Second year assistant coach

Enjoys clearly stated framework and contentions

Reading cards is not enough, you must be able to understand and apply studies/evidence being used

Proper dress and decorum is important

Will take notes, not an expert flower

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Engineering grad and IT practitioner; have been judging debate since 2018. I did PF all through high school in Virginia.

General:

1. I'm fine with speed; just speak clearly.

2a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.

2b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

3. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whatever works.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about.

0. Cut your cards in advance and be on the ball with finding and sharing them. If you can't find your card promptly we'll assume it doesn't exist and move on.

1. Please indict bad cards. Misleading claims, baseless speculation, "studies" that don't exist, that sort of junk: if you convince me it's bad, I'll strike it gleefully from my flow.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

Traditionally, I will vote for you if you convince me that your side has the most positive impact on the value-criterion for the value that I buy into in-round.

I am open to the possibility that you can run a K or (much less likely) T and I will like it and vote for it. Both my exposure and my receptiveness to them have been limited in practice. Generally, if you are accusing your opponent of abuse and asking me to sign my ballot on it, the abuse needs to be egregious, not just irritating.

Carlos

I debated at Washburn University (LD)

No topic experience!

Email chain: aegfew@gmail.com

LD in college is pretty much a condensed policy round.

TL-DR: I evaluate the round through risk analysisLike to think I have no biases so do what you want. I default to evidence quality when clash is very close. Me adapting to you>>> you adapting to me. Want to see you at your best.

Speed- Bueno

Case: Impact turns are bueno. Impact calc! 2ACs should extend case, 2AR not so much.

FW: If you don't clash don't get mad when I have to intervene

DAs: bueno

T: The standards debate will dictate the ballot- will not vote on gut checks and a risk of offense on competing interps means the aff is unreasonable

Theory: idc

K: do whatever

CP: Perms should be more than perm do both. On PICS, Consult, Delay I lean neg on theory but i weigh solvency deficits heavily for the aff

Speaks: 28.5 is middle

be nice

baylor '25

colleyville heritage '21 (tx)

i did policy for 4 years in high school (threw in some ld) and am currently debating for baylor university

email chain: shahinadebates@gmail.com

please name the email chain: "tournament name round x - team (aff) v team (neg)"

• " tfa state round 1 - colleyville cz (aff) v grapevine mp (neg)"

--

policy + ld

i'm not going to do work for you. if i can't draw a coherent line between what is said in the 1ar and the 2ar then that's on you.

reading down your block file isn't a line by line, do better.

das:

i start the 1nc with a 100% presumption of a risk of the da, which the aff needs to knock down to 0%. this means i need impact calc... do the risks matter? do they outweigh the aff's impacts? i don’t know, you tell me.

you should probably read a complete 1nc shell. if you choose not to, it justifies new 1ar answers

make sure you're extending the link and uniqueness debate into the 2nc/1nr. this should come before any of the impact debate -- zero risk is a thing, and it's easy to vote on if you mess up badly.

tech>truth is probably the most applicable here.

"da turns case" is probably the best argument you could make in the 2nr (given you've extended the link and uniqueness debate) and if you execute it right you'll probably get my ballot

counterplans:

you need to explain why it solves better than the plan. don't just say "counterplan solves" and expect me to vote on it. same thing with perms too; "perm do both" or "perm do the counterplan" is not an argument, tell me more.

i love well-thought-out counterplans (that are functionally and textuality competitive) and PICs; muti-plank counterplans are cool too.

kritiks:

i was a k debater throughout high school and now in college, so i'm a good judge for you if you go for the k

i've debated a lot of asian identitiy, orientalism, feminism, logistics and racial capitalism in the past if that is important to you. try not to go for things you're not familiar with -- you're missing out on critical substantive debate when you're reading something just for the sake of it

long overviews tell me that you don't know how to do a line-by-line. just shorten your 3 minute 2NC overview of the k and actually answer arguments on the flow and stop repeating yourself

k v plan:

sometimes k debates get muddy if there aren't specific links to the aff, so you should probably find some sort of link that is specific enough to the aff (or at least attempt to contextualize it). that being said, i’ll vote on a generic link if it's insufficiently answered or dropped.

links to fiat make me cringe and i would rather you have links to the plan/thesis of the aff 11/10 times.

tell me what the world of the alt looks like; i'm not going to vote for an alt that i can't understand.

- i guess if you can win framework and articulate why that means that you dont need an alt then you're probably fine and don't need the alt

i think the aff gets to weigh the plan, but the neg should also get residual links of reps to the plan.

k affs:

most of the affs i have read/cut have been k affs -- this is the kind of debate i'm more used to.

i think your aff needs a topic link at the very least, unless you have a cohesive answer as to why you don't have one -- topic relevance is probably best in terms of k v fw debate, but you do you. ks of debate are also fine.

judy and i are pretty similar here if you want to know more about this

topicality/theory:

i love good t debates but i hate bad t debates. don't make this a bad t debate.

case lists, examples of ground loss, and a good interp = my ballot (probably)

i'll default to competing interps unless told otherwise -- again judge instruction is really important in these kinds of rounds.

i would prefer you go for an education or portable skills impact in k aff v fw debates as opposed to procedural fairness. on this note, if the aff is winning the impact turns on either of these impacts, you need a good reason why i should prefer your interp over theirs.

for ld** please no rvis and/or tricks.

even as a 2N, i think that condo is probably the only theoretical reason to reject the team, even then, please come prepared with robust explanations of your theory arguments. i also think that judge kick is probably a good idea, just tell me why. again, i'm probably not as well-versed in theory arguments as you are so you should probably slow down if you're explaining them.

framework:

case lists are good, buzz words are not.

please don't forget to engage case in these debates, i can't vote on any of your education claims on fw if you have dropped the aff's impact turns; if you're neg, don't forget to do the impact debate here.

i think a lot of teams have trouble with TVAs and SSD, both on the aff and the neg. your TVAs should have clear plantexts and SSD arguments should be able to solve the content of the 1AC and the 2AC's answers to framework

i think presumption is SUPER underutilized in these rounds. presumption is probably the best strat against k affs.

k affs are usually very vague in terms of explaining the advocacy/solvency and i think this is probably a winning strategy against k affs for a few reasons:

a) makes it more difficult for the aff to shift out of their solvency

b) can be cross applied to other flows on the impact level

--

pf

set up an email chain before the round.

my thoughts about pf are basically judy's and katelynne's paradigms put together -- look there if you have any lingering questions about my preferences. email me if you're still confused.

--

notes:

i don't mind speed and i'm sure you won't be able to out-spread me, but please be meaningful with your speed/be efficient.

also, please stop yelling. you are literally less than an inch away from your mic and you make my ears hurt. please don't do it.

i appreciate sass and assertiveness. but be respectful. i see debate as an educational activity that fosters meaningful discussions -- use your critical thinking skills to decide what you want to read in front of me.

other than disclosure, i will not make a decision based on anything that occurred outside of the round and do not feel comfortable evaluating the morality of a person in any circumstance; i literally do not know you and i do not want to make a decision based on character judgments of people i don't know.

I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm still new to judging and learning it.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD).

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing but I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

jedonowho@gmail.com

Extensions need to include warrants - simply saying extend Smith '20 isn't enough, you need to be warranting your arguments in every speech. This is the biggest and easiest thing you can do to win my ballot. Rounds constantly end with "extended" offense on both sides that are essentially absent any warrants in the back half and I end up having to decide who has the closest thing to a warrant which means I have to intervene. Please don't make me intervene - if you actually extend warrants for the offense that you're winning you probably will get my ballot.

Make my job as easy as possible by clearly articulating why you've won the round - write the ballot for me in summary and final focus. Even though I'm flowing and doing my best to pay attention, I'm not infallible and so if the summaries and final focus are just going over a bunch of arguments without clear contextualization of how they relate to the ballot, I'm going to struggle to decide the winner.

Don't do debater math.

You should give content warnings if you're reading any sensitive content in order to make the round as safe a place as possible for all participants.

Don't steal prep or do anything else that makes the round last longer than it needs to be (not pre-flowing beforehand, taking forever to pull up evidence).

Don't go too fast in front of me.

Technical things:

Defense isn't sticky anymore with the 3-minute summary

Second rebuttal needs to frontline.

If you want to concede defense to get out of a turn it needs to be done the speech after the turn is read.

No new weighing in 2nd FF, unless you're responding to weighing from 1st FF.

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 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, ~35 Grand Finals, and chaired 12 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, 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.

Hello Debaters!

I competed in Public Forum for 4 years. I am currently a freshman in college. I am really hoping to hear some good debates this weekend.

Looking for very organized and clearly-spoken debates. DO NOT SPREAD. This will not benefit you in any way.

I love impacts! Please make sure you talk about and weigh both side's impacts. Impacts will be weighed heavily in my decision.

Before your speeches, I do appreciate a run down or overview of the order of what you are going to be speaking on.

I do flow most of the debate, so make sure you don't drop any contentions you want me to include in my decision. I do not flow cross-exams – this is the time when you need to find cracks in your opponent's case that you will use in your later speeches.

Please make sure your cards are organized. Have a link and a sentence that can help your opponents find your information. I do not want to waste 10 minutes trying to find cards. I advise you to talk to your opponents about either making a live doc to paste cards in or putting cut cards in the chat.

If online: I totally understand if you are having connection issues (I might have some myself). If this is the problem please tell me and we can figure it out.

Do not be rude. If you are assertive that is fine.

If you add any humor or pop culture references (especially from Tiktok) you might get an extra speaker point.

Good luck debaters! Hoping for some fun rounds.

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

PF Paradigm:

Lots of this is explaining how to debate. That's mostly so you know that I know how to debate, I assume you'll know most of this stuff pre-round.

TL;DR:

- NEW UPDATES: if you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- Relatively standard flow and tabs judge who votes for the team that extends and the "biggest" impact(s) (it is up to you to WEIGH so I know your impact is the biggest).

- Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well.

- Collapse early and explain warrants – bad extensions (i.e. you say “extend this author” without re-explaining or extend part of your link chain) don't fly with me unless the round is so fast you have to. If you are concise enough that I have to flow at breakneck speed and you still don't have time to extend your case, I'll cut you some slack.

- Terminal defense is a prerequisite to weighing. If your opponents show your argument is bogus, I don't care anymore that it had good magnitude.

- Progressive debate is good but it might make intervention more likely. WISCONSIN CIRCUIT: Disclo and paraphrasing are not norms on the Wisconsin circuit, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since the Wisconsin circuit has much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- On that note: my opinions about debate shift a lot. Don't hang your hat on something I say in my paradigm – cite my paradigm in-round to guarantee I care.

- I am a proud hack for evidence ethics.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- Speed is fine -- send doc for over 250wpm. I'm bad at flowing off docs and don't like doing it. See above -- I'll dock your speaks for it.

- If you are in a JV, novice, or middle school division, tell me your favorite animal for an extra speaker point to show me you've read my paradigm carefully. Skip to the section for middle school and JV competitors; the stuff there is more relevant to you.

You can honestly stop reading here and you'll probably be able to adapt.

Case/Framing/Theory:

- Non-util frameworks should be introduced or implied (i.e. you run racism so it's pretty clearly not straight util) in case. Util can be introduced in either rebuttal.

- Unless an explicit argument is made countering my paradigm, you do not have to respond to any of first case (this INCLUDES theory and framework) in second case.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). If a framework is proposed by your opponents, you don't have to say "util" in rebuttal to refute it – as long as you say why your opponents' framework sucks, I will default to util if you're right. Likewise, if someone reads paraphrasing theory on you, you don't have to read a counterinterp that you may paraphrase. If you prove their interp is bogus, then I assume that debaters may paraphrase. I am aware that this is an unorthodox standard for responding to theory. If I were debating a round, I would explicitly propose a framework or counterinterp. However, I think saying "you didn't propose an alternative, so I had to default to the other team even though the link-level defense was good" is intervention.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. I likely won't though; I could only see it happening if for instance you run a really weird meme interp because you know the other team won't know how to respond (i.e. "Interpretation: debaters must flap their arms and fly to rounds instead of walking"). Disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. are all fair game, except for the exceptions listed at the top of the TL;DR.

- Quality>quantity.

- (This is my bias, just so you know) Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

Rebuttal:

- Number responses in rebuttal – it's good practice. I need to know if you're grouping responses/contentions.

- Weighing should start in rebuttal and get extended through the round. If your weighing is in more speeches than your opponents' weighing, I will default to it absent good metaweighing.

- Meta-weighing should start as soon as you've heard the other team weigh (bonus if you anticipate how your opponents are going to weigh and metaweigh before they even get the chance to weigh).

- I don't evaluate non-comparative weighing.

- Weigh disads when they are presented (in rebuttal). I default to on-case arguments over disads aren't weighed.

- Frontline in second rebuttal. I don't evaluate new frontlines in second summary. Don't tell me what your case is in first rebuttal unless you cross-apply it.

- Don't read a new contention in second rebuttal. I'll dislike you if you read a new contention in first rebuttal.

- My impression of SOL v probability v clarity: SOL = your links have more defense than ours. Prob = your links are inherently less probable for generally accepted reasons. Clarity = the effect of affirming or negating we show is either more easy to isolate from other factors or more easy to quantify compared to your arguments. Probability weighing absolutely exists in debate. The content of your weighing is more important than the buzzword.

- Link weighing is awesome. Teams tend to only do it when it's obvious they have to. Do it anyway.

Summary/FF:

- Summary/FF should mirror each other.

- Sticky defense doesn't apply with the three-minute summary unless you are concise and still don't have time for defense.

- Repeat your impacts in summ/FF unless the round is legit so fast you don't have time.

- The "voter vs line-by-line" distinction is dumb. Just tell me what I need to know in FF and jump around as little as possible.

- Don't say "extend the Caldararu evidence" without telling me what Caldararu says. I try to flow author names and usually fail.

- Don't extend too much. 1 clean link chain with weighing is enough to win a round.

Other:

- If no offense ends up on the flow at the end of the round, or if making a decision based on tech is impossible for some reason, I default to an entirely lay paradigm and vote on truth. If your opponents are running like 5+ voters and making the round impossibly messy, I could be receptive an appeal to presumption. Make me like you enough for me to presume for you.

- Some wise words from my coach Ben Morris: "I am inclined to reward good communication with speaker points and a mind more receptive to your arguments"

- I will look at evidence if I think that it would be a good idea. That's not intervention.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- American-impacts-first weighing is meh, but if it isn't warranted then it can come across as racist and it usually is racist. "Social contract" stuff isn't good enough for America-first.

- Most prerequisite and timeframe weighing in PF is trash. I tend to prefer good weighing to trash weighing even though how it's done matters the most. Good prerequisite weighing is amazing and I love it. If you like to read disads and weigh them in rebuttal you better do it well or else you'll get an unhappy judge.

Evidence Ethics: Don’t misrepresent evidence. I do not care whether or not you paraphrase. Just do it well – it's not that hard and most teams paraphrase well.

When you read evidence, say the author name (always), and the date and publication if they matter. Read the date if there is a reasonable chance either team will claim recency matters. Otherwise, read it if you feel like it. Read the publication if it is an exceptionally good or bad source. If you want to explain your evidence just to be safe, that's probably a good idea.

Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..."

If both teams have warrants, the team with better empirics wins the link over the team with better warrants, unless the legitimacy of the warrants is explicitly weighed in the round. If one argument has a card and another doesn't, I don't automatically default to the card.

If you can't produce a card that's called for, you should be really apologetic.

I weigh analysis backed up by evidence over analysis not backed up with evidence if you beef up the credibility of the person who wrote the card. If you don't, I default to the better weighed warrant. Ways to do this well (not a complete list): your source is a professor, your source is a really good journalist who got a Pulitzer Prize or something, or your source has some type of firsthand experience with the topic. Ways to do this badly: "uhh, our guy wrote for ______ so I guess he must have some qualification even though I don't know what it is".

If I call a card and it's misrepresented, I drop you with low speaks. Non-negotiable.

On the flip side, if your opponents misrepresent evidence, you get high speaks even if you really sucked. I don't believe teams should face any negative consequences from performing badly against teams that, by misrepresenting evidence, have a structural advantage. Point out miscut cards in email chains even after the round; it may sway my vote.

Be able to pull up cut cards that you read in a speech. Don’t paraphrase an entire article into a sentence. If you have URLs at the bottom of your case for your evidence, that's bad but I'll deal with it if you know the exact paragraph you paraphrased or quoted without searching endlessly and wasting time. If I call a card, I don't need the full article, but I'm not one of those judges who drops teams for showing the wrong one and being cranky.

Speaker Points:

Varsity Scale:

- 30 = I sincerely learned something from you and feel gratitude towards you as a result.

- 29 = you went into the round with a plan and it worked.

- 28 = no egregious strategic mistakes

- 27 = a few egregious mistakes

- 26 = very major mistakes

- 20-25 = I will explain why you got a 20-25 in my RFD

Non-Varsity Scale:

- 30 = I sincerely learned something from you and feel gratitude towards you as a result. Next time go to varsity.

- 29.5 = You went into the round with a plan, and it worked. Next time go to varsity.

- 29 = no egregious strategic mistakes. Next time go to varsity.

- 28.5 = a few mistakes

- 25-28 = major mistakes

- 20-25 = I will explain why you got a 20-25 in my RFD

Ways to get 20-25 (not a complete list if I think of something else): rudeness, very intentional or potentially intentional racism/sexism/etc, or implying that your opponents suck.

Speed: I can handle a decent level of PF speed. However, speed is a tool that must be correctly. Don’t speed through a speech and end up with time remaining or end up going over arguments you already told me again. Don’t speed through a speech so you can say “like” after every word instead of being concise. If you go too fast, which you probably won’t (since I can tolerate a normal level of speed), I’ll say “clear." Also, if you speak fast, you may risk my not fully understanding the warranting behind an argument, which you wouldn’t like. It is a risk that is sometimes worth taking, though. Go at the speed that you need to present a narrative and cover the flow.

Cross: Cross shows me if you did your due diligence prepping. It also gives you ground in later speeches, if you want to cite a concession or logical flaw that was exposed in cross. I don’t flow cross.

Not "directly" debate-related:

Fairness > Education > Winning the round. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked.

I’m a cis white male – that means I might not catch something discriminatory. If I didn’t catch something, let me know at any point (e.g. not necessarily in the time constraints of a speech if you don't want). There are no frivolous requirements here (e.g. I don't need a theory shell to vote on an out-of-round action in this situation). You'll probably get a W30 if what you're saying makes remote sense. If I notice a male debater talking down to a female debater in cross, I'll try to butt in and point it out. I probably am not the best at dealing with sexism/racism/etc, but I do my best. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- Keep the tournament running as fast as possible. That means you should enter and unpack before I get to the room. Plop yourself down in any chair that looks satisfactory to you – I do not care where you sit. I don't need to watch you flip a coin unless you want to meet me before picking your side (I sometimes like to meet a judge to get a sense of what to pick in a flip).

- The idea of debaters wearing uncomfortable formal clothes to impress me as a judge pains me (although it does make me feel powerful), so take off your tie or whatever if it's uncomfortable. You can debate in a t-shirt in front of me. I believe that uncomfortable clothes make people worse debaters.

- Have preflows done (not the end of the world if you don’t, but a good practice).

- The one exception – I probably will take a long time to write my RFD. So hang tight.

- I flow on my computer. I have been told by friends that I press the keys down hard when I type. This makes noise. Deal with it.

- I disclose my decision.

- Roadmaps are fine. Short roadmaps project confidence.

- Thanks to Ben Morris for this idea: if you say "3-2-1" to start a speech, I may say "blastoff," and you will have to deal with it. Nobody starts a conversation by saying "3-2-1 hello," so don't start your speech with "3-2-1 we affirm."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as “rooters” or "nuclear" as "nook-you-ler" I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

Middle School/Novice:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

I have been judging for five years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

I graduated 2022. Debated four years in LD, two in congress, and did speech categories in forensics for all four years. Add me to the email chain ihoffm2003@gmail.com.

General notes: Run whatever you want as long as it's not offensive. If there is anything that might be considered triggering please give a warning. Be respectful, be passionate, and have fun. If you have any questions about anything, please don't hesitate to reach out.

LD (or PF or Policy) : This is by far the category I'm most comfortable with. I've competed in the circuit a bit so I'm good with speed and progressive arguments(NO TRICKS) but that doesn't mean I hate lay debate. Tech over truth. Framework comes first!!! Low key, I think value debates are dumb. I care a lot more about the value criterion. Make a story with clear impacts and voters. Tell me why I'm voting for you. I won't connect your dots. Love me a good power tag but please make sure that your card actually says something kinda relevant to the tag plz. It's not enough to say "the debater dropped x contention so flow my initial response through." Tell me what that initial response was again.

Congress: I've competed in circuit so you can rest assured I'm not another parent judge. This is a DEBATE category. Get aggressive during cx! Please for the love of god interact with other representatives with your speech. Impacting good. Evidence good. If you want more specifics look at my speech paradigm.

Speech categories: Although this might not be interp, feel free to get a little theatrical. I weigh content like 1/3 of what I do your delivery(do what you want with this, obviously it doesn't apply to radio). Creative hooks/analogies will always make me happy but it has to make sense. If you're not super confident with your content, pretend like you are.

PF/LD:

E-mail: Hrenj@trinityprep.org

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level and Public Forum at the High School level, but would be no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round). I want to be able to flow everything. To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered. I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses. If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases. Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.” Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

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!

Hello, my name is Anchal!

I was a policy debater in HS and I am currently an LD/PF coach.

Treat me as a flay judge.

If you are sharing evidence you can add me @ anchal.kanojia@ahschool.com If you call out a card or would like me to look at evidence- make that evident in your speech.

For prep and your speeches time yourselves and your opponents. For speeches I usually keep a timer and I don't flow anything after my timer goes off.

Don't use debate jargon in place of explaining args.

Tech>>Truth

I'm cool with speed but your opponents should be comfortable with your pace. Always be polite and respectful.

For PF

It's a public forum- I'm not a fan of theory, unless there's actual in round abuse. Running disclosure theory against a novice team is abusive. Frameworks are fine.

WARRANTING - please explain your arguments. Do not say "extend this" without explaining why. And please refrain from claiming that you already proved something earlier on without explaining what you did.

As a strat- give me voters and essentially write out my ballot.

For LD

Theory, Ks, etc. are totally fine.

I'm a fan of Ks and cool frameworks :)

Summary

I'm a tab judge. If you do not tell me what's important I will default to flow/clash or Policymaker/Stock Issues (if in policy)

Respect: Respect everyone. Nothing more needs to be added here I feel, it's THE MOST IMPORTANT THING

Specifics (?)

Tab Judge: I believe a debate is what you make it, so tell me what's important and follow through with your arg's and explanations. Logic is important and while I have a brain, please don't expect me to finish your args/links for you.

Speed: I can only judge on what is on my flow, so please make sure you are not sacrificing clarity and communication. Otherwise, I am typically fine with whatever pace the debate is going at.

Policymaker/Stock Issues: My default style in Policy is a weird mixture of two debate philosophies. Aff has burdens they must prove and a plan which must significantly solve for the harms they present. Advs and DAs are considered on an impact basis (aka Neg can win if a DA would cause more harm than the harms solved by the aff but the Aff can not win on an Adv if other stock issues haven't yet been proven)

Kritiks: I don't normally understand Ks but I wont just discount an argument. You will simply need to explain it well so I can follow.

Flow/Clash: This is my default judging style for all other forms of debate. Clash (IMO) is one of the most extremely important things in debate because it shows your ability to listen, understand, than rebuttal your opponent. Don't talk at each other, debate.

Cross-Ex: CX is important and is a part of the debate but if you want something to be judged please make sure to mention it in your speeches as well. Simply one comment in CX can not be important unless you make it important.

History/Qualification (?)

I am a senior in college. I have debated for 4 years in high school (Mainly policy and public forum though I have tried every event at least once). I have continued to debate throughout college and am the current president of my collegiate team. I currently compete in an impromptu style called IPDA.

Hi,

My name is Sean Lam and l am a Parent Judge from Quarry Lane School.

Here are my expectations.

For Constructive etc, l would like to see clarity and fluidity in delivering your case. When the time is up, debaters may finish their last sentence. You will not continue a new sentence, else points will be deducted.

Please follow the general rules of debate.

State your winning factors clearly and l will give you my ballot.

Warrant, weigh, collapse (!!) and be kind, please.

I'll judge like Zoë Kaufmann.

I cap speaks at 29.5 but automatic 30 if you make me laugh.

Please ask me any questions before the round, and have fun!

Clearly audible, speak slowly.

I am a first-time judge with very little debate experience. Please time speeches and keep up with prep time. No fast talking. I like to see well-developed arguments that engage the opponent. Be kind to one another!

Presumption

I am one of the most naturally neutral individuals I know. I will NOT favor a side because I SHOULD. I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. Don't assume -- just explain.

Speed

Be understood. Be clear. If I don't flow it... IT NEVER HAPPENED. Remember this during warrants / impacts / extensions. I rarely call for cards, so if I need to hear it, make sure you set the scene for optimal results.

Theory/ K

Debating about debate is fun and engaging -- if it makes sense. Silly theories are just silly, but go back to my section on presumption - I will favor a side because you convinced me to... hence the purpose of effective argumentation. If you convince me that the theory is valid, then it is for the round. I will not assume how it functions or the reasonability of it. Prove that it does or doesn't. A good K with clear explinations, links and impacts are refreshing to me. Neg must explain why aff can't perm the day away -- why is the alt superior? Aff, why is the perm better than the alt and case solo? This is where speed choices are important.

Evidence

Here are a few questions you should ask yourself: Do you understand the card? Does it link to the argumentation presented? Is it topical to the context you're using it in? Do the warrants exist in the text? Is it qualified? Is it dated? ....is clipping truly worth it?

T's, DA's, CPs

Policy was my niche back in the day. That being said -- I'll buy it if its clear, all conditions are met, it makes sense, and if it actually does something / proves a point. I will follow the flow, and the flow alone. Keep it clean!

Finally... most importantly... tell me WHY I should be voting for you. Yes. I want voters. Explain why a drop is catastrophic. Tell me why case outweighs. You know what happens when you assume... don't assume that I'm rolling with you. Explain why I should be.

Spkr Point Breakdown

30 Likely to take the tournament

29.5 Contender to the crown

29 Excited to see how deep you go!

28.5 Highly likely to clear

28 Clearing is possible

27.5 On the bubble, keep pushing

27 Congrats on earning entry into the tournament!!

*email chain: - use file sharing software if available instead of email chain pls

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

This is my second year judging. Below are the criteria I use as a guideline for judging.

1) I would like to focus on quality rather than quantity - this is to say, I would much rather you speak clearly in a manner I can follow you rather than you try to complete X words/min, and say something that I don't follow.

2) I grade off of the flow of the argument and weighting.

3) You have to understand your case do not just read the cards you have. Use logical thinking to sway me to vote in your favor.

4) 0.2 per rude or socially inaccurate comment.

5) Bringing up new ideas in the final focus will cost you.

Good luck & Have fun!

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

*please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks*

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

mateens@umich.edu

My name is Mateen, and I am a freshman at the University of Michigan. I competed in Public Forum debate for all four years of high school at Basis Peoria, where I most notably finalled @ Silver TOC.

PF Paradigm (inspired by David Parau):

The short version is: tech over truth but winning the tech of an argument doesn't mean I will vote on it unless it is 1) warranted and 2) weighed. Ultimately, I look for the least mitigated link chain into the most weighed impact.

Speed is fine (I personally prefer fast and technical debate because I think it is more entertaining and intellectually stimulating, however, my principal philosophy about debate is that it should be totally up to the debaters to decide what they want the round to be like as long as it's not problematic*)

I would like to be on the email chain and I do prefer cards/read evidence in case/rebuttal and then implicated in the second half of the round.

Please put me on the email chain: christal.stclair12@gmail.com

Yes, you can spread, but PLEASE BE CLEAR.

Yes, it can be open CX.

Any type of argument is fine with me. But keep a SAFE SPACE for EVERYONE!!!

Offense is very important (Winning=Offense).

**************************************************************************************

Generics ...

• DO NOT say anything racist/homophobic/transphobic. If you think your opponent has said something that could be one of these just make the argument and impact it out (it'll take like 30 seconds).
• I debated for Newark Science for 4 years (doing both Policy and LD) and was primarily a K debater (this does not mean I will vote on one just because it's read) but I've a lot of different arguments.
• Impact out all of your arguments!
• Truth over tech until tech overwhelms truth (probably because you were inefficient). As in, you should be grouping arguments and working to boil the debate down yourself. Yes, I love big pictures but there needs to be some actual substance too like you can't just read a 4-minute overview in the 1AR over multiple flows that don't engage anything and expect a ballot.

Specifics ...

CPs are fine, just prove mutual exclusivity (b/c I am likely to buy a perm with a good net benefit). A clever PIC is always good and fun but be ready to defend why you get to steal most or certain parts of the aff, especially against a K or Non-T aff.

DAs are good too, but generic links are ineffective, and if the aff proves that to be true I am less likely to vote on it.

- I'm also not as persuaded by nuclear war impacts. You can try, just have a good internal link story (this is very important, make it logical and easy to follow).

Ks are my favorite! BUT I will not pretend to understand "gobbledygook" or really high theory that is not properly explained, so err on the side of over-explanation (esp. if you're reading the philosophy of a long-dead French white dude). Have specific links to the AFF, point out specific warrants and give analysis on how the world of the alt vs. the world of the aff functions, and you got my ballot!

FW shells are interesting as I do not have a bias on it, so do whatever you want. Just prove why I should adopt your FW shell and compare it to the aff's.

I have a HIGH threshold for voting on T/Theory especially if the violation is unreasonable.

But just try to have fun and learn lots in the round!!!

Personal history if you care about stuff like that:

- Debated for 4 years at a small school called HTPA as a part of the Los Angels Metropolitian debate league.

- Qualified to the TOC my senior year

-Top-level

I think Judge adaptation creates worse debates. Everybody has biases and preferences no matter what they say but I think over adapting to judges often causes students to do things they are less comfortable with and execute starts they wouldn't normally. That being said DO YOU. You came here with an idea of the kinds of arguments you want to execute so don't change them for me. I will always evaluate debates with the maximum level of objectivity and will intervene as little as possible. This means the 2nr/2ar should do a lot of judge instruction and write my ballot for me.

All that being said we all have our preferences so here are mine

Disads

Not the most experienced here so I don't have any groundbreaking opinions. I always think impact calc is what makes or breaks these debates. Tell me why your stuff outweighs/ is more important than their thing and you'll probably get the ballot. There is such a thing as 0% risk.

Cps

During my senior year, about 40% of my 2nrs were PICs. That being said I absolutely love them. The only thing I do have to say is that I have a higher propensity to side with the negative on cp theory whether that be piks bad or process cp bad. Condo is probably good, however.

Kritiks

The other 60% of my 2nrs was the K. I Absolutely love these arguments and I often think they are extremely strategic. I am most familiar with Set col, Antiblackness, Cap, and Security type arguments. Pomo teams will need to over-explain concepts to me. I have no issue telling you I voted for the other team because I didn't understand what you were talking about, It is your job to explain your arguments to me. I don't think links have to be exactly specific to the aff so long as the block does a good job contextualizing the evidence to the aff, but more specific ev is always better. I don't think you need to win the alt if you win the framing for the debate but I won't kick the alt for you, you have to tell me to do that.

For the affirmative, I think the most convincing argument is the permutation. Of course case outweighs can win you the debate but I think any good 2n will be able to beat you to the punch there. The perm seems like the best start to get the case back and be able to implicate the impacts of the aff without having to full-fledge win the framework debate.

T

Nothing too controversial here. I am more persuaded by Topic education arguments.

FW

A lot of my high school debates (and most of my college ones) were framework debates so I am pretty familiar here. I don't have a preference for whether affs go for counter interps or just impact turning T. I think that the most convincing argument for negatives to go for are education-based ones. I am sympathetic to arguments about predictability and engagement with the aff. I also think that "we couldn't test the aff thus presumption" is a tricky argument that is convincing. Fairness is an impact but it begs the question of affirmative offense that often implicates/turns/precede fairness. 

KvK

These are my favorite type of debates. I think they usually come down to the links and the perms. More specific evidence usually is better for the negative in terms of selling a convincing link story. I will vote on presumption if it is explained well enough.

Explicitly Racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist rhetoric will lose you the debate and I will nuke your speaks. Be respectful to the other team and try to have as much fun as you can!

I am a parent who has just started judging this year. I have degrees in Engineering and Business and work experience in both of those areas.

Speak clearly and not too fast - I will be taking notes. Be sure to reiterate whatever points you feel are most important.

PF

You will be evaluated on your ability to clearly present your argument and on your ability to weaken the opponents arguments. This means you should demonstrate knowledge of the issue from both sides and be prepared to attack the topic from any angle.

Persuasive

Make sure you have a solid outline with a good conclusion, and focus on the best delivery possible.

Most importantly, have fun, be considerate and respectful to other competitors and the judges, and follow the debate format/rules/time limits.

TLDR: I will judge based on whatever framework is given to me/winning. As long are you properly warrant, impact, WEIGH your arguments, you'll be fine. Do whatever you do best. I will only judge whatever is presented in the round. Coverage is important- conceded arguments are the truest. That being said, I still need you to tell me why I should care about the conceded argument.

INTRO

Hello! I'm Emily (she/her), and I currently work as a clinical researcher. I am graduated from Hopkins with a BS in Molecular and Cellular Biology and Duke School of Medicine with my Master in Biomedical Sciences. In undergrad, I competed in American Parliamentary (APDA) with a couple of breaks/speaks. In high school, I competed in policy and started coaching LD/PF.

EXPERIENCE

- 3 years of Policy

- 1 year of PF, 3 years of coaching

- 1 year of LD, 3 years of coaching

- 4 years of APDA

OVERALL:

Ultimately, I see debate as an educational space where individuals are allowed the platform to use their voice in whichever way they want. I value the technical aspect of debate most, so make sure you have good flow coverage, properly warrant your claims, and WEIGH for me. I will not inject my own thoughts and beliefs when judging a round, so you need to make sure you cover all your bases and thoroughly weigh/mechanize your impacts. I will regard dropped arguments as true but be sure to take advantage of that and explain why it matters in the round.

I value framework debates. Please be sure to engage with the framework beyond just reading it at the top. Link back to your framework when you weigh, especially in rebuttals.

I love Kritik debates. When I competed in policy, I leaned very K-heavy. Be sure to properly link to the resolution, or present adequate theory as to why I should ignore the resolution, or why it's bad. Performative speeches are fine with me, as long as you explain the necessity/advantage for performance and what it brings to the round.

Similarly, I will vote on theory arguments as long as they are warranted out. HOWEVER, take more time on your theory, since I am a little more hesitant to vote ONLY on theory. For example, I don't really ~like~ rvis, but will vote on it if dropped or warranted out well. I need the theory debate to be fully fleshed out with tangible impacts to the round. Take a little more time in explaining specific burdens to me (like one more sentence). I've switched debate styles a lot and the burdens specific to a debate format are a little lost to me, so just remind me.

I appreciate arguments explaining how you want me to judge and explaining why this is the case (e.g. role of the judge, role of the ballot). If not contested, this is how I will frame my ballot.

LD SPECIFIC

I do not particularly like/understand tricks. Take your time with the theory. I encourage philosophy debates, but I think they are difficult to properly develop within a round, so be efficient with the development of your arguments.

SPEAKS

Off time roadmaps are encouraged, SIGN-POSTNG is necessary.

From my policy experience, I am okay with speed, but I may be a little rusty. Take that however you want. I weigh content and clarity heavily when assigning speaks. Please be mindful of equity. If you do/say something offensive or make the debate inaccessible, I will dock speaks. Being aggressive/assertive does not mean you cannot also be nice and mindful of others.

Pronouns: They/She

Email: patriciayango@arizona.edu

I am a 2020 graduate of Perry High School (AZ) and a 4 year competitor in a variety of speech and debate events at both the local and national levels. I am competing for the University of Arizona. I'm the Arizona District Assistant Coach of the Year (2021).

tldr; signpost always. run whatever you want (no trix tho pls). check your privilege.

you are responsible for the weighing, extensions, and impact calc (and explaining unfamiliar lit).regardless of if you debate trad or progressive, good comparative impact calc will prob win you my ballot. if i don't understand ur contention, i probably wont vote on it. if i don't understand ur k/t/phil/da/cp/whatever else i probably wont vote on it.

i am a lazy judge. in an ideal world, you are filling out my ballot for me. tell me what i need to vote on EARLY IN THE ROUND and why. if you leave that up to me, you probably wont be happy with my RFD. pretty much any argument goes as long as you have a warrant and can explain it well.

Hi! I have 3 years of experience in Public Forum debate (still debating)

Email is jpzhang23@blakeschool.org so include me in email chains

tech > truth

Speed:

Speed is fine as long as you aren't spreading. Send me a speech doc if you are going to speak very fast but I can't guarantee I'll be able to follow along. Please be clear and make sure you speak at a pace you are comfortable with.

CX:

Please be respectful of others during crossfire. If you are condescending or rude I will lower your speaks. There is a difference between being assertive and just being rude.

Prep:

I will time everyone's speeches and prep time because taking more prep than you're given is annoying and unfair.

Evidence:

I may call for evidence at the end of the round. You should have cut cards in your cases and speeches. I really don't like paraphrasing but usually it will not affect my decision or your speaks UNLESS your opponent extends an indict to your evidence and I find that you are clearly misconstruing evidence. Evidence exchange should be relatively quick; I get it if your internet is slow but it shouldn't take you that long to find a card if you were able to read it in your speech.

Constructive:

If you have no terminalized impact in an argument, I will most likely not be voting off of it unless your opponent does an atrocious job debating. Please make sure you have uniqueness -> link -> impact in all of your contentions.

Rebuttals:

Signpost! Second rebuttal needs to respond to arguments made against it in first rebuttal, especially turns. Please make sure there is an impact on your turns and to weigh such impacts because it makes it easier for me to evaluate these turns when I know what I'm actually voting for. second rebuttal can also collapse if you can kick out of one of your arguments but make sure to bite whatever defense you are using to kick out.

Summary:

Make sure in summary to collapse on the arguments you think will win the round and extend one or maybe more of your arguments and extend dropped offense. If you think you can win off of your case too you have to extend the UQ --> Link --> Impact for whatever contention, subpoint, or link you are going for. If you think only collapsing on turns will win you the round, you can do that too, Just have a strategy. Also pleaas I love dropped offense.se please please weigh and give reasons to prefer your weighing over your opponents'. "Strength of link" or "solvency" weighing doesn't make sense. The three main types of weighing are magnitude, probability, and time frame. Long link chains do not mean less probability.

FF:

Only extend what your partner extends, especially case (whatever you collapse on not the whole thing). I will not flow new arguments

Disclosure:

If you are disclosed tell me and I will raise your speaks.

There is no pre-fiat vs post-fiat. I don't buy arguments about spreading discourse. If you do decide to introduce it in the round and your opponent doesn't respond to it I will have to vote for you. I will evaluate methods debates like regular debates.

Progressive Args: I am not very comfortable with K's but I can evaluate some disclosure and paraphrasing theory. Key word "some." I have run a K before but I'm not an expert with them.

Davin if you are reading this you should do your work and stop copying my paradigm.

glhf :)