-Please be respectful to each other

-Please no fast talking + spreading

-I'm a history teacher, so I care a lot about evidence + critical analysis

-signaling/signposting is awesome

I am a flow judge and at the end of the round, I will only vote based on my flow. For any points that are not addressed by the opposing team, I will assume no contest and flow it through the entire round. Please lay out a clear roadmap of your speech at the beginning of or prior to your speeches. If there is any evidence that needs to be addressed please call it to my attention and I will be happy to take a look. While this is a competition it is also an excellent educational tool, I expect all debaters to be kind to and respectful of their competitors, the audience, and the judge(s) at all times. Any disrespect I observe will directly affect that person's speaker points.

'Kyle' or 'Judge' (he/him)

kylehietala@gmail.com

Program Director & Head Coach at Palo Alto High School
President of the National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)

ex-LD, OO @ Morse High School
ex-APDA @ Yale University

____

Summary

Experienced flow judge from a traditional background. I spend most of my time as an administrator nowadays, so I'm probably not up-to-date on topic literature/circuit trends. I'm receptive to many arguments, styles, strategies, etc., but I'm less familiar with the progressive edges of circuit debate (e.g. performance, AFF Ks). I prefer clash-heavy, topical case rounds with in-depth warrant comparison. I tend to prefer explanation and analysis (quality, depth) over assertion and gamesmanship (quantity, breadth). I also tend to dislike clash evasion (e.g. tricks, blippy theory). I'm fine with fast rounds, but not top-speed circuit spreading. Above all, I expect you to be kind and respectful to everyone.

____

How I Vote

I vote for whomever does better comparative weighing of well-warranted impacts about the main clash(es) of the round. Clarity is your responsibility: if I don't understand something, I won't vote for it. Although technique generally determines what I consider to be true, it doesn't excuse you from making credible arguments – and I'll probably ignore any frivolous assertions (e.g. tricks) made only for tactical advantage/technical exclusion. You should spend a lot more time explaining why you're winning the warrant/link level of the argument(s) you're going for – and a lot less time telling me truisms about impacts, like 'extinction bad irreversible' or 'quality of life good.'

____

Specifics

Evidence - I expect ethical integrity, though I rarely decide rounds on cards; evidence should support warranting, not vice versa.

Framework - I love nuanced framework debate because it usually makes my job easier and reduces the risk of intervention.

Kritiks - I'm fine with Ks, but I probably don't know your literature, so be really clear. Ks should be topical with a clear link and tangible impact.

New Arguments - I protect the flow in all events, but you should still call the POO if it's Parli.

Plans/Counterplans - I prefer actor/advantage CPs over process CPs. I don't like PICs, and I really don't like conditional CPs.

Presumption - I don't presume. I think these arguments are usually clash-evasive, and I'd strongly prefer topical engagement.

Speed/Spread - I can flow up to ~250wpm, which is probably 'very slow circuit spreading' or 'very fast lay speaking.'

Theory - I'm fine with theory about specific, in-round violations. I will ignore frivolous theory. Weak leans to DTA > DTD, R > CI, yes RVIs.

Topicality - I'm more receptive to specific, niche advocacies/plans than to extra-topical advocacies/plans.

____

Prefs Shortcut

1 - trad/case

2 - lay Ks, LARP

3 - phil, K

4 - theory, T

5 - AFF Ks, performance

STRIKE - friv theory, tricks

PF PARADIGM:

If you are coughing, please wear a mask in round.

Please do not ask every single person in the room if they are ready before starting to speak. One simple, "everyone ready?" does the trick! Once you ask, give a little bit of wait time before you actually start speaking.

Theory does not belong in PF so please do not run it! If you want to run theory, there are two other debate events where that works. PF was designed for a reason and I am super baffled by the race to make it as much like Policy as possible when it is not Policy! The shorter speaking times make PF a very specific genre of debate; arguments that play out in Policy or even LD do not translate well in PF.

Kritiks: See theory above

Please share all cards you are reading in a speech before the speech. Set up an email chain! This will avoid the annoying wait times associated with "calling for cards." All cards should be appropriately cut, please do not share a PDF and ask the other team to look for the relevant passage.

I am up for a fast paced round where delivery is at a fairly rapid clip. Spreading, however, has no place in PF so do not go there. See my comments about theory above.

As far as I am concerned, the only road map in a PF round, is "Pro/Con" or "Con/Pro". Please do not use the term "brief off time road map." Or ask if I time them!

Dates matter and NSDA rules say you should at a minimum read the year of the card; please follow these rules or I will not flow your cards.

I will vote off the flow if I can which means you need to sign post and keep the same names and structures for arguments as they were coming out of case. In other words, do not rename arguments later in the round because you think they sound cute or persuasive. If I cannot figure out where to flow the argument, I am not listening to what you are saying, but rather trying to figure out where it goes.

Make sure whatever you carry into Final Focus, is also part of Summary. All of the sudden extending arguments that have not been part of the debate is not a winning strategy.

I am not sure I am a fan of "sticky defense."

Weigh the round, explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. Be specific; do not just say you "outweigh" leverage certain cards and contentions to explain.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why they matter!

I stop listening to Cross-Fire if it is loud and the debaters talk over each other.

I hate short, blippy cards and reading one right after another is actually really hard to flow.

Truth over tech; facts and reality matters. I will not vote off improbable, unrealistic or fundamentally flawed arguments.

maryrosekohan@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

Head Coach George Washington High School.

If this paradigm isn't completely clear, please ask questions before the round! I'd rather you be informed than to be inconvenienced by a misunderstanding about anything said here.

Most Importantly: I haven't judged much circuit policy, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.

If you want to have a good round in front of me, there's a couple things you should do/not do.

1. PLEASE take it easy on speed. Given that I do not judge on the circuit often, I'm a little out of practice flowing. This means that if you want me to understand what you're saying, you need to slow down. Obviously, this means you should far and away strive for clarity over speed.

2. If you are reading positions that are silly/don't make sense, expect to be disappointed with the decision that I make. Overly absurd Kritikal positions, and politics disads that seem to not have any internal links are definitely a no-go in front of me. I'm open to Kritikal positions, and I think they're interesting, but things like Death-Good aren't up my alley. Read a position that you know well in front of me and I'll enjoy it.

3. I'm comfortable evaluating Framework debates. I think affs should be at least tangentially related to the resolution. I'm not fond of just "Anti-USFG" affs. In addition, don't assume that I know all of the arguments that you're trying to make. On either side, the arguments should be explained clearly and concisely.

LD Paradigm

Although I come from a state that does primarily traditional value-criterion debate, I am an experienced policy coach (see the paradigm above). I can evaluate policy style arguments and am very open to them. I am much more persuaded by arguments that are related to the resolution and can be linked back to it as opposed to Kritikal arguments that do not link. I am, however, excited by some the resolution specific Kritiks and would love to hear them! I am familiar with a number of off case positions and theoretical arguments, please do not make assumptions and take time to give brief explanations.

I may not be able to easily follow or be familiar of all theory arguments. Slow down and explain them.

Dropped arguments only matter if you tell me why. You do not automatically win just because an argument is dropped.

As far as speed goes, I can keep up with it if it is clear and well articulated and has the purpose of covering more arguments. But I am not a fan of going fast just to go fast.

My email is lorileiml@gmail.com please add me to the email chain! Don't be a terrible person!! Thanks

I am currently a college policy debater. This is my sixth year of debate. I debate on the NDT circuit at the University of Wyoming and have cleared at majors this year including clearing at the NDT and making it to Octofinals of the CEDA. Don’t be worried to read any type of argument in front of me.

K- When they are explained well they are very great arguments. Even if I know what your K is, I will not vote on it if you don’t explain it. I am okay with any type of K and love performances. Perf con can be used against framework. My strat in high school was usually 8 minutes of the k in the 2nc if that helps you! Now Its the CP and case.

Fw- Could go either way -- you can win a counter interp or an impact turn -- justify why you get to read FW - i’d rather vote for clash than fairness

Case- I love a good case debate. I think this part of debate is under utilized and can get good wins if you have a good case neg.

Da- Disad’s can take out an aff and I love turns case stuff.

Cp- I enjoy counterplans and believe that they should be used more than they currently are especially adv cp’s. These debates get messy fast so try to keep it organized.

T- Im not a big fan of broad t definitions but I know they have to be used sometimes. T debates are also super messy so keep it clean. Tell me why them being untopical is bad.

Theory- always a valuable ballot in my mind but I would prefer substance !

Tech over truth :)

Other events- I enjoy judging other events besides policy! Please don’t worry about me being your judge I love all events of speech and debate and would love to learn more about them.

If you use speech drop or you have an email chain (adamlevanger@gmail.com), adamlevanger@gmail.com.

My background: I have been involved in debate for a couple of years but am not an experienced or technical judge. I am a lay judge with a growing understanding of things...I almost know enough to be dangerous but sincerely try to stay in my lane. Clear sign-posting please. I will flow. I appreciate moderate speed but can deal with speed if I have access to the evidence.

Aff: I think Policy Aff's make the most sense and have a harder time with K-Aff's, although I have voted for K's. I prefer a strong, easy to follow link chain. Please explain arguments and impacts clearly. I have a preference for realistic impacts, but if your links makes sense, go for it. Sign-post strongly for me please.

Neg:

Topicality/theory: Make sure you have a clear interpretation and violation and link strongly to why it's un-topical.

Disadvantages: Prefer they link and have clear impacts.

Counterplans: Prefer if mutually exclusive and can solve for Aff and Neg impacts.

Kritiks: Not a huge fan.

Thank you!

Start judging PF debate since 2020. I focus on these parts to help me make decision

1)Key points clear and well supported

2)Systematic and logical argument

3)confident

4)ask right questions during cross fire

5)speech

Finally, be respectful and enjoy

Topshelf -

Impact weighing is near the top of my priorities when making a decision it influences how i frame the rest of the debate and the offense/defense of the debate.

Kritiks - Fine by me but i prefer they have solid links to the opposing side and that they are based in the topic literature.

Theory. Fine as long as they have clear standards and a reject the team arg, i have a high threshold for reject the team args.

The looking at cards off of prep time is somewhat okay but don't use it super often it makes the round unnecessarily long

I think 2nd rebuttal should cover opponents case and offense but this isn't something i will vote on its just something to keep in mind.

Email for email chains - Joshuadalemitchell@gmail.com

TECH >>>> TRUTH

Debated PF at Park City for 4 years (2019-22) mainly for nat circuit but local too.

Idk the resolutions that well so explain them but you should do that anyway. Extend throughout the round pls.

Speed is fine, send me the speech doc tho and add me to the email chain: mobrienpc2004@gmail.com

Sign posts are important so I can stay organized, don't stand up before your speech and give me an "off-time roadmap" just say the order of your speech.

I don't evaluate cross at all, if something important happens bring it up in the next speech.

Policy: I know a little bit of policy stuff, you can run anything as long as it's explained well. I ran k's in pf so I know how they work pretty well. CP's and DA's are cool as long as they're not confusing. Theory is fine too. Disclosure is necessary for policy, if you don't disclose I'll dock 1 speaker point.

PF: K debate and theory is more fun than stock args but I won't count it against you if your case is stock. I don't believe in frameworks for PF unless you're running something progressive or interesting. CBA is standard so I'll default to that. Weighing is very important but explain why I should weigh the round in one way and don't just say "we save a million people" and expect me to care without explaining why that matters. Disclosure is good but not necessary.

Run anything you want as long as it's not racist, homophobic, xenophobic... If it is I'll just drop you.

Note: If you run progressive args poorly I just won't evaluate it and that would be kinda embarrassing.

Ask if you have questions

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

I am a flay judge. This is my second tournament judging policy; however, I am trained and familiar with the topic.

I want explicit arguments that are easy to flow.

If I can't understand your argument, I can't judge it.

Don't interrupt so much that you are abusive.

Do not say anything racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or mean.

If you want me to flow the round properly, please signpost.

Debate is a communication activity. Other than using communication skills, debate requires the use of logic and reasoning. All debaters must speak clearly for me to hear all the points being made and must watch rate of delivery. I can’t vote on what I don’t hear or can’t understand.

Debaters should display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis within their arguments. It is very important to utilize respectable, factual evidence, but also clearly verbalize how the evidence supports your position or argument.

I believe the round is about you, not me. I will judge whatever arguments you present.

Most importantly- Debaters should provide a very clear link chain throughout the debate. Signposting is vital; when transitioning from one topic to another, to tell me what you’re responding to etc.- down to the subpoint or specific card-, and use off-time roadmaps to further clarify flow and primary points of argument.

In Public Forum-

Please do not present new arguments during summary or final focus. New evidence to support arguments already made is acceptable during summary. Final focus is your opportunity to clearly articulate which arguments you believe should weigh most importantly on the judging decision. I am looking for organization, accuracy, and eloquence during final focus.

Assistant at the Nueva School and Park City.

I competed in PF and most speech events for four years. I've been coaching since 2018 - mostly PF, but a mix of all events.

Please produce an email chain titled 'Tournament A Round B - Team C (aff) vs Team D (neg),' and add me to it:gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

I'm open to almost any strategy to generate offense. I'm just as happy to evaluate a critique of an argument is I am topicality.Theory debates will make me unhappy but you can certainly win that they're necessary and relevant on my flow.

I never did policy or LD debate and most of my coaching has been in PF. While I am open to any kind of argument, it is ultimately up to you to explain it with this in mind.

In any round, quality judge instruction is very helpful. It is much easier to evaluate a debate where both teams make one or two well-weighed arguments in the final focus than one in which the kitchen sink is thrown at me in every speech.

Debate jargon is bad word economy. Topic jargon is risky if unexplained -- my topic research varies month to month.

I'm a mediocre poker player. You'll know if I think something bad is happening. Follow the faces.

A reference to an argument is not the same thing as making an argument.I've grown increasingly stingy about extensions as I have grown old. Uniqueness, a link, and an impact have to be extended in summary and final focus on any offensive argument you expect me to vote for.

Make the round a pleasant, safe, and respectful venue for an educational debate. I will never vote on an argument that depicts or promotes self-harm of any kind. I will be hesitant to vote on arguments I perceive as structurally violent. It's very rare I have to intervene on such bases. All else equal, I'd give higher speaks to a debater who is funny in crossex than one who is overtly aggressive.

I politely request that you strike me if you do not follow NSDA evidence rules, including that all cited evidence must have a cut card associated with it at a minimum.

Thanks.

About me:

swideckimichael1@gmail.com (include on email chain please)

6 years and counting policy debate experience. Current UW college debater.

Some thoughts and useful insights for debaters (an ever growing list):

1. Familiar with mostly all types of argumentation, I'm down with reading whatever argument suits you, just defend it well. There are very few args I will not vote on. If you say racism/sexism/transphobia/ableism are good you will lose. Everything else is up for debate. I am particularly partial to clever impact turns that catch opponents off guard.

2. I'm not as familiar with the K literature, so if that's your jam, you should be extra coherent with your args and line by line work. Don't drop some super complex K terms and expect me to know what they mean please, I do my best to keep up, but there will always be something that I didn't have time to learn.

3. I like clever counterplans that use the aff against itself (within reason of course, I'm not afraid to vote on theory so be careful with your "creativity"), unless you have really good evidence, I'm not likely to vote on generic CP's that copy and paste the plan text from every round. If the CP is unique to the aff or a small section of affs, that's ideal.

4. 2AC addons are underrated, see the HS impact article "2AC add ons" written by Scott Phillips to understand why.

5. Nothing in your speeches should go unjustified, every piece of evidence and every analytic you forward needs to exist for a strategic reason. Chess players (who want to win) don't just move random pieces, everything is purposeful, strategic, and thoughtful. Your speeches are a piece of art and you should treat them with that respect!

6. Cross-ex is a speech

Be kind, prep well, debate smart, have fun, good luck.

I did debate all four years in high school so I know how tournaments go.

What I would like to see in round is just a well done, civil debate. I appreciate a good amount of clash, just don't become too disrespectful. Please make sources used very clear so I know where your information comes from.

Other than that I trust you to make the round go smoothly by timing yourselves (I will also be timing) and to be prepared to speak loud and clear, and sell your case to me.

I love debate and being able to judge after graduation. Just remember speech and debate is hard work but it is also so important and valuable in your lives; don't forget to have fun with it!

I currently serve as the head coach for Park City High School.

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.
• A sense of humor is always appreciated. Have fun. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

• I have been involved in debate with Park City High School since 2017. I respect and admire students who are committed to learning about and engaging in academic conversations. Thank you for being a part of debate.

Make this your best round possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

Finally, should I judge something other than PF: In terms of theory, I don't like it. If you insist upon running it, I will listen/judge begrudgingly and choose truth over tech. I hate frivolous or abusive theory - only run it if it's a true violation.

My email (for questions): awilliams@pcschools.us

In-round Preferences:

• Weigh.
• Though I flow, I cannot keep up with spreading. Please keep it to a traditional speed in PF.
• Weigh.
• Please signpost — it makes it much easier to flow
• I appreciate critical arguments, but keep them accessible to people who aren’t terribly familiar with K debate or literature
• Weigh.
• Please be consistent with your warranting.
• Offense must be in summary and final focus.
• Weigh
• Do not say racist, homophobic, xenophobic or sexist things. Pay attention to the language you use, and know that I will, too.

Miscellaneous:

• I don't like crossfire. I won’t flow, and you shouldn’t go over time.
• Do not steal prep time.
• Persuade me that you deserve the ballot.
• Weigh.

SPEAKS: High speaker points are earned and not given.

Make it the best debate possible. I look forward to judging, and hope you share the same enthusiasm for competing.

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.