debate-land/flow-paradigms huggingface dataset:
michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com
 Public Forum
 I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.
 If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.
 Policy
 Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.
 Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
 Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.
 Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.
 Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.
 Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.
 Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.
 If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.
As of 2022 I am a policy debater and Economics student at University of Houston. Back in high school I used to compete in debate and speaking events. I've done World Schools Debate, Info speaking, Extemp, and I did LD for a year. Put together I've been debating for 5 years.
 I will try my best to be a “blank slate” for the purposes of the round. If you can convince me, in the context of the debate round, that your argument is true, I will accept it as such. Tell me how I should evaluate the round and why you should win. I am open to all kinds of arguments, as long as you explain them, but prefer when you can show me concrete impacts to vote for.
 For policy rounds please put me on the email chain. My email address is: wajih2003@live.com
I am excited to serve as a judge. I have a strong background in critical thinking and logical analysis and very little experience as a debate judge. So I will follow nuanced arguments while also needing you to define all terms and clarify any debate terminology.If any rules of engagement aren't followed, please call it out if it matters to you; it wouldn't be wise to assume I would catch it. This is true in general and specifically with respect to POOs.I highly value clear enunciation, confidence, and professionalism in all interactions during the debate.
I competed in PF for 4 years in high school with School Without Walls.
  
 Likes:
 Weighing(!!!, make it easy for me to cast the ballot for you), strong warrants and impact, common sense, narrative, lay appeal, strategic collapsing, actual clash
  
 Dislikes:
 Relying on theory, speaking excessively fast, unsubstantiated claims/weighing, dropping, new offense after rebuttal, being a bad sport
  
 Good luck!
Parent Judge who has been judging public forum debates. I am an engineer and have been working in this capacity for over 25 years. Participants should produce evidence and data to backup arguments.
 It would be best if you did not talk faster than conversational speed. I will vote on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to listen to each other and respond to the arguments you are hearing. I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful while still showing their arguments to be superior. It is important to me that you explain logically why your impact will happen. It is important to me that you understand the topic and that you try to persuade me that you believe in your argument.
 You are in a public forum debate and as a parent and a working professional, I am your public. Even if you have the best collection of data, how you connect with public is vital. Body language, eye contact or connecting with real life examples can sometimes tip the vote in your favor
 If both teams are great and as a judge I have a tough decision, one of the deciding factors has been the quality of rebuttal questions. Some of these questions can put the other team on the edge which can work to your advantage. So take good notes, look for those pointers from your opponent and strive for winning that round.
 Thank you and good luck!
Hi I’m Will! I did a lot of LD in high school and am only comfortable with traditional debates. I don’t care what arguments you use (as long as they are relevant to the topic), but I appreciate people speaking really slowly and explaining their own reasoning clearly and insightfully. I don’t like it when people spend most of their time reciting cards—most of your speeches should consist of original analysis and contextualization even if you do bring in some quotes from academic papers/articles/books. Although I take notes, I don’t flow and do not care about “dropped” arguments. Address the cruxes of your opponent’s position, but if there are just too many arguments and/or if some of them are silly, I don’t expect you to waste time going through them. My main thing is that if you speak too fast or don’t debate the topic, I won’t vote for you. Feel free to ask questions before the round, and I look forward to hearing you debate!
For Debate:
 Slow down. For debate I always see great start, spreading in the middle then adding new args in the final. Look, just go slow the whole time. I promise you, a few well heard arguments will sway judges more than technical rule based filler. Plus, your speech will be much clearer and they will be in complete sentences.
 I look for speakers to react to the other side's bigger points. Did you hear what they said?
 For IE:
 There is the intellectual story and the emotional story. One is coherent fact storyline. The other is how it made me feel. The ideal for all performances is when your audience temporarily loses their sense of place and is "in" your story. Think of your favorite movie. If you can do that, I will be yours!
 Rich
Glenbrook South '19 | University of Michigan '23
 kellymskoulikaris@gmail.com
 General
 I've been both a 2A and 2N. I judged and led a lab at the University of Michigan camp this summer, and have researched on the topic.
 Be organized. Do line-by-line, impact calc, judge instruction, and evidence comparison. Do not just read evidence in the 2AC/2NC/1NR. Smart analytics can overcome bad evidence.
 Inserting rehighlightings is okay as long as the rehighlightings are short and the implication is explained in the speeches.
 For everything below, I can be convinced otherwise through good debating. Feel free to ask clarification questions pre-round!
 Case/DAs
 I love good case debating. No, this does not just mean yes/no impact. Yes, this means debating the internal link to advantages (and disadvantages). Debates can easily be won or lost here, and internal link comparison in the final rebuttals is underutilized.
 Case-specific DAs are preferable, but politics can be good with decent evidence and persuasive spin.
 Rider DAs are not DAs.
 CPs
 Advantage CPs are preferable to Agent CPs/Process CPs. PDCP definitions (from both sides) should have specific standards/theoretical justifications.
 Condo is (probably) good, kicking planks is (probably) good, and judge kick is the default unless debated otherwise.
 2NC CPs are good against new affirmatives, but against non-new affirmatives, the 2NC should justify their new planks. The 1AR can convince me this is abusive (especially if the 2NC is adding new planks to get out of a straight-turned DA).
 Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team unless debated otherwise.
 T
 It is important for both sides to map out what topics look like under their interpretations, especially at the beginning of the season. What affirmatives are included? What negative argument are guaranteed? What does each interpretation exclude? Examples help frame the round!
 Evidence quality matters much more in these rounds!
 T vs K Affs 
 Debate is a game, and competition/winning drives our participation in debate. The strongest impacts to T are fairness and clash (iterative testing, testing etc). Negative teams have had success in front of me when they utilize clash to link turn affirmative offense.
 Specific TVAs are good. You do not need evidence as long as you have a plan text and explain what debate rounds would look like under the TVAs.
 Ks
 I am most familiar with Anti-Blackness, Capitalism, and Settler Colonialism literature, and not as familiar with Baudrillard, Bataille etc.
 Please do not give extremely long overviews. Root cause claims, impact comparisons at the top are smart and strategic, but the rest of the "overview" can be incorporated into the line-by-line later on the flow.
 Impact out each link!
Hi if your looking at this, I will judge you
 about me/flex section:
 hello hs debaters. im kolitha perera and i debated for 4 years at north allegheny hs. i was that kid at my hs that was "addicted" to debate. if any of yall are like that trust me when u get to college youll realise its not that deep. anyway i accumulated a total of 4 gold bids and 1 silver bid during my career but didnt get to go to tocs bc my partner decided to go to DECA instead (lame). im a big fan of slow, flow, substance debate. IMO fast prog debate makes the activity less about skill and more about your ability to say random stuff that you don't even know about. this new age of debate is just bad. you dont have to agree but dont try to change my mind.
 OVERALL STUFF:
 prog: I encourage you to run progressive arguments so I can give you the L (the exception: arguments that advocate for the destruction of progressive debate are a dub and will be allowed and evaluated). Also, im not super experienced in theory or anything else so paragraph form shells are prolly better.
 spreading: I also encourage you to spread so I can give you the L
 pls DO NOT SPREAD i will not flow it
 framework: bro don't bring up some weird philosophy. framework should just be pre-emptive weighing in case
 extend evidenceANDwarrants or it will not be extended
 do not read straight cut cards thats bs, pls paraphrase y'all can evaluate the evidence for yourselves
 PLEASE GIVE OFF TIME ROAD MAPS BEFORE EACH SPEECH THEY SHOULD BE SIMPLE THO LIKE ex. "their case, our case, weighing"
 bonus speaks + things i really like:
 please just completely destroy your opponents in cross. i really dont care how crude your language (profanity or whatever is fine, no inherently offensive language obviously) is as long as ur attacking ur opponents argument and not them as a person.
 creative taglines (alliterations and just weird/comedy stuff): +1 speaks
 hyper unique arguments: +1 speaks
 These arguments will give you auto 30 speaks:
 Any arguments about sulfur
 Any arguments about helium
 Any arguments Sri Lanka
 Any arguments about apes
 PUBLIC FORUM:
 how you can win my ballot:
 i vote purely off of the flow so be good at that
 Extend defense in summary, even if it's clean
 extend ur case properly in summary. so many people skimp on case extention in summary its not even funny. thats literally offense how you win the round just do it with card names or else it will not be flowed
 no new anything in second summary except for responding to NEW defense in 1st summary
 weighing in both summaries
 NO NEW CONTENT IN EITHER FINAL FOCUS (not only will this not be considered, I will be less likely to vote for you in a tie situation)
 LINCOLN DOUGLAS:
 i debated ld for one tournament in high school
 substance only, and everything in the pf section still applies
TLDR: lay judge: go at a moderate speed, signpost, extend, weigh, and be respectful
 Hey, I’m a PF debater, and I'm writing my dad's paradigm for him.
 My dad is a lay judge, will take notes but I wouldn’t call it a flow. He will vote off what's extended (and weighed) in final focus. He appreciates a strong crossfire round but will not tolerate any rudeness. Will give 28 speaker points on average and will be higher if you deserve it.
 General tips:
 

 

 Ask if everyone is ready before you start
 

 

 Read your contentions clearly, "Contention One is ____"
 

 

 Make your impacts really obvious, "The impact is __(lives, money, etc.)___" and be sure to quantify.
 

 

 PLEASE WEIGH! Tell him what you want him to weigh off of. The earlier weighing is introduced, the better! (For example, if your opponents dropped an argument, say so. This will make the decision much easier)
 

 

 Collapse in later speeches, giving you more time to better warrant your arguments (quality > quantity)
 

 

 Give a TW with an anonymous opt-out if ur gonna read stuff that needs one
 

 

 Give a strong rebuttal making sure to signpost the contentions you are responding to but make it more clear than "our case, their case"
 

 

 Second speaking team should ALWAYS frontline
 

 

 Do not use jargon (no "fiat", "delink", "non-unique", "offense/defense", etc.)
 

 

 Extend warranting on case and responses
 

 

 Do NOT:
 

 

 NO SPREADING!
 

 

 Read framework, theory, and anything more than just pure substance
 

 

 Read a tech arg/impact
 

 

 Number/statistic dump
 

 

 Read offense if you finish early
 

 

 Do not abuse prep time!
Hi there! My name is Kenneth (he/him) :D
 I mainly debated policy in high school, and now I don't WOOOOOOO!!!
 Add me to the email chain: kennethgaerlan113@gmail.com
 Feel free to ask me any specific questions before the round!
 Run whatever you want (except tricks in LD- strike me if you do) as long as it's not discriminatory
 Spreading really annoys me and makes me scream, shake, cry, and throw up internally
 Please follow any accommodations requested
 Be kind, have fun, and take this as an opportunity to learn!
 Eat it up...devour even, and leave no crumbs behind
 GO YB!!!
In terms of experience, I competed in some collegiate IPDA tournament's, but I mostly competed in platform and interpretation events. I competed at Mt. San Antonio College and we just recently won Gold at our national Phi Rho Pi tournament. My experience in forensics as a whole allows me to know specifically what I look for in a speaker.
 Some general rules:
 Do not be rude while you’re speaking or while anyone else is speaking.You do not need to change your style for me. I will be able to keep up.I appreciate off time road maps.No spreading and I do not disclose after the round is over.In general, I’m here to help you grow and thrive in this event. I hope it is fun and rewarding!
 email is megan@adcominc.us
Nic D Nave
 The N in Rutgers MN
 2017 Crowns United!
 navenicole5@gmail.com
 Follow me on Linkein https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicole-d-nave-0b869020a/
 Add me on Linkedin for speaker points
 Leave a review/endorsement/connect for .2 Speaker points . Just for supporting young black women professionals!
 If you add me on TIKTOK I will bless your points https://www.tiktok.com/discover/realdebatewifeofkentucky
 

 First, Energy is essential to me. Everyone must be respectful of the speaker and the participants in the round.
 Background-I debated for the St.Louis Urban debate league in high school in college. After that, I debated for Rutgers University Newark. I'm the first Black Woman to win the NDT and Unite the Crowns. I debated primarily in the D3, which means I know the actual structure of argumentation. Like many "K" debaters, I learned the foundation of debate inside and out to critique it. When I'm preffed, I typically judge K debate, and I think that's cool, but I also think that I would love to expand my reach. I also feel that debate isn't the same as when I did it.... some things don't sound the same anymore......
 I have coached critical/performance teams but truly value the benefits of engaging in policy making. As an Energy Equity Strategist, I am tapped into the Energy/Oil industry and love the idea that technology can save the planet! I firmly believe in energy efficiency as solvency to combat climate change and anti-blackness. I am willing to debate this for the right price$$$.
 Policy Debate ProperSpeed-Do you, I'm here to support all styles and genres!
 T- This is probably one of my favorite arguments in debate, the idea that I can be so petty to review a word or process makes me so happy! The pettier, the better!
 DA's-Literally the first negative argument i learned in debate I love Enviorments and Climate change impacts anything with EV and mobility is also interesting to me. Politics obviously should be unique and have solid impacts!
 CP's-I believe in condo also the states arent terrible...
 K's,K Affs- I love learning new things! Teach me something i DON'T KNOW! I would love to hear the latest authors and see some creativity I find myself bored by some of the K debate thats been happening and think the style is declining and policy is just as entertaining at this point but thats just my take... Who am I ?
 K Aff's VS FrameworkBeat the procedural and win your impacts, I believe framework is one of the easiest arguments a K Aff can answer but also one of the hardest if your aff doesnt actually do anthing. Make it make sense
Affiliations: Middleton High School (WI), Tufts University
 Background: I debated PF for three years and Congress for fours years in Wisconsin, with limited experience on the national circuit. I'm a history and political science double major, so I love seeing historical examples/political theory (not to be confused with debate theory) within cases :)
 General Paradigm (PF): I'm definitely more of a traditionalist, but I’m tech over truth as long as you aren’t blatantly lying. Don't spread; talking fast is fine, but speak at a rate that a non-debater would be able to understand. (If you have to take giant gasps of air when speaking, it's a sign you're going too fast) I'm not the best with too much speed, so I might miss arguments. I will not read speech docs. If I do not hear the argument, it will not be a factor in the round. Use all the PF jargon you want, but please don't use any disads, Ks, or anything rooted in Policy/LD. If you’re fiating something, please make sure your explanation is clear.
 Also, please extend (this means your warrant and your impact) your arguments with their card tags, signpost, give me a brief road map (signposting > roadmap) and weigh. Weighing is extremely important for me. Saying that something pre-reqs something else means absolutely nothing if you haven’t given me a warrant, and I don’t see it as a form of weighing. I will vote for a bad argument weighed well over a good argument weighed poorly. Meta-weigh if you have to. If your opponents are weighing on probability and you're weighing on magnitude, tell me why I should prefer probability over magnitude. These things will both elevate the round and make judging it way easier, so it's a win-win for all of us.
 Lastly, if you're going to read triggering arguments, read a trigger warning and make sure everyone's okay with you running that kind of contention before case/before the round.
 Theory/Prog Arguments: I don't like theory, but I am willing to keep an open mind.
 Evidence: If there's an evidence conflict in the round that's serious enough or a card that sounds too good to be true, I'll call for the card. If it's an online tourney, send evidence to hebaemail618@gmail.com.
 Speaks: Please don't be overly aggressive. I won't flow cross, but I will note disrespectful behavior, so make sure everyone gets enough time to speak, and be aware of implicit power dynamics due to race, gender, age, etc.
 Other Stuff: Have fun with it! There's far too many debaters who walk in stiff-postured and stony-faced. At the end of the day, this is a performance. Loosen up, crack some jokes, smile a little, anything that will make your side more compelling and more interesting to watch. There is a fine line between being funny and being mean, though. Don't cross it.
"Tout ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément." ~Boileau
 I vote on the clarity of the arguments and on the clarity of their articulation, so it is wise to avoid spreading.
 I am looking for proof of your argument - make sure you cite cards throughout, and be clear about what point you are drawing from the evidence you're quoting.
 Language matters! Don't assume that speaking faster / louder = making a stronger point. If the words you're using are not clear, or if your syntax / grammar is obscuring what you're trying to say, then it doesn't really matter how loudly you shout it or how fast you say it. There are plenty of examples of overemphasis in the world; be different. You should aim to stun your opponent & judge with an argument (or speech) that is worded with precision, starting from a solid framework, methodically laid out with a logical progression, and reinforced throughout with sound and airtight research / data that you have thoroughly cited.
 Finally, but perhaps most importantly, be respectful of your opponent(s). You can and will lose your argument if you resort to incivility. Again, there are plenty of examples of rudeness in the world; be different. And please, keep your own time.
 Ph.D., Emory. I've judged on the regional and national circuit, mainly LD and PF, although I've also judged speech a bit and quite enjoyed it. ;)
Hi!
 I debated (Policy, Student Congress) at Andover High School for four years (Education, Immigration, Weapons, CJR)
 Currently the policy assistant for Andover High/debater at WSU.
 Yes add me to the email chain, my email is gracemcmanus22@gmail.com
 or speech drop...
 I am comfortable with any style of debate/speed in the round.
 Impact Calc is usually the most important part of a debate round. If you don't tell me why your impacts outweigh your opponents I'm likely to vote for your opponent. With that being said, you don't have to spend more than 30 seconds on it.
 Framework- Usually debates inevitably come down to competing models of debate. You need to be able to explain why your model of debate is best. I will vote for the framework that has the best impacts(obviously but just making sure I put it out there) I have voted for education before (with fairness as an IL) but I am comfortable voting for literally anything.
 K- I am super comfortable with K's, just make sure you are able to explain the alt well. Explain the roll of the ballot and how the alt is able to function when I vote for a K, you know... the usual K things. I won't do the work for you when it comes to these types of arguments.
 Theory- I love theory, but make sure you execute it properly. Not much else to say here, but if you have questions you can definitely ask me before the round begins.
 T- I have voted for T in the past. I expect their to be competing interps when T is presented. Unless something is dropped or someone is outrageously not topical, I probably won't vote for it. I think with this years topic, a lot of teams are running effectually topical cases, I will vote for this if the argument is ran correctly. If you do by chance run a case that is effectually topical, don't fret, just explain why T isn't a voting issue or that you are reasonably close enough.
 I have a lot of opinions on a lot of different arguments, but I will always defer to what is said in the round. I mentioned that I rarely vote for T, that doesn't mean that I will never, just that up to this point, the T arguments have been weak. I will vote for anything, my paradigm is only a suggestion of what I like to vote for. Just make the best arguments in the round and you will win the debate
 Above all be nice to one another. That doesn't mean you can't be assertive just don't be mean, it's pretty simple. If you have any questions, just email me.
Please pre-flow before rounds!!!
 Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a freshman at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.
 Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu
 Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.
 I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.
 Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.
 I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.
 Returning to in person debate norms:
 

 You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
 Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
 During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying
 

 Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk
TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.
 Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time roadmaps/orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak, don’t shake my hand. If disclosure is not the norm I am willing to disclose. Pronouns: he/him/his.
 I did policy in high school and NPDA at University of Oregon. My partner Gabe and I won the NPTE in 2022.
 Preferences that matter for my decision
 

 Debate is a game
 Hard debate is good debate
 Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
 You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
 Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
 Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
 I default to magnitude first sans weighing
 Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
 I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
 Alts that are lit based are better than alts you made up
 Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
 Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
 For the love of god extend the aff
 For the love of god answer the aff
 

 Preferences that matter but less for my decision
 

 Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
 I think condo is fine for debate but will vote on theory if won
 Going for RVIs is usually cowardice
 Perms are defense, defense is a suboptimal collapse strategy
 Links of omission are weak
 Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
 Decolonization is not a metaphor
 Nuclear weapons are tools - irrational nukes don't exist
 Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
 Science is a very useful ideology
 

 HS Parli specific:
 Spread if you can; don't spread if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.
 Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. A pet peeve of mine is arguments about germaneness with no warrants or impacts. These arguments are winnable, but often have little or nothing to do with the argument it attempts to answer. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution (however wacky it might seem), it is probably germane.
 Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com
This is my second time judging public forum debate and I consider myself an amateur parent judge.
 I am an attorney with previous moot court experience and so am familier with the art of persuasive advocacy.
 I flow the debate and make my decision on the contentions. You win on the basis of evidence and weighing in the Final Focus.
 I judge on content, not delivery. I am comfortable with most speeds but recommend you not go too fast. Please keep track of your own time.
 Most importantly, have fun.
Debate is a performance, Lover of presumption and clash.
 Put me on the chain: nguyen.vu1105@gmail.com
 Do what you do best and ill make my judgment based on how/what you do. 
 If theres an an accessibility issue with the speech, y'all should try to fix it first. I'm open to discussion but don't be horrible.
 I'm currently doing my undergrad at NYU in performance studies & mathematics.
 I have little topic knowledge and I will say a lot of acronyms will throw me off.
 slow writer.
 ------
 I hate writing paradigms. I got a whole thing about it. The rest is like asking what type of cheese is best at Subway (provolone b/c it's the easiest for the worker to separate), but know I'm game for anything.
 Specific Types of Args
 Topicality- show what your model of debate is and what the ballot means/looks like/should be. I'll bite on most T should you situate it in some educational framework
 Framework- Clear, Articulated. Don't go at card-body speeds on theory. I'm a messy writer and got bad hearing in one ear extra time to flow on important args here would be a help. Default is stated in the first line of this paradigm
 Counter Plans- Cp's are cool I don't buy Consult/Word PIC's easily: higher brightline here.
 Personal Belief on condo and advocacies: don't let them conflict too much if you're reading like 7 I doubt it has good links but that's just me; default Condo Good.
 Disadvantages- I like a good DA. Make it clear and show me what the impact scenario is. Creativity is good & I can buy a ptx DA on occasion
 Not a huge fan of 8 off strats but take that as you will, strike me if you can.
 Kritiks- Preferred realm of debate, I always went for the K
 I have a good understanding of most contemporary lit bases [and a more in-depth understanding of (racial) cap, cybernetics, moten, & munoz, I'll try my best to keep up, but that also means I have a higher threshold on your explanation. Generics are okay but it'll make me more unlikely to vote for yall.
 I'm open to most K's traditional & non-traditional, and performative, as well as any potential flow structures. As long as there's a reasonable (you decide what that means) connection to the space or act itself, and you can articulate, it should be workable.
 Note for K teams & KvK debates - big on methods, big on understanding the meaning of the ballot
 ------
 Speaks and Such
 I'll try my best to remain consistent :)
 By request I can send my flows afterwards too
 Do what you do and ill try to move with you. Peace and love y'all <3
I have coached all of the debates and judged all but BQ. LD is my favorite, and I am fairly flexible in what I expect, since I've been involved in it since its inception and have seen it evolve. If I express a displeasure with some aspect of LD below, it's because I have observed some practices that do not promote fair, competitive debate.
 I am a traditional judge, although I can deal with some progressive approaches. I am not a fan of K's, and I do not support disclosure, primarily because I think that it disadvantages smaller teams or individual debaters. You can present theory arguments, but that does not mean that I will buy them.
 I believe that first and foremost, debate should be an exchange of competing ideas backed up with evidence, both authoritative and empirical, and reasoning. In order for that to occur, debaters must communicate well. Although I can keep up with speed, I am not impressed with the debater who can spew out 250-300 words per minute; at the very least, I should be able to hear where one idea stops and the next begins. I expect debaters to signpost their ideas and to use their voices to emphasize ideas through varying the rate, pitch, and volume of their prepared briefs. I don't like spreading and often feel that it is both unnecessary and abusive.
 I expect debaters to state and justify both their V and VC and to make sure that the contention-level debate supports the VC. Do not simply state that your V/VC is superior to your opponent's--prove it through analysis, of both what you and what your opponent present. How does your framework better achieve the intent of the resolution than your opponent's framework? And/or, and this is more interesting to me (!), how does your framework better achieve your opponent's value/criterion?
 I do not believe that it is necessary to do a line-by-line rebuttal; focusing on the key arguments of clash is essential. I expect both sides to lay out the voting issues for the round and to tell me why they won those issues, although, of course, I will not necessarily agree.
 Finally, I expect both debaters in the round to be respectful of each other and will penalize any debater who bullies, demeans, or insults his/her/their opponent.
I am a first-time parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help.
 

 

 

 I request you to keep your own time. 
 

 

 Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.
 

 

 Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.
 

 

 I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.
 

 

 Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.
Hey All!
 General Experience: I debated for Bellarmine College Prep on the national circuit for 4 years as a 1A/2N, graduated in 2016. During my senior year, I read a soft left affirmative (and for my other years read mostly big stick policy affirmatives), and went for anything ranging from Politics/CP to psychosecurity kritiks on the neg. My thoughts on debate are mostly aligned with Ani Prabhu so if you want more info you can check out his paradigm as well.
 Relevant Stuff at the Top: I'm down with K affs/Kritiks, but I'm also willing to vote on framework. Tech > Truth. I'm decently familiar with most generic K's and DA's, but haven't had a bunch of experience on this topic, so just make sure you're slowing down and explaining to me all the different acronyms/etc.
 T: I default to competing interpretations. Make sure you're weighing impacts, and not just leaving me to decide whether or not fairness matters more than education at the end of the debate.
 Theory: I usually default to reject the argument not the team unless you tell me explicitly so. I'm all for you going for theory, just make sure you impact your voters and explain to me why it's a reason to reject the team. Make sure you're actually giving me an interpretation of what debate looks like, and why reading multiple conditional advocacies/whatever is a reason to vote neg/aff. I'm less sympathetic to 5 seconds of blippy theory blown up in the rebuttal speeches.
 CP: I evaluate CP's through comparison of net benefits vs. solvency deficits. I usually lean neg on neg fiat, but I'll vote on any CP theory you throw at me. (50 State actor bad, etc, etc.) I'll judge kick at the end unless otherwise told to do so.
 K: Read whatever you feel most comfortable with, I'm somewhat familiar with most of the generic K's that were read on the circuit during my time (Wilderson, Security, etc.) but I'm not as familiar with most of postmodern theory (Baudrillard, Deleuze, etc.) I usually evaluate K debates on framework first, then go to the rest of K proper, so make sure to be making clear your interpretation of what debates should be like, especially when you get into K vs. Plan Framework debates. (Do I weigh the plan vs. the real world representations?)
 DA: I'm fine with all disads. Make sure you make your turns case/outweigh case stuff clear at the top, so that I know how to evaluate it at the end of the debate. I'm perfectly fine with analytics if a DA is particularly silly, or if you know their evidence doesn't say what you think it says. Link usually controls uniqueness.
 If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me at gnilson314@gmail.com
hi everyone!
 my email is: aaathreya2@gmail.com
 pronouns -she/her
 background: currently a freshman @ uc berkeley - I competed in speech and debate for four years on both the league (coast forensic league) and national circuit, with my main events being parliamentary debate, policy debate, and congressional debate by the end of senior year. I finalled at two TOC bid tournaments and State my senior year, and qualified to the TOC in Congressional Debate.
 Here are a few of my judging preferences:
 1.speaking: first and foremost, be respectful in round, and in cross-examination. If you bring harm to the debate space in any way, I will drop you. You’re in the round to further your point to your side, and fully participate in the round. I don’t mind speed (I was a pretty fast speaker myself in round), as long as you don’t become indecipherable. Don’t use canned speeches or intros - I value original, unique, and nuanced arguments over delivery every time and will rank as such. Try to show some variety in the types of speeches you give (first few cycles vs. crystals)
 2.cross-examination: don’t treat cx as throwaway time! I judge on the quality of all aspects of round engagement, including asking quality cross examination questions to further your argument, as well as poking holes on the other side. be present and engaged - it makes a huge difference!
 3.argumentation: just to reiterate what I mentioned earlier: make original, unique, and nuanced arguments. please don’t rehash arguments late into the round. if you cite credible sources, tag them as such - they’re crucial to validating the argument you’re making.
 I love clash and weighing (a lot)! please make an effort to integrate it in your nuanced argumentation. At the very least, be organized and understandable.
 if you’re introducing a unique impact to the round, make sure to explain the link chain thoroughly; if you’re rehashing/validating a previous impact brought up on your side, make sure to be explicit for how your impact/argumentation is different from previous speakers. I don’t mind either, but the goal is to add depth to the round.
 (For Congress) POs: I default to tournament rules on POs, but I tend to rank POs highly if they are well-paced, engaged, and prepared.
 Parliamentary Debate:
 Look above for my prefs on argumentationDon’t use time in between speeches for prepPlans/evidence whatever you want to use is up to you! make sure you properly cite sources & empirical examples Don’t evidence dump in speeches, I’ll give more points for warranted reasoning/connecting to the larger ideas of your case (two world analysis in rebuttals)Ask and answer AT LEAST 2 POIs in the constructive!
 policyI don't mind fast rounds, be clear on taglines & condense off cases in later speeches
I am a fairly new judge with some experience judging PF or LD events. A few quick things:
 - Try not to talk too fast. I know there are sometimes timing issues, but better to be understood.
 - Please try and look up and engage the judges when you can (vs. nose down into your notes and/or computer).
 - For PF, please clearly articulate your contentions, back them up with warrants and support with strong evidence. Please extend arguments throughout the round, and make it clear why it's important to your case or detracts from your opponent's.
 - By your final focus or last speech, you should have made a convincing case why your impacts or value out-weigh your opponent's. And in keeping with the rules of debate, do not bring up any new arguments in the second half of a round, or they will be disregarded.
 Looking forward to seeing you this weekend. Best of luck.
 Chuck Price
Email: Annaherrig2@gmail.com
 General: I competed in hs for 4 years on the local&national circuit , now I compete in college.
 Please send speech docs! (also if you say "mark the card here" please mark it)
 Post-rounding is fine, if I cant defend my decision, it probably wasn't a good one. I think you should run whatever you feel comfortable with. I do not wish to be the judge who dictates what is allowed in a round. Lets all learn something from each other.
 Signposting is important. Slow down on your tags but go as fast as u need.
 Tech>truth.
 You can be aggressive, just be respectful. This is especially true for CX. I listen to this. It's binding. Open cross is a yes.
 Disads:These are only as good as your evidence/uniqueness is. There is such thing as 0% risk of a link. You should check your evidence before running one of these in front of me, because I will be looking regardless. I think a strong DA is a great strat that is lately being undervalued.
 Theory: I err neg on theory. Yes I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. I default to competing interps>reasonability. I think if this is something you want to spend time on you should not do it based on generic blocks. Get specific.
 Counterplans: I will vote for your CP, and your PIC. However, I believe this is a great place for a theory debate. I think that evidence is key here, and your solvency for the aff needs to be well articulated if this is something you plan on going for. I don't love throw away CP's that take up a line in the 1. Permutations need to also be made exceptionally clear, especially on why or why not this is a good idea! Explain your solvency deficits. Your NB's and your DA's to any perm should be explained if this is relevant. These debates can be my least and most favorite. Few fall in between,
 Topicality: You can go for T but do it earlier. This isn't a decision to be made in the last rebuttals. I probably won't pay a ton of attention to T shells that are overly generic. I think most of the time people underestimate the power these arguments have when done right and extended well.
 Kritiks: I have the most experience with cap, it is a position I run/ have run and coach frequently. I love a good cap debate. I will listen to your kritik but if you are going to run something unconventional please explain it and articulate it well. I will not pretend to understand it if I do not, and you probably should not do this either. The threshold for this is even higher for D&G. PLEASE MAKE YOUR LINKS SPECIFIC. It is extremely disappointing when these links are overly generic. If this part is not clear, I will be sad. Critical affirmatives are fine, but the framework needs to be solid.
 If for some reason I am judging you in PF, just do ur thing. -- PLEASE DONT HAND EACH OTHER UR LAPTOPS AND SPENF TEN MIN READING EVIDENCE JUST DISCLOSE ????????????
Hey everyone, I am a parent judge approaching three years of experience in both debate and speech.
 

 

 I am a standard tech > truth flow judge (meaning that I will write down everything you say, even if it’s illogical). That being said, it’s your responsibility to address the fact that your opponents are running something very illogical if it happens
 

 

 Signpost. Tell me what contention you will be refuting/defending at all times - this makes it so much easier for me to effectively judge
 

 

 In the case of a prepared debate, be sure to cite evidence for your claims, but also have the logic for why it is true. Debate is both evidence and logic-based, and I expect to see both
 

 

 Lastly but most importantly, please keep your arguments at a reasonable speed. If I can’t understand what you’re saying then I won’t be able to flow it
A little about me. I'm a first year Parli debater who's done debate in some form for about five years now. I highly interested in unique and genuinely engaging arguments especially in the fields of psych, sociology, anthro, and philosophy. I'm an NYPDL champion as of April NYPDL and an avid maverick.
 Truth over Tech
 Don't even think about running a K on me. Critiquing the system in order to benefit within the same said system is hypocritical and not only will you lose the round, but you'll lose my respect as well.
 Feel free not to prioritize weighing. By that I mean I'd rather you respond to substantive arguments that would otherwise be left unresponded to then tell me how horrible climate change is.
 For no reason should you be spreading. It's not that I can't flow it or can't understand it, but rather that I'll get annoyed by it. Also from a universalization perspective, spreading as a concept ruins the intellectual aspects of debate and promotes speaking fast or real argumentation. Immediate DQ.
 At least 1-2 POIs should be accepted by both teams each round if asked and refusing all POIs is definitely frowned upon.
 Funny and creative intros are not only allowed but encouraged
 Teams that run anti-human frameworks get +1 speaks
 @micahelderlindt will forever be my reference on anything philosophy, and @zachberg will forever be my reference on anything debate