extensive experience in K-12 and early education policy working for a major national foundation. I received my own undergraduate education at Wellesley College and obtained my masters degree in public administration from Columbia University.
rileydwing@gmail.com
 

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

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

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

 more info:
 

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

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

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

 HOW I DECIDE
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 I hate intervening
 

 

 

 I will vote on topic, K, T, Theory, Performance (which I will judge the performance), Presumption, etc…
 For T/Theory, explain and show the abuse. Flesh the argument out and explain why I should, don’t just say “vote fairness, the end”
 For K: explain the thesis (don't just say post-modern jargon), impact, link, ROTB, Solvency...
 Keep the spreading to 350 wpm. If I don't understand you, I will yell "clear!", but if you keep spreading so bad, I'll just stop saying "clear!".
 SIGNPOST PLEASE; DON’T MESS WITH MY FLOW
 Any questions? Ask me before round
 Down Below is a list of critical Literature that I have read/Judged to give debaters an idea of the literature they can use. Always interested in hearing new arguments
 Note: Some kritiks are generic due to the many types it has
 Ableism, Cyber-Fem/Borg, Orientalism
 Schopenhauer, Agamben Derrida, Marxism,
 Security, Afro-Furturism, Ecofem, Necropolitics
 Terror, Afro-Pessimism, Empire, Neo-Colonialism
 Global Warming, Althusser, Hauntology, Nietzsche
 Zizek, Anthropocentrism, Lacan
 Neoliberal, Nuclear, Baudrillard, Latinx
 Peace Theory, Spanos, Batman, Legalism
 Post-Colonialism, Anarchy, Bataille
 Libertarianism, Queer Theory, Vilirio
 Biopower, Fem IR, Settlerism, Spectacle
 Borders Gender Language, Subaltern
 CRT, Buddhism, Carl Schmitt, Suffering Rep
 Tuck and Yang, Capitalism, OOO, Spanos, Militarism
please put me on the chain Email:Rose.joel2003@gmail.com
 I debated for 4 years at Lawrence high, I mostly did Fast kritical debate but I feel comfortable judging any style of debate
  
 basic rules-
 - I don't do hand shakes
 - don't be mean for no reason if I think your being over the top rude it will reflect that on your speaks
 - I will automatically vote you down for being discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or creating an unsafe debate space
 - if you go top speed on anylitics put them in the speech doc or I'm likely to miss arguments
 - you cant win a round without offense.
Pronouns: she/her
 Experience: I am a college student and this is my first year judging LD but I was a traditional LD debater for 4 years.
 I will be flowing the entire round so if I am not looking up at you don't assume I am not listening. I will do my best to provide in-depth ballots for each debater to help you understand my decision.
 Tech Problems: If anyone in the round cuts out or disconnects time stops and it will resume once everyone is reconnected.
 Speed: I can handle speed but if you chose to spread, share your case to this email: nswilliams2022@gmail.com 
 Also, if there is contentious evidence in round or if evidence is called for I want it sent to me at that same email or in the file drop. 
 General debate comments:
 I have only debated/judged traditional LD so cut me some slack if you chose to run circuit arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.). But as long as you flesh them out I should be able to follow.
 Framework: State your value and value criterion at the top of your case. I find it easier to follow cases where I know what I am weighing each contention under. I love to see a clash between opposing frameworks! If you both just agree on util it boils down to impact weighing (not necessarily a bad thing but it feels more like PF than LD).
 If you have a super obscure framework make sure to flesh it out well and tell me how to weigh under it! 
 Rebuttals: Before each rebuttal please give me an off-time road map of how you will be going down the flow. I love line by line but don't let your line by line distract from the main points of the debate and the overall bigger picture. 
 Cross Ex: BE POLITE. This doesn't mean you can't cut off your opponent if they are rambling and avoiding answering your question but just don't be condescending or rude. I will take away speaker points if you are being disrespectful to your opponent. Talking over each other in an online tournament isn't helpful for anyone (especially the judge). 
 Last speeches: Give me key voting issues in your last speech or crystallization of the round. AFF, I would prefer if you didn't go line by line in your last speech unless you think it's extremely necessary. 
 If you have any other questions about this paradigm or in general please ask them before the round!!
If you are a novice - please do not feel pressure to fill time just because you have run out of things to say. It is much better to end your speech early and leave time on the table than to fill time just for the sake of filling time by repeating arguments you or your partner has already read.
 General debate: I judge primarily on the flow. If you're talking too fast that I can't write your arguments down, or if you are not properly sign posting to where I should write that argument, I might not be able to vote on it. I do not intervene. I sometimes write "consider this argument next time" on ballots, but I won't make links or impacts for you, you need to be explicitly clear.
 I don't flow questioning periods - if you're trying to make a point, you need to so directly on the flow (with internal sign posting) and use your opponent's answer as the warrant for that argument.
 I often do not vote in favor of Ks and would rather see those types of arguments structured as a DA if the K is on the resolution. The only exception to this general guideline is if one team is uniquely offensive in round and you're running the K against something specifically said or done by your opponent.
 Parli: I judge parli from a policy perspective. This means that for a policy resolution ("given actor" should "given action) I like formal structure (plantext, CPs, DAs, solvency press, etc) and for a value resolution, it means that I want to know what are the real world consequences of voting in a certain way? For example, if you want me to vote that "liberty should be valued above safety" tell me what natural policies consequences will follow and the impacts of those.
 LD: I rarely cast my ballot based on the framework debate alone. I put more weight on the contention level. In general, I have a strong preference in favor for traditional LD over progressive LD.
 PF: I like to see your analysis in your evidence. Please do not just quote an author, but explain how what this author said relates to the argument in your specific case. I often ask to read evidence myself, so please have full articles available for context, with your specific source highlighted or indicated.
I am an attorney who handles appeals, so I guess you could say that I am a professional debater. I will judge your debate the same way that a judge decides an appeal. I will identify the contentions, evaluate the arguments and evidence presented by both sides in support or in opposition of each contention, and then choose which side made the more persuasive case on each contention. The side that wins the most contentions, wins the debate.
 I should note that I strongly disapprove of the practice of spreading (or speaking very, very quickly). The purpose of debate is to exchange ideas. If a debater speaks so quickly that neither the judge nor the opposing party can understand them, we are no longer having a debate. Please speak clearly, so that everyone can follow your arguments.
Hi, I am Darshan. I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.
 Good Luck at the Tournament!