debate-land/flow-paradigms huggingface dataset:
Hey all,
 I'm a former four-year high school PFD debater and currently participate on the college circuit for both Mock Trial and British Parliamentarian Debate. In high school, I also dabbled across Individual events: Poetry, Poi, Oratory, Congress, getting to NSDA Nationals, and NITOC in Poetry and Poi respectively. For PFD, I was both a first and second speaker. In congress, I was the district's presiding officer.
 In college, I'm a planned Political Science, Philosophy, and Econ major with a minor in data science. I say this to show I will hear both deontological and utilitarian arguments equally but want to hear at least some weighing in the summary and final focus. This weighing should be done on some agreed framework-I don't like rounds that are just fw based, I get if it is a point of contention up until summary speeches but beyond that is just draining for everyone (I find that if this is the case one team is usually being abusive).
 If you spread, I'm ok with that, but please make sure you are articulating well and that you read your tags/sources for every card.
 On sources, this is a major gripe of mine. I will be open to hearing any source objections play out, and if the opposition can not give you a valid citation I will expunge the card from my final calculus. Essentially, cite credible sources and have those citations handy.
 I was big in high school on having outside-the-box cases and theory, and think it is always exciting to hear these arguments, but make sure you have a clear link chain, if one leg breaks do you have another to lean on? (if so make that known---remember I'm a Philosophy major so I love a well laid out arg).
 I always hated when judges added in their own argumentation as a means to justify a loss: to be clear, I will not do that. If I add a possible question or counter arg that was not articulated in the round to your ballot, know that did not factor into my ruling.
 That being said, I'm competent enough to understand where most arguments are going...As I said I am studying poli-sci and econ. If it's between a summary speech rearticulating a non-responded objection or hitting another arg, always hit the other arg.
 Finally, a note on formatting. I'm not a stickler for the off-the-clock road map that has grown to be ever so pervasive-instead I just want you to signpost throughout your speech-I and everyone else in the room should be flowing, help us out when you transition from one side of the flow to the other.
Dave Arnett
 Director of Debate, University of Kentucky
 21st year judging
 Updated September 2017
 Go ahead and put me on the doc chain davidbrianarnett@gmail.com. Please be aware that I do not read along so clarity and explaining your evidence matters a lot. Many debates I will ask for a compiled document after the round. I reward clear line by line debating with mountains of points and wins.
 Better team usually wins---X---------------------the rest of this
 Team should adapt---------------X----------------judge should adapt
 Topics-X----------------------------------------------Topics?
 Policy---------X---------------------------------------K
 Tech--------------X-----------------------------------Truth
 Hester-------------------------X---------------------Read all the cards
 Conditionality bad-------------------------------X---debate should be hard
 Nothing competes------------------------------X---counterplans are fun
 States CP good--------X------------------------------States CP bad
 UQ matters most----------------------X-------------Link matters most
 Line by Line-X-----------------------------------------Flow Anarchy
 Clarity-X------------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
 Lots of evidence--------------------------------------X-lots of really good evidence
 Reasonability--------------X---------------------------competing interpretations
 29 is the new 28---X-----------------------------------grumpy old guy (true for other reasons but less so on this)
 Civility-X-------------------------------------------------My Dean would cancel our program if they saw this
I'm a parent judge. I won't understand and therefore not evaluate speaking at above a quick conversational pace. Please debate the topic, and don't run tricky positions. You can run Ks, Theory, and PIC's/CP's but you run the risk of me not understanding, so err on the side of over-explanation. I like weighing and outlining your path to the ballot. I am not great at determining the correct winner on the flow, so I will vote for the most persuasive debater, however empirics and good evidence will win you ethos. I try to give high speaks. TLDR; lay
My Background:I have recently started judging public forum debate and consider myself an amateur "parent judge."I have a background in Business and Finance.
 My Requests:I request the contestants to speak a little slowly - I am a novice judge.I request you to track your time. I would like the teams to strictly follow their allocated time to keep the debate fair.I request the debaters to provide their contentions in a written bullet form as it will ensure that I fully understand and track their arguments. I request you to not provide details, just the title of your contentions.
***extra speaks if you have snacks and want to share some with me***
 1) I'm tech over truth. At the end of the round, I determine who's winning the framework debate, and then determine who has more offense under that framework based on the flow. I'd prefer to hear logical and well-warranted arguments over appeals to emotion.
 2) I prefer quality over quantity. I'd much rather see you make a few really good arguments instead of 15 quick ones since they tend to be fleshed out. I'm skeptical of debaters that suddenly extend arguments in later speeches that weren't really made/fully explained earlier. That being said, no cheap shot arguments like tricks.
 3) Please weigh. Tell me why your impacts are more important and/or why your evidence is better than your opponents' evidence. I think evidence comparison (ex. comparing dates/pointing out flaws/etc.) is underutilized, and I'm persuaded by debaters that do so.
 4) Please crystallize. In your last speech, explain to me the few, most important reasons why you win the round and how they interact with those reasons made by your opponent. If you focus on small details, it's unlikely I'll be convinced by the end of the debate.
 5) Be respectful. Don't be mean or offensive to your opponents or judges.
 Please be accessible and inclusive of your opponent and remember that at the end of the day, debate is an educational activity.
 Best of luck.
 1 - traditional debates (extra speaks for this).
 2 - non-T AFFs, kritik, topicality, advantages, disadvantages, counterplans
 4 - theory
 5 - frivolous arguments, phil, analytical phil
 Strike - tricks, blippy arguments with questionable warrants
Clarke Dickens
 Former Debater (Middle and High School) under the Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)
 Summary:
 I’ve judged rounds for novice and JV and Varsity. I have also participated in national circuit tournaments. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship as presented to me in round.
 My preferences (heavily influenced by David Trigaux):
 Pre-Round
 

 

 Speed: I prefer a mix of good speed and clear argument(s).
 

 

 Policy v Kritik: No preference
 

 

 Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
 

 I usually do not vote on T.
 

 Performance: Not something I favor, but still open to. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
 

 

 Shadow Extending: I don’t flow author’s names, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you.
 

 

 Email Chains: I do look at email chains during the round. If I don’t hear it, I won’t flow it, but I do look to make sure both teams are sending the documents they said they would. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.
 

 

 

 

 Creativity + Scholarship: I look for creative thinking, and original research. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat.
 

 

 Don't / Pet Peeves
 

 

 Don't attempt to try to get a reaction out of me in rounds by making jokes/being sarcastic.
 

 

 Be disrespectful--I am very very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
 

 

 Make Debate Less Accessible: This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person.
 

 

 Overviews: Keep them short.
 

 

 Counterplans: Do run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or Topic nuance for Generics (like Courts).
 Don’t forget to perm. As well as default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.
 Kritiks: I love K debates, but I am very picky about what I think a good K should look like. It should include aff specific links, the solvency needs to be thoroughly explained, and it should also be able to be explained in your own words.
 Role of the Ballot: Surprise me.
I'm extremely new to debate - this is my first year judging
 - Please talk in a way I can understand (not too fast, not too much debate jargon, etc.)
 - As I'm new to debate, just saying things like "nonunique" or "link-turn" mean absolutely nothing to me, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING PLEASE
 - Despite the fact that I'm a parent judge, I will be judging how you debate not what you say, so do with that what you will
 - I might call for evidence if something is fishy (so don't be fishy)
 - Above all else, be respectful, nice, and cordial to your fellow debaters. Let's all have a good time with this!
5 years judging PF—4 times at TOC (gold and silver divisions), 3 times at Nationals
 I coach only Public Forum.
 I am a high school English teacher full time. I also tutor middle school students in debate and speech as well as teach at a University in the evenings on top of coaching for my school.
 Speed is fine with me.
 I prefer big picture summaries
 Role of the Final Focus: Crystallize the round (cliché, I know), but if it does not follow through on the flow I won’t weigh it.
 Extension of Arguments into later speeches: I want to see everything on the flow. I look specifically at the summary and the final focus to see what you want me to really focus on in my decision.
 Topicality/Plans/Kritiks: Make me engaged and interested in how you approach the round. I am not a stickler for or against anything at all. I want to see solid debates with clear argumentation and exceptional evidence.
 Flowing/note-taking: I flow on the computer in an excel spreadsheet. I have my own shorthand and do not flow during crossfire because I would rather see the ammunition come up in speeches.
 I value arguments. Style is irrelevant to me as long as I can understand your speaking—be snarky, be rude, whatever. Just get your point across.
 If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? I think that the argument should be clearly flowed across. However, that does not mean I would not consider a major missing element from the constructive if it was crucial to the round.
 If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? No, I do not require this. It can be effective at times, but not required.
 Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Sure. If it is clear and well grounded.
 Weighing: I want you to weigh for me if the resolution and your case are really asking for it (usually you would know if you need to.) If you don't weigh and tell me what you ultimately want me to vote for and why by the final focus.... then I will just choose based on the flow.
 Crossfire: I'm listening to what you are saying, but I don't write anything down for the most part, unless I am checking my flow against what you are saying and editing. If you want me to flow it, it better come up again in the speeches.
 Framework: Sure. Do it. But if you both have one, you better make sure you decide which one to use and why and convince me of that.
 Off time roadmaps: Don't care.
 My only expectation is good clear debate. I do not like the argument that Public Forum is only for “lay” people off the street. I think it has much more potential to be an intellectual and engaging technical challenge. I am not a big fan of weighing lives because it really seems to be about the pathos/narrative and not the actual argumentation. Not that I don’t care about lives or whatever, it just is generally not an effective argument and most times there are more interesting ways to approach a topic than that.
My Background: I am a graduate of UC Davis. My background is in Biology and Political Science. I competed primarily on the LD circuit (national and local) but also did some parli, impromptu, and IX.). I debated all 4 years at La Costa Canyon High School (2012-15) but also had to compete independently under Leucadia Independent. I also competed in NPDA (parli) for one year in college, and Model UN for 4 years. Feel free to clarify any questions before the round. I have not judged regularly much since I stopped debating, so I am not as good with speed.Evaluation of rounds: I will first evaluate wins the framework debate, then followed by who links their offense best back to the framework. Speed: Slow down for taglines and authors. I haven’t competed or judged recently so I don’t trust my own ability to flow speed very well. If you do speed, please do so proportionally to your clarity. I will yell clear and/or slow. If you are sharing case files please try to order your cards in order read and delete or clearly designate cards as not read (for ex. highlighed all red, tiny font) and/or clearly say "skip XXX evidence."
 Theory/T: Feel free to engage in theoretical debate. Please don’t be a jerk though. I do appreciate it if one does use theory strategically, they provide a reasonable abuse story. I prefer if you frame it like a shell (a, b, c, d…). I must explicitly hear a warrant for “drop the debater” if you want me to vote that way. I default to competing interpretations.Policy Arguments: I understand these pretty well. When considering impacts, please try and have a clear link chain with warrants. Kritiks: I never explicitly ran K’s. That said, if you do run a K, I do not understand a lot of K lit. Of course, I’ve hit the basics. Please explain a K to me. Use cross-x wisely here. If I don’t understand the argument, I will likely buy your opponent’s refutation. That said, I will vote on a K if well executed. Also, when running a K, do not drop your opponent’s case. I will not cross apply your K arguments to your opponents framework. Try to engage your opponent's case. This is often where I would find a way to beat a K. I don’t like it when debaters get handed a K and read it because they think it’s a definite win. It’s not, and I expect debaters to be able to beat a poorly run K. Speaker points: Don’t make me yell clear/slow a lot, or be disrespectful in round. I believe word economy and fluidity also factor into getting high speaker points. Again, please slow down for tags and authors. If you don't, and I can't flow these well, this is your loss and your speaker points should reflect that. Things I dislike: most skep, performance cases, weird K’s, voting on presumption, lying in cross-x, new evidence in the two, anyone who cites CHSSA rules as a reason for me to drop the opponent.Things I like: good weighing, clear extensions (claim, warrant, & impact), strategic use of cross-x, a solid framework, sticking to an off-time road map. Try to not use some stock case you use at every tournament. I like relevant, topical debate.That said, I love LD, and I look forward to being surrounded by it once again. I look forward to judging a good round! :)
I am a lay judge who began judging debates last year when my son entered HS. I have been a judge in about five debate tournaments not including States, which was this past Spring. I take judging seriously, and have incredible admiration for HS debaters and the time and effort that one has to contribute in order to be an effective and competent competitor. 
 What I look for when judging is mutual respect, debaters to not rush their words so that we, the judges, can understand what they are trying to communicate, and I highly encourage signposting. I want to underscore the importance of not speaking so fast that it becomes difficult to follow your argument. 
 While I appreciate the motives behind progressive argumentation, I do not have experience judging it and therefore would advise debaters to not use this in rounds that I judge. 
 Although I am not perfect, I promise at each debate to do my best and to give my full attention to the debate at hand.
Hi,
 I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:
 - I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round. 
 - Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.
 With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!
I'm a parent judge but I do have some experience as a policy (CX) debater from when I was in high school a loooooong time ago. A couple of pointers that I hope will be useful:
 

 I think I could handle some spreading but check with the other team first and be articulate.
 Make sure to signpost. Please list your contentions and impacts.
 When rebutting, please reference those signposts, I use a ridiculously large flow sheet but need your help to keep it organized!
 I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, harassment, or discrimination. Be courteous and professional with one another, especially during cross-x. You will be dinged if you are rude or abusive.
 

 Most importantly, have fun! Debate is a great experience that provides valuable skills and wonderful memories.
Hi! I'm a junior at UC Berkeley studying CS & Business and I debated in PF for Gunn High School for 4 years.
 I haven’t judged/done anything debate related in a WHILE and know nothing about this topic - old paradigm below
 ---
 Experience (only competed in PF): 3x TOC, 2x Elims @Nats, Championed Berkeley, Semi-ed Stanford, Top Speaker Awards at Yale, Berkeley, etc.
 I'm cool with all types of argumentation so feel free to do whatever you want - if you're planning on running a K or T please explain your argument thoroughly.
 I am fine with speed but if you are going wayyy too fast or speaking totally unclearly, I'll let you know.
 Have fun in cross and please stay calm and polite.
 Some important things to note:
 - read TWs if/when needed
 - defense is sticky
 - tabula rasa, tech > truth
 - I will ALWAYS (unless you argue otherwise) presume first because I believe the first-speaking team has a structural disadvantage and significant time skew.
 - pls weigh
 - respond to all turns in 2nd rebuttal AND frontline
 - engage with clash
 - if you are extremely rude or offensive (racist, sexist, ableist etc.) in any way at all I'll drop you and give you 25 speaker points.
 - I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to and it's a) essential to adjudicate the round and b) sounds misconstrued
 - Sajan Mehrotra is my idol (if you want more specifics, please read his paradigm, which I believe is a link to someone else's paradigm lol)
 Feel free to email me at ishan.balakrishnan@berkeley.edu if you have any questions after the round - I'm happy to give advice or further explain my decision at any time!
2022-2023 is my first year judging debate. I have judged Congressional once. Scarsdale is my first Public Forum Judging. The Christmas Classic is my third time judging.
 Please speak slowly and project so I can hear and understand your arguments.
 I have participated in speech contests both as a student and an adult.
 I have previously been involved with Toastmasters where evaluation is an important part of participation.
 I was an adjunct assistant professor of media studies for more than 15 years and am used to adult students discussing topics in class, and making arguments. In addition, I have had to grade exams, papers, and student participation.
 I have been a regional Emmy Judge and have judged submissions from throughout the country. Categories judged have included public service, documentary, sports, and promo.
I'm hyper tech judge. K's are fine but i don't evaluate theory. Start email chains for every round and give all evidence and rhetoric before your speech. I don't want google docs - only pdf and word docs. I won't evaluate evidence sent to me as a part of my decision making unless you tell me to. Smart weighing, good arguments, and evidence ethics are your path to the ballot. I think grand cross is dumb but we gotta do it for UT.
 

 

 

 

 

 I qualled for TFA, TOC, and Nationals in PF. Have fun and live 365.
 

 lawal.a.hanif@gmail.com
I have some judging experience but I would suggest treating me as a lay judge. That means going for complex theory arguments is a risky move if not very well communicated.
 I would like to be added to the email chain: tanishbhowmick@gmail.com
 Some things to consider during round:
 1. I prefer logical arguments overall. Whoever has a more persuasive, fluent, and substantial argument has a higher chance of winning, though nothing is guaranteed.
 2. Being aggressive is fine, just as long as you are not offensive in any nature
 3. I am ok with speed but it's been a while so I suggest starting off a little slower before ramping it up. I will yell slow if you're going too fast and if I have to yell 3 or more times you're getting 27.5 speaks max. I also don't like cramming in extreme amounts of arguments; quality over quantity always.
 4. Theory is fine, but do not depend on it for the whole argument. As mentioned before, I still prefer substance over anything else. I wouldn't suggest complex philosophies because, as I said, my experience is limited so try to refrain. If you do decide to go with any complex debate rhetoric, make sure to explain them fully or I might not understand and will ignore the argument during my decision.
 Finally, just have fun with the debate. This is in my opinion one of the most enjoyable educational extracurriculars and so I want the debate to be fun and well-spirited.
catherinxliu@gmail.com
 Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25
 Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.
 General thoughts:
 

 I care about warrants much more than evidence. You cannot just extend Liu ‘23 and say “this proves unions decrease wages” without explaining WHY this is true, because certainly the authors have a reason behind their conclusion. This means 1) I would MUCH rather hear good analytics than bad evidence, 2) you need to extend warrants to get the impact, and 3) I do not care about your cards as much as you think I might.
 Please please please collapse and weigh. Otherwise I will have to do this for you and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
 

 ——
 circuit LD thoughts:
 Prefs shortcut:
 1 - traditional, k/performance2 - larp, some theory4 - friv theory
 Miscellaneous thoughts:
 - I won't vote on arguments I don't understand- please collapse by the 2n/2a- disclosure is probably good- good analytics > bad cards
Speak at a moderate pace that both your opponent and I can follow. This is Public Forum, there should be no theory - that belongs to Policy and LD.
 I will be flowing the round. No new arguments in summary. However, in summaries, I do prefer a line-by-line to address the round. Give me clear voters in your final focus to make sure that I know what you want me to vote on for the round.
 Avoid off-time roadmaps - your speech should clearly signpost.
 For evidence shares: please use this email - taylor.sluder@bcsemail.org
I have been judging LD debates since October 2021 as a parent judge. While English is my second language, I have been in the country for more than 20years and am a professor in the field of marketing. Therefore, I don't expect you to purposefully slowdown just for me.
 Some basic principles I follow for the judging:
 1) Logic and impact come as the most important factor for winning the debate;
 2) Techniques matter: please speak at a reasonable speed to clearly communicate your evidence and arguments in an organized manner;
 2) Professionalism is the bottom line: be respectful when responding to the opponent's questions or arguments;
 3) Enthusiasm and energy will be always appreciated.
I co-sign McKenna Peterson's paradigm pasted below. 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 General: Debate is a game that is played to be won but it is also a game that can involve very personal components. So in round be respectful and inclusive. Tell me what weighing mechanism to use when evaluating who should win, debate which weighing mechanism is better, and tell me why you win within that weighing mechanism. Also, more structure and signposting is ALWAYS better. I default to evaluating the round through the technical components of the flow unless told to do otherwise.
 Policy Debate: Run anything you want (politics, PICs, business confidence, anything). I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.
 Theory: I am good with anything. I prefer it when its used to actually check back for abuse in round and not just as a time suck but I am willing to vote on it regardless. I do not have a preference of the standards vs voters debate.
 Speed / Speaker Points: I have no problem with speed, but be clear and maintain solid word economy. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it. Otherwise, go as fast as you want. Speaker points are awarded by the quality and competitiveness of arguments made rather than persuasiveness.
I prefer debaters who articulate clearly instead of word speeding.
 I prefer debaters who reason not only logically but also have factual data to back up the reasoning, instead of only having factual data.
 I prefer debaters who use common logic instead of convoluted reasoning.
 I prefer debaters who understand not only your own contentions but also your opponents contentions.
 I prefer debaters who can come up with good counter arguments to their opponents contentions using pertinent evidence and reasoning instead of going in circle.
 I prefer debaters who are respectful to their opponents. Aggressively interrupting your opponents during cross should be avoided.
As a judge, I value clear and organized argumentation that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic. I prefer debaters who are well-researched and able to support their arguments with evidence and examples according to their given framework. In Parliamentary, I appreciate teams who focus on clash and weigh the competing arguments and their impacts. In Lincoln-Douglas, I expect debaters to engage with the philosophical implications of the topic and provide a clear value framework that is consistently applied throughout the round. I expect all participants to adhere to the principles of fair play and respectful discourse. It should be a given that rude, disrespectful, and aggressive behavior will not be tolerated and will result in low scores or disqualification.
I’ve been involved in debate since 1999, when as a HS sophomore I joined the MVHS team as a policy debater. My first affirmative case was about DADT. The first disad I remember was about the Gore v Bush 2000 election. The first counterplan I ran abolished the military. A few things about my background influence the way I judge:
 1) Back in the day my favorite judges were those that said the debate was up to the students — they set most of the rules about the content of the debate. I strive to follow this example and minimize the intervention of my own proclivities in the way I judge, with the exception that I remain convinced that arguments are not mere assertions — “the sky is blue, voting issue” — and thus I believe complete arguments begin the burden of rejoinder/refutation. I don’t have to agree with an argument to vote for it, especially when it’s not countered, but I do reserve the right to dismiss arguments that are not fully explained or which lack essential pieces of the “claim, warrant, evidence” puzzle.
 2) As a HS debater, my least favorite judges said their paradigm was “comms” focused: although it claimed to be an orientation towards the forms of presentation — i.e. speed, evidence citation, organization, eye contact — I quickly learned that it was paradigm was typically a euphemism or mask, revealing or concealing other preferences, including about theory and types of arguments (counterplans, kritiks, etc.). As I got older and gained more experience, I realized that these judges nevertheless had a point. Debate *is* a communication activity. The game is not reducible to research and logic alone. Successful arguments — successful debaters — take this into account, and my evaluation/feedback will as well.
 3) I’m no longer a policy debate purest (elitist), though its with this format that I’ve spent the most time, first at MVHS and then as a policy debater at Michigan State University and later as a coach at Whitman and the University of Georgia. I’ve also coached and judged: LD, PF, World Schools, American Parli, British Parli, Asian Parli, and World Schools. Although each format has certain unique eccentricities, the truth is that all these styles of debate have far more in common than most participants realize.
 4) From 2014-2020, I lived in China and coached mainly PF, World Schools and BP. Once a year I would bring students back to the US to debate at Harvard, Stanford, and Berkley.
 5) Readers beat talkers, especially when talkers fail to read.
 6) I follow the Chilean antipoet Nicanor Parra’s proposition that real seriousness rests in the comic, which I realize now is sadly lacking in this paradigm. What do I mean? I mean debate hard, take it seriously, but don’t forget that this is a game. It should be fun.
 7) As a general rule, specificity >>> generality.
 8) Anything worth doing is worth doing well, provided that pursuit of excellence does not become an alibi for treating other people badly. Treat your opponents, partners, judges, coaches and everyone else with respect, including yourself.
Affiliations: St. Mark's 2022 -> Northwestern 2026
 Email Chain: mlcpolicydebate[at]gmail[dot]com and smdebatedocs[at]gmail[dot]com. Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the email's subject line.
 TLDR:
 -Tech>Truth
 -Will vote for any argument given better technical execution
 -Be nice
 Online:
 -Don't steal prep
 -Turn your camera on if possible
 -Don't start your speech if my camera is off
  
 Topicality:
 -T debates are great
 -Evidence quality matters a lot and reading a few high-quality cards with the intent to define/exclude is much better than spamming low-quality cards
 Counterplans:
 -Biased for the negative on most counterplan theory, but the affirmative can definitely convince me otherwise
 -Well-evidenced PICs are amazing
 -Process counterplans are not so amazing
 -Tell me to judge-kick the counterplan please
 Ks:
 -Not too well-versed in any literature besides cap and Agamben
 -Long overviews make me sad
 Disadvantages:
 -Taking a generic disadvantage and contextualizing it to the 1AC is strategic
 -Turns case is awesome and is even better with spin
 -However, that only matters if you win a substantial risk of the disadvantage
 -Link uniqueness is important
 K Affs/T USFG:
 -If your strategy is not to defend the resolution traditionally, you should go for a counter-interp that provides the negative a benefit from negating the 1AC
 -I personally think procedural fairness is probably an impact, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise
 Random:
 -You can insert rehighlightings
 -Good formatting and strategic decision-making get bonus speaks; not making the email chain correctly and wasting time gets less speaks
 -Clipping and any "isms" will result in an auto-L and as low speaks as possible
Did PF throughout high school, but have not judged in a while so quite rusty.
 Do not spread, if I cannot understand you, the point does not exist
 Try not to card dump, I will like to see some depth and tell me which card interacts with what.
 Will not flow CX
 Any voting points/contentions has to be carried though to final focus for me to count it. Otherwise, it is considered dropped.
 Preference for cases that present a consistent narrative throughout the round and have an easy to follow structure. Make my life easy and I will make yours easy as well.
 Currently a finance student at Rutgers, so try not to use financial terms that you do not fully understand
 Be nice to your opponents and have fun.
Congressional Debate:
 When it comes to judging Congress my approach is holistic. I believe a competitor is as good as their best speech, though volume is technically beneficial as you have more opportunities to put your best foot forward. Another thing I factor in is general chamber activity i.e. participating in questioning periods often and doing everything in your power to keep the debate dynamic and exciting. Please try and avoid rehashing arguments, I would prefer to hear attacks on the opposing arguments than the same arguments for the 3rd/4th time.
My name is Alexis Johnson and I am a science teacher at South Mecklenburg High School. I am an experienced judge and will be looking for the debater to anticipate questions from his/her opponent(s) and have his/her cross questions and answers ready. Be sure to thoroughly understand your topic, and please make sure that all of your arguments, especially those containing definitions and statistics, come from a reliable source. I will be looking for you to not only poke holes in your opponent's argument, but provide ample support for your own!
Hello! I'm Peri (she/her) and I debated for Mount Vernon HS in Washington doing LD for 3 years in high school. I have my Bachelors in International Studies focused on Peace and Conflict Resolution in the Middle East and North Africa. Now, I'm enrolled in grad school at American University for a master's in International Relations (meaning I know more about the Middle East than the average person) Here is my email if you need it... periannakb@gmail.com
 Congress:
 A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.
 Substance > Style
 Don't rehash, bring up new points prevalent to the debate. I love to see refutation particularly after the first two speeches. Please, lets move on if we are just going to say the same thing over and over.
 Every time you speak in a session, it gives me more reasons to rank you at the end of the round. Fight to give those speeches and use questions! Don't let any of that direct questioning time go to waste!!!
 LD:
 A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.
 I did traditional LD in high school. I am a traditional LD judge. You can run some arguments but disguise them as more traditional and focus on that style to keep me a happy judge. Take that into account. Don't spread I won't understand. Explain your arguments clearly and you'll be fine. No Meta-Ethics
 PF:
 A huge pet peeve of mine is 3...2..1 and my time starts on my first word. I wont start your timer until you start speaking. I promise.
 I'm judging more and more pufo these days. I like clear, well organized constructives. Don't just read everything one note. I appreciate that public forum is supposed to be different than LD and Policy. Keep it that way.
 Random framework arguments about the intent of the topic aren't going to work for me. If things change in the status quo, you need to be prepared to discuss them.
add me to the email chain - wyomingjaden@gmail.com
 General Info
 I am a college Policy debater for Wyoming
 Debate is fun, you should make it safe and enjoyable for everyone. Please do not turn CX into a screaming match, that is not enjoyable for anybody.
 Good warrants always beat out bad cards.
 Impact and evidence comparison is great - write my ballot for me.
 Cross-x is a speech, I flow the arguments made here. Once the timer goes off CX is over -if you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me, your speech time is up.
 Please get to your room as early as possible - I don't want to be the one to have to track you down right before a round starts.
 Please do not refer to me as "judge." I think it is a bit too formal - just call me Jaden :)
 

 Policy 
 Theory Stuff:
 Any theory but condo is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Infinite condo is probably good, but the aff can definitely win condo bad. Uniform 50 state fiat seems to be illogical. Process counterplans are mostly legitimate - but the neg needs to present a depth of evidence that they are germane to the plan/topic.
 Topicality is fun - make sure you contextualize impacts - offense is everything in these debates. Tell me why your vision for debate is best. Please don't just be a definition robot.
 I think case debate is great and that people don't do it enough :).
 I evaluate non-trad affs like any other argument - run whatever you want! I am not super familiar with a bunch of K lit bases, so I would appreciate it if you explain the arguments in depth and their importance like you would any other policy argument.
 

 LD 
 Infinite condo is less good for LD. The aff is still served well by pointing out specific time/strat skew that occurred in round.
 LARP > K > phil >>>> tricks
 Disclosure theory is mostly silly. Unless you are an incredibly small school I am almost never persuaded by this.
 

 PF
 Please create an email chain. This will make it easier for everyone involved. Add your opponents to the email chain as well.
 I do not consider urls evidence, you need to provide the cite as well as a cut card.
 Every piece of evidence that you don't share is something I assume you made up and is a -0.5 in speaks.
 "Correlation not causation" is not a real argument. Explain to me why this is true - indict their evidence, don't just say this and move on.
 A lot of PF is two-ships passing in the night. Try to narrow down as much as possible in the final speeches and do as much comparison as you can. Even if your evidence is good, it is hard for me to vote if I don't have some explanation on how it outweighs/why it might be better than that of your opponents.
I graduated the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.
 Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater.
 Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.
 Some argument specifics:
 Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.
 Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.
 Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.
 Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.
 Ks: They're fine.
 Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.
 Other Notes:
 Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.
 FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.
 Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.
 What not to do:
 Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.
 Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.
 Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.
 Have Fun Debating!
I am a public forum judge...not policy. Organization and presentation are the keys to a winning round. Fast speaking will get you nowhere; and may cost you a round if the round is close.
 Fancy jargon will not gain you any points, nor will nasty crossfires. And please don't use off-the-clock roadmaps. 'Fancy' frameworks won't gain you any points, nor will off-the-wall cases.
 Just debate the resolution; be organized; have a good time; good luck.
 I am a first/second year LD judge. I value organization, common sense, and good speaking skills. Please don't try to baffle me with lots of jargon. Super-fast speaking may cost you the round. You will be judged on your case, attitude, clarity of thought, and organization.
Hi, my name is Roshni Mishra! I am a sophomore at UF and studying Industrial & Systems Engineering. I debated a little bit in high school so I have some experience with LD and PF. 
 Please add me on the email chain: roshni.mishra@ufl.edu. Please send constructives at a minimum.
 General judging: 
 

 No assumptions: if something isn't true, explain why 
 Extend your argument throughout the speeches, if it is mentioned once and not built on, I will disregard it 
 Please let me know any issues with presented evidence, I will evaluate that at the end of the round 
 I don't have much experience with theory so make sure it is explained clearly to get consideration 
 Reading cards > paraphrasing 
 Cross fire is important for speaker points!
Please add me to the email chain: Brenda.aurora13@gmail.com
 I debated for Washburn Rural for four years between 2014 and 2018. I debated for the University of Kansas last year, but am not debating this year so I can focus on my nursing degree. Generally speaking, I am not picky about arguments and speed. Do what you want and I’ll do my best to keep up. 
 T: I believe that topicality is a question of competing interpretations. I like to see good explanations of each team’s offense on the flow, how their offense interacts with the other team, and why their interpretation creates a better model for debate.
 Disads: I’m a big fan, especially when you have a specific link. I think impact calculus and turns case arguments are important. I always enjoy listening to a good agenda or election disad.
 CPs: Delay counterplans are cheating. I’m willing to judge kick a counterplan unless the affirmative gives me a reason not to. I prefer specific solvency advocates.
 Ks: I didn’t read a lot of Ks in high school. I am most familiar with neolib and cap, but I am willing to listen to pretty much anything as long at it is explained well. I will NOT listen to death/extinction good kritiks. These arguments can be triggering for me and for other people that may be competing in or watching your round. When it comes to links, I like when they are specific to the affirmative and describe how the aff increasing/makes worse whatever it is that the neg is critiquing. If you’re going for your alt, you need to prove that it solves, as well as clearly explain to me what a world of the alternative looks like. The framing debate should be more than a block reading competition, especially if the neg isn’t going to go for the alt. The neg’s interpretation should be meaningful and not just “whoever best challenges (whatever the K is critiquing)”
 Theory: I believe theory is usually only a reason to reject an argument, not a team, especially considering most theory debates are block reading contests where no one really explains or understands the argument. That being said, I might be willing to vote on condo if you really explain your interpretation and impact the argument out.
 Some other things to note: I enjoy a good case debate. Please be kind and respectful to one another. If you are horribly rude and disrespectful I’ll probably vote against you
Dowling Catholic 2020
 University of Kentucky 2024
 Do what you do best.
 I care about responsiveness more than anything else. Don't just shotgun warrants/restate arguments, listen to what your opponent says, apply your warrants to what they are saying, and explain why your arguments subsume theirs.
 Line by line is the most important part of debate for me.
 I try to be more deterministic than probabilistic when evaluating arguments. Strong comparative analysis and argument resolution can turn 'risks' of things into decisive yes/no questions for one team.
 Add me to the chain (weinhardtdash@gmail.com) however I try to look at speech docs as little as possible. I think the increasing card-docification of debate is an unhealthy trend. The value of cutting really good cards should be that you can explain and apply them advantageously and access a higher standard for ev comparison, as such, the purpose of me having access to the doc should be to verify if what you're saying your ev says is true in the event the other team disputes it, not to assess the quality of the cards in the abstract. This is also why slowing down and being clear helps since If I flow your arguments from hearing them first I feel less interventionist when granting you their weight.
 Slow down for arguments that have a really dense concept-to-word ratio like T and theory.
 I'm cool with inserting rehighlightings as long as you actually explain in depth what the rehighlighting says/why it matters rather than just exploiting it as a method to read cards faster - if this turns into a moral hazard for one team the other should call it out.
 CP competition admittedly isn't my strong suit.
 lesser stylistic things -
 Pick your battles, especially in CX. Chances are, not every word that comes out of your opponents mouth is an F tier trash argument. I get that having conviction and passion is important, but sometimes knowing when to give certain opposing arguments a respectful level of credence can convey nuance and demonstrate to me that you're smart enough to be cognizant of the substantive difference between certain arguments in the round.
 numbering arguments is always a plus.
 I like when tags have the card's warrants in them.
 PF - in all honesty I will probably judge this like a policy round, so most of the stuff above applies. if you're responsive and focus on developing less arguments more in depth and with more warrants you should be good.
 LD - tricks suck. please don't pref me if this is your style.