Debated PF for 4 years in highschool, have been coaching for 3.

Bottom line before anything else is to take it easy on yourselves and remember to just have fun. Here we go:

- First things first, I don't have experience judging Ks or theory, so while I wont automatically vote you down if you run this kind of arg you should know I'll probably be confused

- If you’re running obscure arguments, make sure you don’t rely on your opponents confusion or potential lack of prep for it to win the arg. Prioritize demonstrating probability and a clear link chain that allows for clash and better flow of the round.

-It’s not sufficient to just respond to an argument with an opposite claim and leave it at that. Engage in the analysis, logic and links of the opposing team’s arg to allow for productive clash rather than just opposing ideas (this goes hand in hand with prioritizing challenging warrants over just questioning evidence)

-This might seem obvious, but you need to maintain access to your arguments to ultimately reach any weighing that I'll put on the flow. This means being consistent and clear with the args you decide to go for, and extending them throughout the round. It also means cleaning up after responses to maintain credibility (bleeding through ink gives me anxiety).

-I’m a sucker for some clear, nuanced weighing. Generic preprepared explanations on how big of a deal an impact is or throwing around weighing buzzwords won’t get you too far. Directly compare your impacts/links to your opponent’s with logic that ties into the context of the round and the world each team is selling.

When it comes to every other style/form technicality, I’m pretty much neutral. I don’t mind you speaking at any speed as long as it's comprehensible, and I don’t have any hard boundaries of exactly what I expect from each speech. If you feel like something is going to be problematic or probably not okay, chances are it is, and make sure you ask to avoid any unwanted situations.

Good luck :):)

I have over 15 years of experience in the field of education. I taught elementary education for 6 years, have directed several educational programs and am currently an instructor at the University level. I have judged 2 HS tournaments and 4 MS tournaments.

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- stop saying actor incentive analysis

___________________

***Update for Zoom Tournaments: Slow down on authors and tags in all speeches. If you are worried about speed, I'll take speech docs and follow along. Clarity>>>

dec '22 update:

Send case cards on the email chain so we don't have to wait a bunch for cards

Updates as of Jan '22 topic

Argumentation

- FOR STRAKE RR OR ANY RR: I WILL NOT EVALUATE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTATION UNLESS IT IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE TOPIC, i.e don't read disclosure or paraphrase bc you didnt do any prep (normal tournaments, do whatever, keep my progressive section in mind)

- Far too many teams are sacrificing warrants in exchange for technical victories. To win you must fully extend your argument, i.e the uniqueness, link and impact, with the warrants on each of those levels.

Logistics

-send me your case docs and set up an email chain with your opponents(lets save time)

- if you debate without your computer auto 30 (in-person)

- if your tournament isn't running on Pacific Time, please be considerate on early rounds, it's super early out here

- if you are flight 2, preflow/flip/set up chains or docs before and be ready to start by the time flight 1 is over.

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth
• Speed: go as fast as you want, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll yell clear once and then it’s on you. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• if i look confused, i probably am
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• For reference, here’s the link to our circuit debater page to see the style of arguments my partner and I used to read. (Look for Kempner BS)
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offense overviews in second rebuttal are annoying, but you do you
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. Like my friend Caden Day, I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though
• I'm most likely not going to be paying attention during cross, so don't mind any nodding/movements from me

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

Progressive stuff

• there are also a few hard rules when it comes to debate
• Speech times are set (4-4-3-4-4-3-3-3-3-2-2)
• Prep Time is set (3 minutes)
• I will vote for one team and one team only
• I will evaluate theory
• Shells I'd be more willing to vote on - Actual abuses that make sense (trigger warning, gendered language [I think this is more specific to competitors than to authors], DA's in second rebuttal)
• Shells I'd be less willing to vote on - Disclosure, paraphrasing, friv theory, 30 speaks
• if you read a small schools warrant and you're from a big school, you are getting a 25.
• Paragraph Theory works too, no need to get fancy if you don't need to.
• I err on the side of reasonability here, I think it's the only fair way for teams who aren't experienced with this stuff to be able to interact.
• I reserve the right to just not evaluate a shell.
• i will not evaluate K's with no link to the topic and tricks. I don't know how to evaluate this stuff and I also think these arguments are insanely exclusionary.
• K's with links to the topic are your best bet with me if you're gonna read these kinds of arguments
• at the end of the day, it's substance or you're scared. I think topical progressive arguments make a lot of sense and are good for the activity, reading stuff like the Good Samaritan paradox ain't it.
• Sam's Thoughts on progressive debate align really closely to mine, It's a long read but I think it definitely goes into a lot more detail than what I have here.

Donts

• Spread on novices- I understand you want the dub but remember you were also there at one point and also what good is beating a novice team you could’ve beaten anyways by spreading
• This includes reading disclosure/progressive stuff on novices
• Be toxic- meaning, dont be an jerk during round in general, don't start yelling/cutting your opponents off etc
• Say something that’s blatantly racist/sexist/misogynistic/ xenophobic
• having moving target warrants that change from speech to speech

Extras

• From cara’s paradigm ““If you at any point in the debate believe that your opponent has no routes to the ballot whatsoever i.e. a conceded theory shell/link or impact turn/ double turn/ terminal defense/, you can call TKO (Technical Knock Out). What this means is that if I believe that the opposing team has no routes to the ballot, I will give you a W30. However, if there are still any possible routes left, I will give you a L20.”
• if you call "harv*rd" Stanford of the East, you get +0.5 speaker points (this has to be if you had evidence from that organization, it cant just be random)
• I agree generally with Nibhan, Nilay, Raj and Abhi when it comes to general views on debate (tech specifics are on my paradigm)

other events

• im probably not the best judge here, but most of the same norms apply (ask for specifics)
• if you are running progressive stuff, just slow down/explain and i should be fine, your signposting is gonna be insanely important

Email: chopindylan92@gmail.com

Please include me in the email chains.

I'm a college level JV debate team member with Liberty University I've had ten years' experience with 4-H speaking competition. So would like to think I know a little something about speech.

Notice: Punctuality, it very important, period. I get it, things happen. Tech issues and other problems happen at chance. But there is a limit to my grace. Be on time, start on time and everything will be perfect. Knowingly and willingly wasting time in debate is very likely going to make me cross. No one wants that. This is the biggest issue that plagues my nightmares. Make sure that your keeping track of your time, both in round and prep. It's vital that you keep record of both your and the other sides time. I, of course, will be doing my best to keep track. But, things happen, and I might, by accident, not start the timer. In that case, it would be up to you. And furthermore, if I'm the one to tell you to stop every time. Well, I'm going to become irritated rather quickly, and you most certainly don't want that. And oh, so importantly. USE all of your time. In-round you only a very limited amount time to make your case. And the amount of prep is very important, so that you use it wisely.

Notice: I'm pretty open to anything and everything. But one thing that I will not tolerate, is the wide use of foul language. While it's use won't decide the debate for or against your side. In general, I would be more likely to consider the side that isn't throwing around curse words left and right. At the very least without utility in round for the usage.

Notice: If you say death is good, I'm going to vote against you 99% all the time. The 1% shall not be named.

====================================================================

Policy:

Counter Plans: I was a 2N for most of my time in debate, so throw whatever CP you want at me. At the same time, I will just as hard judge you on the execution of said CP. I will fairly judge whatever kind of CP that you put out. But be warned, I will just as equally vote on theory, so know that going in. Condo: anything more than two CP's, in opinion, is kind of unfair. Process, Consult, and PIC counterplan were my bread and butter as a 2N, so be prepared to run them well; because I will low-key judge you if you just throw random CPs out there. I will be very ready to vote on perms and/or severance theory. Something I'm going to need is a story of why the CP is different than the plan. Impact cal please. Perms: Saying, "Perm: Do both" is not enough for me to buy a perm from the aff. I get it, it's the 2AC and you need to get your frontlines out as quickly as you can. But, if I'm going to vote on the perm, I need a sentence or two in the 2AC about how the perm functions in the context of both the Plan and the CP. And then at least twice the explanation as you go long for to get on board.

Disadvantages: Love a good disadvantage. Something that I both love and need is impact comparison. The link also needs to be contextualized to the Aff. It's not enough to say NFU links to the Deterrence DA, you have to tell me how especially a NFU policy will lead to lack of deterrence. I don't care about what your author says or not. Only what you, in round, can explain to me and sway me to the story of the Disadvantage. I hate the Politics DA, as a Political Science student I find Politics DA's a flaming hot pile of trash. Of course, I will vote for them, but it will literally take a part of my soul.... I have few pieces left. Just know that it will a hard uphill battle if you run a politics DA at me. The rest of the disadvantages are fine. If you say a one line analytically spoken No-Link, I'm going to need a deeper level of storytelling for me to buy it.

K's: To me, Ks are the far more interesting and the part of debate that isn't a boring extinction by nuke impact that has been said a million times in this game. I was extremely policy as a 2N, however, I did run Anthro and Security K's, So I'm not unfamiliar with the fine details surrounding K's. As such I'm not reading deeply into K lit, so I'm going to need a defined story of the K. Why and how the alt solves, and how the plan links. Again, I need deeper story of the link and how especially links to whatever aff you're reading against. Perms: My debate partner runs K's, so I'm very informed about perm theory with on the aff and neg. I going to need more then, "No Perm/ yes perm" from both sides if the debate comes down to the perms. Framework: I will fully vote for framework alone. You, however, best be prepare to fully explain how frameworks and what my role in the round is. As I have said before, I will vote on whatever as long as you have warrants behind your claims. AFF-K: I strongly dislike AFF-K's. I will on the other hand, just as easily vote for a Aff-K, but know you will take a part of soul with you.

Theory: Ah theory, my old friend that likes to both save me and then repeatedly stab me in the back like my name is Julius Caesar. I have a deep love hate relationship with theory. I will vote on any theory as long as I buy the reasons behind the violation. Condo: I will vote one condo, but if the neg is one running one CP, I'm probably going to be like, "Bruh". I agree with anything over three CP is cheating, so don't do it.... Severance: I will totally go all in on this violation, but I need more than just the "blocks" that your coach or senior debate member gave to you, and don't understand why or how it works. Explain it to me slowly and why it's actually severing out of something in their plan text. Topically: I love topically debates. One or two violations is enough, if you run anything more than that...well you better have a good reason as to why. Have your definitions prepared, because you say "VIOLATION" doesn't mean I believe it. Hint: if the neg reads 3 or more violations, I'm down to vote for a counter violation because of the time and strat screw their quite literally screwing you over with. Just make sure you're explaining why they're low-down cheaters and why I should vote for you, and we will be fine.

======================================================================

Types of Debate:

Policy vs Policy: This is the kind of debate that has made up 80% of debates I've been in and judged. I find these kinds quite boring most of the time, so you're going to need to spice it up. Now, what that looks like is up to you. But if both teams are to throw up extinction impacts, please for the love of everything good in this world, explain to me why it's different than every other extinction impact.

Policy Vs K: I find these kinds of debates to be the most interesting in the entire debate community. As a 2A I can reasonably said that going against K's give me a headache at the best of times. But I have the most fun at the same. I'm familiar with both policy and K lit, so I let there be a battle of titans! There be clash! And only one will remain!

AFF-K Vs K: Take it.... Take all of my soul. I have nothing left but a black bottomless pit, where I cower in the dark. Framework and solvency are two areas that are likely to get the ballet for one side or another in this kind of debates. On solvency, I need to know, clearly, how the Aff-K solves or doesn't solve in the round. The role of the ballet and role of the judge is important in deciding these kinds of debates. Please just tell me how to vote and why and we're be fine and dandy.

======================================================================

PF: As I'm a policy debater, public form is quite different than what I'm used being part of. That being said. as PF is slower, I have no trouble flowing and following along at any speed to dare to throw at me. So, go at the pace that you feel the most comfortable. Either slow and steady or fast as you can without sacrificing clarity. Time; use yours wisely. There is in PF, a very limited amount of time to go around. So, make sure you're not giving up on time. Because if you yield an amount that you could have used, and the other used all of their time. well, that side is more likely to win, simply based on amount spent on arguments and evidence.

At the end of the day/debate. Having fun and learning is the goal, so have fun!

Former debater (hs policy and college NDT/CEDA...decades ago) and current parent of a PF debater.

I flow. Good with normative jargon. I care about the line-by-line. I can handle spreading--just be sure to signpost, if a shell or the arg is a tad squirrelly be deliberate so I don't miss warrants. If this is a fast-paced, high-stakes Varsity round...I’m not going to be up on the latest literature--so Ks / theory will carry a risk of losing me. And none of us want that! I'm going to be best judging a normative round--but I'll listen to any argument you want to make.

Little things I’ve noticed about my preferences in PF:

• I’m a fan of case disclosure--in the hopes it will create a little more ev rigor in PF. My biggest surprise in PF is how little ev is read and scrutinized...but ultimately case disclosure is up to the debaters, not up to me!

• Housekeeping to cut down on time for ev exchange: start ev chain before round; Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting.

• If you offer a framework in your case, lean into it…, meaning it should match your impact/weighing or else it becomes a tad tedious for me.

• I would love to hear more comparative link weighing in PF.

I'm pretty laid back...have fun...sit, stand, go barefoot I don't care. Be clear before you'e clever, but be clever. Bring your best strategy, argue it well and have fun. And you do you...I'll flex as best I can!

I'm a novice judge who used to do this way back in the day.  I'm excited to hear your arguments and eager to understand.  Because of this, I prefer conversational speed with clear signposting and minimal debate jargon.   Have fun, and just be you!

Assume I know absolutely nothing and weigh!

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 24 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at UTNIF and also at Stanford. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Hi, I'm Malea. I'm a policy debater at Indiana University.

Add me to the email chain pls: maleamariefloyd@gmail.com

Please don't be rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. I can appreciate some passion in round, but keep it civil. If you say something offensive (racist, homophobic, ableist, etc.) you won't get my ballot and it'll be reflected in your speaker points. 

I will pretty much judge how you ask me to. Explain what I should prioritize and why. Explain what lens I should view an argument through and why. I will listen to how you tell me to vote and take it strongly into consideration. Choosing a winning team is difficult, so make the correct choice crystal clear for me. 

You can get my ballot through solid logic, good impact calculus, and a clear narrative that demonstrates why you should win the round. I love some good line-by-line as well.

Please keep your docs in order the best you can. I like to be able to follow along and it makes the whole round easier for everyone to navigate.

I am not reading every card and every block, though. With that said, don't clip cards. Someone will notice and it'll just be a bad time. 

I'm not the fastest at flowing, so do with that information what you will. It's probably best to keep your order clear and not jump around if you can help it. 

Also: It's going to frustrate me if you consistently talk over the person asking you questions in cross-examination. It feels like their time isn't being respected and I will likely dock your speaker points.

(Of course you can keep explaining until they cut you off, but don't make them ask you to stop several times after each question)

That's about it. If you have any questions, feel free to email me or just ask me before the round. 

Add me to the email chain: hunterfoster.debate@gmail.com

Salado High School 18-22 | University of Pittsburgh 23-? | he/him/his | call me “hunter” nothing else pls, anything else makes me feel sad and icky inside.

Hi! I'm Hunter. I debated for four years at Salado High School on the UIL, TFA, and National Circuit. I now study computer science and interactive design at the University of Pittsburgh.

Main Philosophy

I'm an offense/defense judge, so I am good with anything you want to read as long as you clash with the arguments being presented in the round. This means if you are just throwing out conflicting arguments without warranting why you are winning them it’s going to be very hard for me to evaluate the round. I will try and evaluate all arguments as fairly and equally as possible. I sway more on the side of tech vs truth, but that does not excuse you from being silly about it. I love a clean round so if it's messy, that will SIGNIFICANTLY affect your speaks. Most importantly, have fun.

Please warrant and extend arguments throughout the round, I will not be doing that work for you. I want you to write my ballot for me, absent that judge instruction, I will most likely be voting on something you don't want me to vote on, and no one likes that.

I don't really pay much attention to cross tbh, mostly because I see it as clarification, not a speech. If you make an important stance in cross just point that out in your speech.

I tend to make faces without knowing, so if you see me making a stank face, you're making silly arguments, sorry in advance.

Now for the Stuff we care about.

Quick cheat sheet:

Tech --x------ Truth

Voting for policy ----x----- Voting for the K

Will read ev without being told --x------ Tell me what to read

Infinite Condo --x-------- No condo

Reasonability --------x-- Competing Interps

Overviews -------x--- LBL

Fairness -----x----- Education

"Neg on presumption" x----------K affs that do nothing

"It's pre-fiat"----------x Actual arguments

Counter-interp + offense –x-------- Impact turn everything

Policy --x------ Phil

"Judge" ----------x “Hunter"

Pref shortcut -

Identity K's - 2

Other K's – 2/3

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 1

Phil - 3

K-Affs - 3

Tricks – 4

Trad - 3

DA's

DA’s are very strongly recommended. I love policy debate and would love to keep loving it. Please have a good internal link story. This means it needs to make sense !!! 3 cards usually don’t cut it on a DA, but it can for some. If your 1n doesn't make any sense I’ll most likely err aff on the link and internal link story; sorry not sorry. The less you need to explain on the thesis level, the more time you get to explain the link/internal link story, the better the 2nc is, the better way to my ballot.

Please, please, please do impact calc and link comparison.

Counterplans

Along with DA's counterplans are a great position and I love to see them. Competition is important, but not always required. I am a sucker for a good consult or adv CP. Please have NB to the CP, if I can’t figure out what that is by the end of the 1nc then your probs not going to be winning the CP. Judge kicking is silly, I'm not doing that work for you, if you don't think you're winning the perm debate then you probs aren't. Condo is good. Perf con is bad, but competing worlds is probs good. I’m not to picky about uncarded/multi plank CP’s as they can be strategic and great proof of strong critical thinking.

Perm debate is great way to engage the aff with the CP so please shoot out a few perms in front of me and see which one sticks. I don’t have a particular dissuasion to cheating perms and am willing to hear any kind of perm you say aloud.

Framework/Framing

The more I judge LD the more I realize how much I like FW debates. I think FW is a very important tool for you to win your impacts. For me to evaluate your offense you need to be winning some level of the framing debate. I think a lot of debaters forget this then get mad when I don’t vote for them.

I probs default Util but idk, I just work here.

Phil

LOL. I do not understand phil to the capacity to evaluate high level phil v phil debates. For these kinds of debates, a good overview is greatly appreciated. I am most familiar with Kant, Maslow, and Korsgaard (the usual).

Kritiks

I'm comfortable with K debate. Feel free to read them on aff or neg, but don't get silly with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. I love identity K debate (it provides great discourse that isn't talked about critically) but if you're reading an identity-based argument please be of that identity, if not I will be very skeptical of your argument.

I will NOT vote on nonblack afro-pess.

Framework is important, it isn't the end all be all of the round. I think it can be a very good tool for both aff and neg. I understand a fair share of most K’s except for pomo, so please explain what you’re alt does if you are using buzz words only 3 people know the meaning of.

Specific links and explanations of links to either the topic or the affirmative are very important. Even if your link is generic and fits into every shell, that doesn't mean your 2NC or 2AC should sound the same every round. Great link explanation and application is a great way to win the K for me. Impact and alt debates are often very muddy, if it is messy by the 2NR find out how to fix it.

Go crazy with the alt? Idc :) - just explain how it can overcome the links/solve.

When responding to identity K's be careful of what you say, it will probs be racist, homophobic, or ableist . If it makes me feel icky I just won’t evaluate it, sorry not sorry.

Topicality

Aff's being topical is probably important, and if T is argued correctly, I will vote on it. Please explain what your interpretation allows and why that is better than the other teams model. I default to competing interps.

Theory

Theory is cool and a very good argument when it is warranted. I enjoy watching a good theory debate. I default to competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise.

RVI’s are ok, have a counter interp, prove why their model is not good. 1AR theory is also ok, but for the love of god please don't use it as a gotcha moment to dodge actual substance in the round.

Tricks

If you want to read these I don’t mind, I will be very skep of unexplained arguments. But if you debate these well, I will vote on it.

Policy v Policy

Love, prefer this type of debate the most. Make sure to do good impact weighing and impact calc towards the end of the round, it’s much appreciated. Be smart and logical about things. I will reward good strategy.

Idk why I have to say this, but a DA with a SV fw is not good strategy. If you want to have a trad debate, please do it, but don’t be mad when you lose to 30 second util fw.

Please do not be discouraged from reading other arguments, even though I hack for policy debates, I love to have fun!!

K v Policy

I enjoy watching/judging these debates more than I do having them. Please make sure to do good impact calc and weighing. Like I said before FW is good, specific links are great. Make sure to compare worlds.

K v K

This is where my knowledge starts to fall apart, and you'll have to do a lot of weighing the two worlds for me. I have not seen enough of these debates in my career to evaluate them right, so I would default to this kind of debate if it’s the last-ditch effort to win my ballot.

(This excludes K v Cap)

Speaks

I think that at the end of the day debate is an educational event, so I will give you speaks on how well you communicate to me and your opponents. That means be strategic and make good args. Speed is fine, I will yell "clear" if you are going to fast for me. I don't care about profanities unless it is used at or about your opponents. I do think how well you sound does play a factor in your speaks, so I would like to hear a more polished side of your speech.

I will start at 28.5 and work up or down

Point Breakdown

29.5 – 30: I enjoyed the round. You should be in deep elims/win the tournament.

29 – 29.4: This round was great but a bit messy, you should probs break.

28.5 – 29: This round was alright and average. You should go even.

28 – 28.4: This round was very messy; you were making silly mistakes and I was frustrated.

27-28: You should probs go back to JV.

25: You got an auto loss and are being reported to tab.

Few More things

1] Feel free to post round if you don't think I made the right decision, I won’t take offense. I think post rounding can be a good way for both of us to learn. I am human and will make wrong decisions just like you :)

2] Please add me to the chain, I like to look through cards to give the best decision I can give you. Keep the email formatted as: "Tournament --- Round x --- School v School". Also send a word doc, I don't like PDF's.

3] I'm not the greatest at flowing, if you're going to go full speed on analytics, please send them in a doc.

4] Please explain why a drop matters in the round, don’t just flail your hands and throw a big fit about a drop and then move on. I don’t care that they dropped extinction outweighs, tell me WHY that drop warrants a ballot.

5] Feel free to be silly in round, after round 5-6, I will have judged 10 policy rounds with the same DA impacts, I will reward fun debates.

Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!

TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.

Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.

Intro:

I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.

I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.

How I vote:

Depth over breadth in general.

I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.

I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.

Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.

Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.

Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....

Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.

Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.

Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.

Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.

I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.

Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.

I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?

Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).

Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.

Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.

--PF--

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.

Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.

--LD--

If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.

Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.

I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.

Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.

--Policy--

Depth over breadth, please.

I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.

Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.

Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.

I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.

Name: Sajid Bin Hasnat

School Affiliation: BRAC University

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: <1

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: <1

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: >3

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: >3

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? - Not a coach

What is your current occupation? - Undergraduate Student

General Notes for speakers:

It is important for speakers to be aware of the following facts:

1. I value teams with a clear structure, who can successfully explain the consequences and evidences, and who can appropriately connect evidence to their arguments.

2. It's preferable if you use proof to describe the underlying trend/core problem associated with it.

3. It's crucial to keep your audience's attention. Direct comparison and weighing make the task of judges easier. You should also show how your benefits outweigh their disadvantages, as well as how your benefits outweigh those of your competitors.

4.Be prepared to explain why your solution is preferable, such as because it completes the task faster/easier and uses fewer resources.

5. Please don't make any arguments that an average rational voter wouldn't see coming. If you do this, the value of this content will be diminished.

6. You must avoid utilizing any wording that could lead to a breach of equity.

7. Having a road map is beneficial to us.

8. Speaking quickly is acceptable as long as you are clear.

9. I don't care what style you have as long as you're comprehensive. Because of their diverse upbringings, different debaters have distinct styles, which I admire.

10. I have a good level of energy during presentations. In the heat of battle, I scribble down the most important questions and the responses I receive.

Hi - I'm a beginner "lay" judge so my paradigm is a work in progress.  That said, I appreciate clear "signposts" and summary language that drives home key points.  I appreciate everyone's hard work and look forward to hearing from you!  

- Barry Hester

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

Please speak at a reasonable pace. Concise, measured arguments outweigh extensive, rapid reading of information. For online, virtual debates, please disclose your case to me before the round actually starts. Have fun and enjoy yourself...every debate is a great opportunity to improve!

I'm a parent judge, if that's not apparent to you already. I always start with a blank slate and will hear you out, doesn't matter what side you're on. You can go fast if you want but I need to be able to follow your logic and understand your arguments. I'll weigh the merits of each contention. Every sport needs sportsmanship, so I'm looking to see if you can present your counterarguments without getting personal and keep your composure. 

Style matters, trust me I learned the hard way when I wore a red tux to prom. So for speaker points, I'll be looking to see how you incorporate your authentic self into your arguments. 

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Speaker points

Most points I give are in the 28.3-29 range.

Card clipping = -.5 for every offense

being overly rude or threatening = -1 for every offense

the phrase "cold conceded" = probably will lose like -.1

if you make a funny joke about Ariel Gabay or Anna Stockstill = +0.2 speaks

Hi everyone, I am a parent judge, whose daughter is a JV debater. Please do not spread, make sure you're enunciating your words, and I appreciate road maps. Other than that remember to be respectful and to have fun. Good luck everyone. 

Hey! My name is Xavier Rolston, I'm a Varsity PF debater, and have experience judging.

Email: xavier.rolston@mastersny.org

Tech over truth, my implicit biases on what I perceive to be logical shouldn't impact the round

IF I'M JUDGING ANYTHING OTHER THAN PF TREAT ME AS A LAY JUDGE

If anything below doesn't make sense ask me before round I have no problem explaining what I meant!!!

Specifics (most important stuff is underlined):

- (Speed and Time) I can handle speed, but don't supplement speed for clarity. You can go over your time to finish a sentence or thought, but I will stop flowing after 5-10 seconds. Y'all can self-record time but know I'm monitoring too; if you're abusing time I'll tank your speaks.

- (Cross) I do not flow crossfire. If you bring up something important in cross, PLEASE mention it again in a speech, or it won't be marked on my flow.

- (Evidence and Cards) EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each). Similarly, if going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

I'll make a Google doc before the round start time for evidence sharing. Please send cards fast if they're called. I prefer you debate evidence disputes in-round, and argue as to why the card would change the outcome. Cards need to be cut properly.

Evidence ethics/challenges come before all other voting issues. HOWEVER, if you evidence challenge your opponent, I will have a VERY high bar for dropping them. The evidence needs to be terrible, made up, or directly and very clearly violate the NSDA rules description of challengable evidence. Instead of doing a challenge, please just read an IVI and weigh it. The only situation where I will understand the reason to do an evidence challenge over an IVI if its a mixed panel where a majority of the judges are lay.

- (Speaker Points) I will rarely ever give points under 27 or above 29.4. If I do so, I will explain why.

- (Fairness) My high school has a very small debate program with no coaches. Keeping in mind that PF debate is supposed to be accessible and fair for everyone, I ask that there be no coaches or other leaders in the room with you during a debate. It’s really important to me that everyone has fair access to debate, so please respect this.

If something mentioned in the round makes you uncomfortable, or you believe is abuse or hate speech, let me know and I'll address it. Don't use jargon or speed with the clear intent/purpose of intimidating novice debaters, I'll 100% hack against you if you're being abusive.

DO NOT USE AI CHATBOTS. I'll auto-drop if you do and are caught.

-----

Prog debate in pre-bid rounds:

FW DEBATE — Read and debate any framework, the winning framework will be how I evaluate the round. Winning the framework debate doesn't mean you automatically win the round so please defend your case.

THEORY — I have no issues with hearing legit theory debate.

I don't personally believe disclosure must be a norm, but given how commonplace it's become, you probably need a good counterinterpretation to defend yourself against disclosure theory. Ditto for paraphrasing.

If you're a varsity debater you need to know how to write and read shells or counterinterps. I'm not voting on a "theory is bad because I don't know how it works" response.

Friv theory undermines the legitimacy of reading theory in a round. Spamming shells and waiting for one to be dropped ruins the idea that we should debate rules over substance. If you are clearly spamming shells I will quickly vote on education or fairness and drop you if it is presented to me by the other team.

KRITIKS — I'm less familiar with how Ks operate than any other type of debate. I will evaluate it just like a substance round unless you explain the layers of the debate for me. I am likely not going to be familiar with most of the lit. Probably don't read me nontopical Ks unless you can explain it very well to me.

TRICKS — they're super fun to read but I probably won't take them seriously.

Post or non-bid rounds

Literally read anything. This is your chance to experiment and try something new. Debate is just a game.

-----

FINAL COMMENT: I personally don't believe Tabroom RFDs do justice to competitors: As a debater, I want to know what is going on in the judge's head when a decision is made. As such, I'll always give in-depth comments and tips as well as a full breakdown of the round (time permitting). Please feel free to ask me questions about anything. You all have the right to ask anything so you can get clarity. My RFD will essentially be a short summary of what we discuss at the end of the round.

Good luck :)

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a student at the University of Ilorin and I am a debater with speaking and judging experience in British Parliamentary (BP) and World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC) styles. I also have a commendable experience adjudicating these styles as well as other styles like: Debate, Speech and Interp Events. Kindly take a look at my judging history: https://www.tabroom.com/user/judge/history.mhtml?person_id=450269

I look forward to participating in other intriguing formats moving forward.

Email address: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

I am a proud parent and teacher. I have been teaching in International Schools for 16 years now. I am still quite new to public forum but I'm really enjoying it.

Note to debaters: I can take speed but make sure your words are clear. Use your time wisely! Be yourself but remember to respect boundaries.

Have fun!!!

I have only been recently judging in tournaments, and I have experience judging for BP and PF. My preference is to reward substance and persuasion over style because I believe that style can be a disadvantage for ESL competitors and I have a strong preference for convincing arguments over speed. (Please do your best not to spread, my old ears aren't as good as they used to be and I might not be able to process your argument.)

For rebuttals, when asking questions to your opposing team, let your opponents answer your questions as well. Also, I encourage debaters to structure their argument the best that they can as long as they are clear and logical. For evidence, I don't mind cards and paraphrasing as long as the presented information is accurate and reliable! I won't be too nitpicky about evidence as long as you're not lying and claiming that cows are pink or grass grows upside down.

Other than that, best of luck, have fun and you got this!

Hi everyone, please speak slowly and clearly so I can hear you!  Please also be respectful of your opponents.  Thanks.

I am a lay judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, and let's remember to respect our opponents.