debate-land/flow-paradigms huggingface dataset:
I did LD for four years at Scarsdale High School in NY, attending the TOC my senior year.
 My email is sanjanagauribhatnagar@gmail.com, add me to the email chain! 
 General 
 I'm pretty much good with whatever arguments you want to read, just be mindful of how you're treating the other people in the room. As a debater, I tended towards tricks, theory, and framework debate, but I wish that I had been a k debater, and really love to see whatever you're best at. Obviously don't read anything offensive (racist, sexist, transphobic, etc).
 I also ask that you slow down a little. Don't pref me if you don't feel confident that you can have a solid round at a fraction of your normal speed, I haven't done debate in four years and it takes me a second to get re-adjusted to spreading. 
 Weigh arguments, and weigh them well. This should be a given, but compare your weighing against your opponents' weighing. Interaction makes it make sense. Don't just extend things and presume I know what to do with them: I need you to spend time painting the bigger picture. If you want to minimize judge intervention, do the work yourself. 
 Defaults
 If nobody makes arguments, then I will default to these standards...please make arguments, so that I don't have to use defaults. 
 

 truth testing
 competing interps
 drop the debater on T
 drop the argument on theory
 no RVIs 
 

 Final Note
 Take yourself lightly, this is an extracurricular activity and it can feel all-consuming, but it also can be fun if you let it be. Odds are you won't remember the wins and losses in a couple of years. I wish someone had reinforced this more for me when I did this activity.
Live Laugh Love Debate
 zwillingham04@gmail.com
 Washburn Rural '22
 Assistant for Washburn Rural and Damien
 Debate is a technical game of strategy. If you debate more technically and more strategically, you will likely win. Read whatever and however you like. Any style or argument can win if executed well enough. I don’t believe judges should have any predetermined biased for any argument. 
 Speech times and order are non-negotiable. Prep time cannot be used for a speech under any circumstances.
 I find most "reject the team" arguments an excuse to avoid clash, so I subconsciously do work for the other team to try to make it only a reason to reject the argument. Not applicable to condo.
 I try to be expressive. Look up from your computer occasionally.
 I see a lot of split decisions because teams win arguments, but fail to tell me what I should do if you win said argument. Especially true for framework, tell me what the win condition is.
 I think there is a place for morally abhorrent arguments like spark in debate because I believe in the concept of switch-side debate. 
 I appreciate it when you ask questions, because I just spent a lot of time thinking about your debate. Feel free to respectfully charge the mound.
 Things to boost speaks, but won't affects wins and losses
 

 Make it seem like you are enjoying yourself and want to be here
 Do not bring your laptop up with you for final rebuttals
 Have more specific plantexts
 Read fewer off case positions
 Make jokes
 Take a longer gap when moving to a new page
 Good wiki and disclosure practices
I debated at Blue Valley Southwest High School for 4 years and am currently debating at KUFW
 I am heavily persuaded by arguments about why the affirmative should read a topical plan. One of the main reasons for this is that I am persuaded by a lot of framing arguments which nullify aff offense (TVOA, argument testing, etc). The best way to deal with these things is to more directly impact turn common impacts like procedural fairness. Affirmative teams would also be well served to offer a competing interpretation of debate, designed to mitigate the negative impacts.
 Fairness is the most persuasive impact to framework.
 K
 I'm not great for the K. In most instances this is because I believe the alternative solves the links to the aff or can't solve it's own impacts. This can be resolved by narrowing the scope of the K or strengthening the link explanation (too often negative teams do not explain the links in the context of the permutation). The simpler solution to this is a robust framework press.
 T
 I really enjoy good T debates. Fairness is the best (and maybe the only) impact. Education is very easily turned by fairness. Evidence quality is important, but only in so far as it improves the predictability/reduces the arbitrariness of the interpretation. 
 CP
 CPs are fun. I generally think that the negative doing non-plan action with the USfg is justified. Everything else is up for debate, but well developed aff arguments are dangerous on other questions.
 I generally think conditionality is good. I think the best example of my hesitation with conditionality is multi-plank counter plans which combine later in the debate to become something else entirely.
 If in cross x you say the status quo is always an option I will kick the counter plan if no further argumentation is made (you can also obviously just say conditional and clarify that judge kick is an option). If you say conditional and then tell me to kick in the 2NR and there is a 2AR press on the question I will be very uncomfortable and try to resolve the debate some other way. To resolve this, the 2AC should make an argument about judge kick.
 Questions comments and concerns can be directed to 42fryguy@gmail.comDon't send me comments
LD:
 I am more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about,especially LD. I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it. That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate. Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me! Don't be condescending in your cross-ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate. Ultimately, I want a debate, not a round of game play trying to win the round without actually debating to win.
I have experience judging PF, LD, and Speech at national-level tournaments. For PF: I am open to a wide variety of approaches to a topic and try not to intervene in a round unless absolutely necessary. Generally, I encourage debaters to consider quality over quantity, making links between evidence, contentions, and impacts as clear as possible, and to avoid speaking at super-human speed. It is also helpful when debaters consider framework and make a case for what voting issues should be in a round and how the arguments should be weighed. Please be mindful of not speaking over one another during CF.
I am a parent judge; you may send me cases to jules@floristsreview.com if possible before the round to help my understanding of your arguments.I am a lay judge; here are some guidelines for success:1) Please do not speak excessively fast. It is not helpful information if I cannot understand you.2) Just because I am a parent judge does not mean you can forget about warrants. If you want me to buy an argument, I need to know why it is valid on all levels of responses not just your case. Do not just make claims and expect me to buy them.3) Be respectful to your opponents and judges; any form of inappropriate behavior will result in an automatic loss.
I am a lay judge and this is my first year of judging. I flow the rounds, and I generally have some background knowledge on the topic, but please treat the round as if I do not because I may not know what you are talking about.
 What I look for in a round regarding any debate style:
 

 

 Speaking Speed: Please go at a moderate speed. I don’t want to have to judge a round where I am barely able to flow because of the speed the round is going at. I also want to make sure that both I and your opponents are able to understand your contentions. It’s very time-consuming in crossfires to ask for a summary of your contention(s).
 

 

 Timing: Please make good use of your time. I would appreciate it if you time yourself. I will be timing, but I think as debaters you need to develop the habit of timing yourself.
 

 

 Attitude: Please be respectful. I will not tolerate inappropriate language, interruptions, etc., and it would be in your best interest to avoid this. I will dock speaker points if anyone is rude.
 

 

 Crossfires: In your crossfires, allow your opponents to respond completely and don’t interrupt anyone. Also, please have your cards handy in case your opponents call for a card. It would save a lot of time.
 

 

 Cherry Picking: Please don’t take a single example and generalize it to the overarching idea. I’ve judged rounds where debaters have done this - for instance, on the PF NSA surveillance topic the privacy vs. security argument - and it’s very messy and hard to judge.
 

 

 Prep Time: Please don’t take any prep time before your crossfires. I’ll be glad to give it to you any other time, like before rebuttal, summary speech, etc., but I discourage taking any before a crossfire. I am okay with taking either running or set prep.
 

 

 Technical Difficulties: I like starting as soon as possible, and it would be greatly appreciated if you can resolve any tech issues with your partner/on your own before entering a round.
 

 

 Speaker Points: I’ll be basing your speaker points on your speed, style, timing, attitude, crossfires, and, of course, the actual content of your speeches.
 Clarify any questions you have for me beforehand.
 I look forward to judging a clean and interesting round.
Ebarden323@outlook.com
 I debated four years at Emporia High School and Washburn Rural High School (Kansas)—class of 1991. I went on to debate at the University of Texas for three years. I suppose I should be considered a traditionalist, but I don’t have any predisposition against more progressive styles of debate.
 My judging experience is mainly from policy debate. I expect my approach to public forum debate will be similar. You tell me how I should view the round. I will default to a utilitarian calculus, but it is up to you to define how I should rank competing impacts and values. I view the competing teams as authors of their own worlds, and I must choose which world I prefer.
 Debates that demonstrate substantial interaction with the positions of the other side are more interesting than debates that operate in independent universes. Strategically, conceding too much of the case debate leaves you fighting an uphill battle.
 I was around during the early days of the kritik, but I don’t have a lot of knowledge of most of today’s kritiks. If you abandon the case debate to focus on a generic kritik with only tangential links to the affirmative you potentially relieve the affirmative of their burden of proof.
 Tactics that will help you win my ballot:
 Be intelligible. I’m not going to flow the emailed text of your speech. I’m going to flow what I hear you say in the round. Go as fast as you want as long as you are not sacrificing comprehensibility. The goal is to deliver an efficient speech that maximizes word economy.
 Explain the implications of the arguments that you are winning. It’s not enough to win the argument. Explain how the argument fits into how you want me to evaluate the overall round.
 Specifically counter your opponents’ arguments. Highlight the weakness of their sources, or of the logic of their sources’ assertions. I’m looking for a demonstration of your ability to think independently of your front-line blocks.
 Evidence is a tool to support your arguments and analysis. I’ll give more weight to a logical, original analytic than a piece of evidence with thin reasoning.
 It’s an honor to participate in this activity with you. Have a great weekend!
Bio:
 pls add me to the chain - iandebatestuff@gmail.com
 prolly go 85-90% of your speed if you're spreading super quickly-- will call you out in you aren't enunciating clearly. Slow down on analytics in your rebuttal speeches.
 clipping is a L25
 Currently attend Loyola Marymount University
 3 years Varsity LD at Loyola HS.
 If you have any questions pls ask me b/f the round.
 

 Top level:
 Tech > Truth.
 Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preferences I have below. 
 I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.
 Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting).
 Banned arguments: Racism good and oppression good
 Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce.
 DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine. Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.
 Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.
 T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. I think Pics is a true arg the Aff should make on Nebel. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.
 Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from 1AR shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.
 K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, dualism, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework/methods , unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.
 K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms. Not the best judge in the world for it.
 Phil: Will try to evaluate fairly, but more experienced and think generally util is true. Epistemic modesty makes sense. Also extinction o/w's seems to be a persuasive arg.
 Other Things: Tricks should be sent via doc. If you extemp just send a doc after b/f cross.
 Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. 29 for breaking.
I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@crossingsschool.org
 Current head coach of both Crossings Christian School since 2011 and Southern Nazarene University since 2021. CCS has a 7th grade - 12th grade debate program and our varsity team debates on the national TOC circuit. I debated in high school under Martin Glendinning.
 Things you need to know for prefs:
 Kritiks: Oklahoma is very heavy with kritiks and non-topical affs so I am very familiar with them. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.
 Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.
 Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.
 Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.
 Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.
 I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.
Hi, my name is Nate; I'm currently a student at the University of Michigan. I debated Public Form on the local and national circuit in High School. 
 The most important thing I ask of you in round is to please avoid rude behavior; if you fail to do this and are malicious in round, I will tank your speaks and may give your opponent the win. So please please please be nice in round.
 Feel free to use debate lingo in round but assume I know nothing about the topic. I will take most information as given unless you refute it. 
 Time yourselves, I won't cut you off, but if you go over, I will stop flowing, and if you repeatedly go over, I will deduct speaks.
 I'm okay with medium to fast speed, do not spread PF is not the place for that. 
 Don't waste cross time (I can tell when you are purposefully wasting time); I won't flow cross, but I will pay attention, so if you gain an essential piece of information from cross, make sure to bring it up in your other speeches.
 When talking about evidence, don't just say the "Rider 11 Card" make sure to say the "Rider 11 card which shows X."
 Make sure to extend your arguments and response into the later parts of the round. If your opponent has responded to one of your arguments, make sure to respond to that response and explain how your impact still stands. If you fail to flow your arguments through, I will drop them.
i debated at hamilton high and toc qualled senior year
 please weigh
 while i'm all for dumping responses, i would prefer if y'all actually warrant and implicate your responses
 2nd rebuttal doesn't have to frontline defense, but it does have to frontline turns/DA's
 if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline defense, then 1st summary doesn't have to explicitly extend it
 i generally give high speaks unless someone was being rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.
 im open to progressive argumentation, but im fairly new to it so explain it thoroughly
 speed doesn't really matter as long as you're clear, but if you're going to spread send a speech doc
 if you have any questions feel free to ask before the round
 email - pinakpanda@gmail.com
Debaters:
 I believe that debate should focus on persuasion, analysis, discourse, and clear communication. I feel that this applies to all style of debate in which one can participate. I want to hear the debaters think on their feet, rebut any major point emphasized by their opponents and I need to hear every word that each debater says clearly. Emphasis should be placed on enunciating properly and clearly. I would prefer a pause and repeat rather than passing over a mispronunciation or indistinct phrase that impacts your argument. I do not look favorably on speed reading or spread debating as I feel that is only an attempt to be judged for the number of points emphasized rather than the strength and basis of the points used in the argument. I think of it as "quality of argument is more important the quantity of argument". A few strong arguments defended well outweigh a mound of argumentation and evidence rattled off so rapidly that one cannot be reasonably expected to hear, digest and note it all, let alone counter all of the points. I want to be able to keep up with you and take occasional notes as necessary. We all hear much faster than we can type or write.
 A debate should always be a respectful exchange of ideas, delivered at a pace so that a reasonably well-educated judge – even a first-time judge or parent/layman such as myself without any prior information on the subject– should be able to weigh the arguments presented and determine a winner. In line with this overall principle, I do not look favorably on a hostile, rude, or patronizing attitude on the part of the debaters towards their opponents.
 Speak clearly; argue intelligently; disagree in a respectful tone and demeanor. I look for a combination of evidence, reasoning, and analysis. Do not reference articles or studies without the availability to provide these to the opponent or judges if requested. If referenced make sure you argue why the study supports your argument, not just used as a reference. Just referencing a study without justifying it's use does not show deep thought and rationale in my opinion. I am not looking for a bibliography, I am looking for a foundation of your argument if referenced. A good debate should be understandable to a college-educated adult like myself who is not a certified judge with limited experience with the speech-and-debate environment. All debaters, even those who lose should learn from the experience and want to continue this road of friendly but determined discourse. As a judge I feel I am here to highlight what I think you did effectively and where you could improve. My view is a rather novice one with limited experience in judging, but a view very familiar with passionate and professional discourse amongst colleagues.
 Thank you and good luck!
Hey! I'm Snekha. I am currently a Freshman at UAB. I served as Captain of the VHHS LD Debate Team my senior year!
 Pronouns are she/her.
 Email --- snekharaj.nkl@gmail.com
 Please include me in the email chain. Also, feel free to email me if you have questions before the round!
 General
 Tech > Truth - I'm willing to vote on arguments that may not necessarily be true if they are warranted well.
 Speak clearly and engage with your opponent's arguments. Tell me why I should vote for you.
 Framework
 Be sure to explain what your framework is, and how I should evaluate it. Framework comes before contentions, so if you have different frameworks, please debate about it.
 Disads
 I find a lot of disads really improbable. If you want to convince me that something leads to extinction, you’d better have a solid link chain.
 Other
 I will pay attention during cross-ex, but if something important is said, make sure to say it in one of your speeches too.
 Please be nice to everyone, and have fun!!
Experience: 4 years of PubFo and Parli at the circuit levelSpeaker Points: I'm an old-school debater. I grew up debating at the dinner table so I'm going to be looking keenly for how well you listen to your opponent, actually understand what they say and how they think, and how well you articulate and explain yourself to them. This means you should be on your A-game during cross-examination. I also like to see your speaking style. I did a lot of OO and Impromptu so I'm pretty critical of this as well. I'm going to determine a winner based on what you say, not how you say it. But how you say it will go a long way towards determining how influential what you say is to winning.Speed- I've been out of circuit debate for a while so proceed at a reasonable speed. No spreading please.Ks are fine but don't stretch it. Only use it if it's necessary. I'm here to listen to something substantive about a real-world issue. Theory shells are fine but make sure it's well-structured and concise, especially if it's abstract reasoning. Sell all Ks and T-shells directly to me.Topicality- Only do this if it's necessary. Debate over topicality shouldn't run past the first cross-examination, otherwise the debate becomes pointless. Don't try to win on topicality because I want to be able to weigh contentions on a common framework.Impact Calculus- This is where you're going to make your money. All contentions should have a well-supported and well-defined impact. All impacts should be related directly to the value criterion, then value, and then the resolution such that the last thing you say should literally end with "...which is why we affirm/negate the resolution...(insert resolution)." Disads and extensions are good. I think it's important to the identity of a debate to exchange perspectives on the same idea. In the end I will be the ultimate judge of which impacts are valid and which impacts weigh more.Respect- I spent all four years of my high school debate career actively working against the notion that your opponents are your enemies. Yes, you are debating against them but they're across the table from you because they share the same love for debate as you do. Appreciate the fact that they are there and treat them with respect, otherwise, I might just give you a loss. Watch your demeanor, be nice, and mean it.Flow- I flow debates. If you're talking and I'm not writing it means that you didn't come across clearly in your last point and I'm trying to figure it out or that I'm waiting for you to say something substantive. Sometimes I will look up at you if I think you're making an important point. Don't waste your time and energy worrying over what I'm thinking because it could be the exact opposite. Make sure you address all of your opponent's points on the flow. Internal links are huge. If you don't link your points and support those links with evidence I won't buy it. Signpost everything. If you didn't explain something properly the first time i'll give you one more opportunity to clarify and validate your point. I look at the flow holistically so don't lose it over small things but if they add up it's going to make a difference, especially in a close round.
Emails for email chain
 Note when sending the email chain I would prefer for it to be in this format:
 Aff (Aff Team Name) v. Neg (Neg Team Name) (Tournament Name) Round X
 choudhura3@bxscience.edu and bronxsciencedebatedocs@gmail.com Conflicts: The Bronx High School of Science
 I'm a current sophomore at Binghamton University and do not debate as much as I did in high school. I'm open to any type of argument as long as the content and the weight that content has in the round are explained thoroughly. Spreading is fine so long as it is clear.
 Please try to show up at the room a couple of minutes before the round starts.
 Good luck, and have fun.
Hi! Your judge is my mom and I am writing this paradigm for her. I'm a debater from Millburn and here are a few key points to winning her ballot.
 Speaking:
 - Please don't speak too fast.
 General:
 

 PLEASE flesh out your arguments.
 Truth > Tech
 Signpost
 Cross-ex matters!
 DO NOT: Use excessive debate jargon, run progressive arguments (if you think there have been any serious violations in the round, let her know, or bring it up in a speech and explain it really well. Keep in mind that she is a lay judge so chances are that the ballot might not go your way), or be disrespectful or rude in any sort of manner
 

 Have fun and good luck :)
Add me on the email chain: saihanumanv@gmail.com. Please send constructives at a minimum
 Short Version
 UF '25
 Competed in Public Forum for 3 years nationally (Harvard, Bluekey, Stanford, Yale, Georgetown, Glenbrooks, Silver TOC) etc. 
 I'm voting off the flow so put any offense you want in final focus in summary. First summary only needs to extend defense on arguments that were frontlined in second rebuttal. Second rebuttal should answer all offense on the flow.
 Tech > truth, if its obviously not true prove it or tell me I wont assume. 
 Long Version
 Presumption:
 - If you want me to vote on presumption, please tell me, or else I'll probably try to find some very minimal offense on the flow that you may consider nonexistent.
 - I will default neg on presumption, but you can make the argument that presumption flows aff.
 Extensions:
 - The warrant and impact of an offensive argument must be extended in summary and final focus in order for me to evaluate it.
 - Your extensions can be very quick for parts of the debate that are clearly conceded.
 Weighing:
 - Good weighing will usually win you my ballot and give you a speaker point boost, but please avoid:
 1. Weighing that is not comparative
 2. Weighing instead of adequately answering the defense on your arguments
 3. New weighing in second final focus that isn't responding to new weighing analysis from the first ff.
 4. Dont assume I will believe your weighing unless you explain why it is better than your opponents.
 Evidence:
 - I will read any evidence that is contested or key to my decision at the end of the round.
 - I won't drop a team on miscut evidence. I will drop speaks and the argument however the round can still be won off of a different argument. 
 Speed:
 - Go as fast as you want, if you are going to spread I need to be on the email chain.
 - If you aren't clear dont spread. 
 Progressive Argumentation:
 - I have a good understanding of theory and have voted on less conventional shells albeit my experience with theory is minimal. Dont trust me to evaluate it entirely. 
 - Weigh your theory.
 Other things:
 - I think speaks are arbitrary, the funnier, more sarcastic and the more meorable you are the higher your speaks will be.
 - I like a good cross fire. The better it is the higher your speaks will be. 
 - Paradigm issues not mentioned here are up for debate within the round
 - Reading cards > paraphrasing, but paraphrasing is fine
 - Postrounding is fine
 - Preflow before the round start time
 - I will not vote on explicitly oppressive arguments.
I was a K hack in high-school, mainly PoMo (Deleuze, Baudrillard), but I have read my fair share of literature otherwise as well
 Comfortable judging any sort of round 
 Tell me what to vote on and why :)
 Email chain is preferred: yajbhargava@gmail.com
 I give everyone 30 speaks, so please don't read speaker point theory in front of me lol. Speaks are arbitrary and screw breaks. I dont care how pretty you sound, I care about the flow.
 Obligatory Paradigm Buzzwords: tabula rasa stock issues conditionality voters PIK NIB RVI time skew ROTB uniqueness perm double bind
I use the following set of criteria to evaluate and score the performances of debaters and speakers.
 

 

 Content: This is the substance of the speech or debate and includes the arguments, evidence, and reasoning presented by the participants. I look for clear, concise, and well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. I also look for arguments that are logically consistent and relevant to the topic at hand.
 

 

 Organization: This refers to the structure and flow of the speech or debate. I look for speeches that have a clear introduction, body, and conclusion, and debates that are organized in a logical and coherent manner. I also look for speakers who effectively use transitions to connect their ideas and maintain the flow of their argument.
 

 

 Delivery: This refers to the way in which the speech or debate is presented. I look for participants who speak clearly, use good posture and gestures, and have a confident and engaging manner. I also look for speakers who use appropriate pace, tone, and volume to engage their audience and convey their message.
 

 

 Evidence: This refers to the use of facts, data, and other forms of support to bolster arguments. I look for participants who use evidence that is credible, relevant, and appropriately sourced. I also look for speakers who effectively use evidence to reinforce their arguments and counter the arguments of their opponents.
 

 

 Rebuttal: This refers to the ability of participants to respond effectively to the arguments and evidence presented by their opponents. I look for participants who are able to effectively challenge the arguments of their opponents and provide counter-arguments that are well-supported and logically consistent.
 

 

 Style: This refers to the way in which the speech or debate is presented and the use of rhetorical devices, such as humor, analogy, and irony, to engage the audience and convey the message. I look for speakers who use style effectively to enhance their arguments and engage their audience.
 

 

 Time Management: This refers to the effective use of the allotted time in a speech or debate. I look for participants who use their time effectively, staying within the time limits and focusing on the most important points. They also look for speakers who are able to effectively manage their time and maintain the flow of their argument.
 

 

 Poise and Professionalism: This refers to the overall demeanor and behavior of the participants during the speech or debate. I look for participants who are poised, professional, and respectful to their opponents and the audience. They also look for speakers who remain calm and focused, even in the face of difficult questions or objections.
wake 24 | law magnet 20
 call me asya, like asia.
 pls add me to the chain - asyadebates@gmail.com
 be fun/funny/interesting, unless you’re not, then don’t be.
 i’d rather watch debates i’m normally in (clash, k debates). i’d also rather be doing things that aren’t judging debates so don’t feel like it’s adapt or die if you wanna do plan things, just know i need more handholding on argument interaction.
 defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe.
 “with high risk comes high reward, etc, etc” -- you win more the more you’re willing to try things you wouldn’t go for, and you can persuade me of most things (not ethnic genocide good, never ethnic genocide good).
 i flow, but sometimes not very fast or well. if i’m judging you, assume that i’m in the camp of people who are literally writing down what you’re saying and not always the argument you’re making. i don’t suck at debate, i just have short term memory loss and don’t want to literally miss arguments you’re making.
 i can’t flow when people are atrociously unclear, which is like saying “i can’t flow when the debaters are completely silent” because you are effectively saying nothing. i get being nervous though so i try as much as possible to not punish debaters for stuttering or anything else that people traditionally suggest makes someone a "bad speaker"
 i’m unclear on why people try to resolve debates in their paradigm - if i could resolve a debate on my own, then i would ask you to send speech docs for the 1ac/1nc and get back to you in thirty.
 

 argument specifics:
 -convincing me fairness matters as anything more than an internal link will be difficult.
 -if debated equally, i tend to err aff on framework.
 -default offense-defense, technical concessions matter - unless someone says they don’t or another frame of evaluation
 -won’t judge kick unless told to
 -unless the negative is crushing framework, at best i default to weighing the non-idealized version of the plan in most aff v k debates (i.e. i’m unlikely to ‘moot’ the aff)
 -don’t really follow docs to be honest, if i’m sus about clipping i certainly will (will dock speaks, won’t drop team unless the other team suggests it)
 ask me questions about my paradigm, wake debate/the rks, or my rfd. disagreeing with me is fine, insulting me is not.
 

 LD STUFF:
 I evaluate debate like a policy debater that reads k's and read 'larp' or more traditional arguments in high school. I value really good thought out strategies over obfuscating the debate. Debate should be about substantive issues so it's easier to get me to reject the argument and not the team for theory.
 please don't ask me for your speaks (uncomfortable), please set up an email chain (not fileshare)
 if you need help preffing me, nate kruger gave me this guide:
 k - 1
 larp - 1
 theory (topicality) - 1
 phil - 4
 tricks/theory - 5
(written by son who is a debater)
 Hello!
 This is my first time judging a tournament, so expect me to be super lay. 
 I strongly suggest you speak slowly so I can understand you. 
 I do not understand theory, so if you run any sort of theory, expect the worst.
 I am probably truth over tech, but if you want to say the sky is green go for it. 
 don't put too much faith into my flow so if you want to bring up something said in a previous speech be clear about it. 
 Time yourself and be nice to your opponent, debate is supposed to be fun!!
Top Level:
 Head-Royce '22, WFU '26
 Topics I debated: Immigration, Arms Sales, Criminal Justice Reform, Water Resources, Legal Rights
 Add me to the chain: prestonshenjishaw@gmail.com
 I debate on the college circuit and have been both a 2A and 2N at various times throughout my years of debate. I've read both policy affs and kritikal affs. On the neg, in high school, my partner and I primarily went for T or some other theory/the K vs policy affs and Cap/some theory argument vs K affs. In college, my partner and I primarily read policy arguments.
 Debate should be a safe activity for everyone. If you say or do anything offensive, I'll stop the round and give you a loss and zeros.
 Short Version:
 Do what you do best. I would much rather see teams who know what they are reading and talking about than teams who are trying to adapt to me but lack nuance. My knowledge is pretty flex, but more centered around kritiks. I will still vote for your CP/DA strategies though. I love a good T/Theory debate so if thats your jam, go for it. Writing my ballot for me at the top of the 2NR/2AR is key to get my vote.
 

 FW: Can go either way, but I probably err aff. Fairness is an internal link not an impact. The aff team has to clearly explain their interp and the world of the interp.
 K's: I am versed and experienced in most k lit, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for you. I love specific links to the aff. In high school, the K was our go to, so take that info how you will.
 K Aff's: I love kritikal affs and think they are really interesting and a great part of debate. I read a K aff my junior and senior year. Please clearly explain what your method/solvency does. I should be able to explain it back to you at the end of the debate, and if I can't, you probably don't have my ballot. K aff's get perms.
 DA's: You have to have a clear link to the aff, and there has to be impact comparison. A good turns case analysis versus aff impact will make my ballot a lot easier to get.
 CP's: I like a good counterplan debate, but I think that advantage cps with a ton of planks can be abusive. I am not the best in a competition debate. There has to be a net benefit to the permutation.
 T/Theory: I love T and theory, so please read it. There needs to be a specific violation and impacts.
 Case: This is the most underutilized part of debate. A good case debate can dismantle an aff, so please spend time on it.
 Other things:
 Disclosure: It should be 100% correct, and I am not afraid to drop a team for bad disclosure. This includes disclosing the wrong plan text or changing something without alerting the other team.
 If you bring an ethics challenge, the round stops.
 Please, please, please be nice to each other
Hello Debaters, 
 I am parent judge for Public Forum. I can flow speeches as long as I understand what they are saying. Here are some general preferences:
 

 I am not familiar with debate jargon or with theory debate
 If you choose to speak fast, provide speech document
 Cross Examination is an important part of the debate to me and I will pay attention to it
 Hold each other accountable for time
 It would help if you can provide a roadmap before speech after constructive
 I will give/cut speaker points based on coherency and substance
 Weighing is very important and explain properly
 

 Lastly, have fun and be respectful!
I have four years of experience judging and competing in parli debate at high school and college levels (APDA and BP). 
 I take careful notes on paper. I tend to privilege reasoning and analysis over sources and evidence. I take a tabula-rasa approach and like when all assumptions are stated. As for behavior, just be respectful. 
 Signposting. I like speeches that are well structured (numbered or otherwise distinct arguments). A dropped argument does not mean an automatic loss. 
 Points of Information. They can make for a more vibrant and engaging round but I do not keep count of them. 
 Point of Order. I try to ignore new arguments in the last round but pointing them out to me via POO is helpful. 
 Speed. I do not enjoy high-speed speeches.  
 Tag-Teaming. In an online debate, tag-teaming is too messy. 
 Theory. I am open to theory if you can demonstrate that something your opponent is doing is unfair or abusive. Theory must be well explained. 
 Kritiks. I think that kritiks are almost always poorly applied. 
 Topicality. Your interpretation of the motion should be reasonable. 
 One good argument can outweigh several bad ones. I don’t come into the round with a defined set of ethics - I like debaters to explain why a given outcome is good or bad.
Ten other things:
 1. I did 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years NPTE/NPDA style parli in college. I was okay, but forgettable.
 2. Speed is good but not everybody is fast. Don't exclude your opponent though because I WILL vote on a well-articulated speed position if there is genuine abuse. I am also pretty rusty. I haven't been in debate for a few years, so don't start full speed. 
 3. I ran the K half of the time in my own rounds but I preferred reading the K all of the time. At this point in my life, I genuinely think straight-up policy debate is boring. If policy is your thing I can definitely evaluate it and I will vote for the team that wins not the team that entertains me the most, but I honestly might not be your critic if policy is your go to strategy.
 4. If you read a K on the aff make sure you justify your framework, explain why there isn't a TVA, or read a criticism that is in the same direction of the resolution. I don't assume that policy making is the default framework for the debate. Everybody needs to be able to justify their frameworks, not just "critical" teams.
 5. I love uniqueness debates. Your link is way less compelling if you don't have control of the direction of uniqueness.
 6. Being overtly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or otherwise violent is a voting issue, not just a speaker point issue.
 7. Read interps/counter-interps, plan texts, counterplan texts, AND/OR alternatives slowly and twice. Seriously, if you want to leverage the exact wording of your interp or text, you NEED to read it twice or provide me a copy or deal with the fact that I am writing it down as you are giving a speech. THIS IS EXTRA IMPORTANT IN ONLINE DEBATES.
 8. I value creativity. If you have a strategy you have always wanted to try but never knew if the judge was down, I am down.
 9. I have almost no hard opinions on what is legitimate in debate. That means that I am down to listen to most theory arguments. You do still need to actually win them though. I default to competing interps. I also take the wording of interpretations pretty seriously so make sure that the interp actually says what you want it to. This is also another reason to make sure I get your interp down as accurately as possible.
 10. Terminal defense wins, but terminal solvency defense does not (often). A "we meet" makes theory go away, a no link makes a disad/K go away (assuming you win it); "The plan doesn't solve" needs to be coupled with some offense reason to reject the position.
Hi! I am Frida (she/her)!
 As far as experience goes, I did three years of LD debate here in Wisconsin and I'm currently a college sophomore.
 Here are my preferences:
 Speed is fine. I can flow it. If you are using it as a strategy though to hurt your opponent, that feels very unsportsmanlike and I do not care for that.
 I really like a good framework debate. Show me how your framework is superior, how your case fits under it, and please don't drop it.
 I also like tangible statistical impacts. Nuclear fallout is great, but how likely is it actually? War, on the other hand, I am much more likely to believe and weigh. I will though listen to almost anything (obviously nothing racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc) so long as your links are strong. For a lot of these topics, I hear the same arguments over and over again so I love hearing new things!
 I don't love CPs and Ks, but I will hear them. If you run them because you know your opponent can't address them though, it makes the debate boring and, again, feels a bit unsportsmanlike.
 What happens in cross stays in cross, unless it gets brought up. If it does, I will start weighing it.
 Dropped items will not be considered unless your opponent mentions them, but I will be sure to comment on them afterward.
 Please assume I do not know anything coming into the round. Tell me what to vote on and I probably will. I like clear voters and impacts.
 Have fun!
I'm Anna (she/her). I’m a sophmore at Brown University. I coach PF for Durham where I debated from 2018-2021.
 Add me to the chain: anna.brent-levenstein@da.org
 TLDR:
 At the end of the day, I’ll vote off the flow. Read whatever arguments, weighing, framework etc. you want. That being said, I don’t like blippy debate. Don’t skimp on warranting. If your argument doesn’t have a warrant the first time it’s read, I won’t vote off of it. I am especially persuaded by teams that have a strong narrative in the back half or a clear offensive strategy.
 Specifics:
 1. I always look to weighing first when I make a decision. If you are winning weighing on an argument and offense off of it, you have my ballot. That said, it must be actual comparative, well-warranted weighing not just a collection of buzzwords(e.g. we outweigh on probability because our argument is more probable is not weighing). Prereqs, link ins, short circuits etc. are the best pieces of weighing you can read.
 2. Collapse and extend. I'm not voting off of a 5 sec extension of a half fleshed out turn. It will better serve you to spend your time in the back half extending, front-lining, and weighing one or two arguments well than 5 arguments poorly.
 3. Implicate defense, especially in the back half. If it is terminal, tell me that. If it mitigates offense so much that their impacts aren't weighable, tell me that. Otherwise, I'm going to be more likely to vote on risk of offense arguments. Impact out and weigh turns.
 4. I will evaluate theory/Ks/progressive args. When reading Ks, please make my role as a judge/the ROB as explicit as possible. Additionally, please know the literature well and explain your authors' positions as thoroughly and accessibly as possible. I see theory as a way to check back against serious abuse and/or protect safety in rounds. I will evaluate paraphrase and disclosure theory but find that the debates are generally boring so I won't be thrilled watching them.
 I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. Respect your opponents and their pronouns.
 Finally, I really appreciate humor and wit. Making me laugh or smile will give you a really good chance at high speaker points.
 If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round. I will disclose and give feedback after the round.
Hello Debaters, 
 I am Veena Devarakonda, a parent judge and am happy to meet you all. I am sure everyone has worked really hard in preparation for your tournament and will give it your best. I care about what you have to say. My job is to give you all the points you deserve! So, please help me do that. 
 Speak slowly and have clearly outlined arguments. I will attempt to flow but if you speak fast, I may not be able to keep up. It's your job to make sure my flow is organized through your speeches. Winning arguments are the ones that are enforced, brought up, and defended throughout the round. Any arguments brought up last minute will not win you the round. I value presentation as well, but as long as your speech is understandable, that is good.
 Please be courteous to your teammates and opponents. If I hear any sexist, or racist remarks you will automatically be downed. If you lose one round, you always have room to grow for the future and improve. Most importantly, have fun and all the best!