John Lewis SVUDL Invitational formerly SCU Dempsey Cronin
2022 — NSDA Campus, CA/US
Open Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I am a parent judge and this is my second year of judging. Here are my preferences:
1) Keep it simple. Please make sure you tell me why I should vote for you.
2) I prefer medium pace. Please be clear in your delivery.
3) No Kritiks or Theory, please.
4) I consider argument and style to be both important, with argument having a slight edge over style. Meaningful and relevant statistics that support your argument will be appreciated.
5) Please treat your opponents with respect and be civil during cross. Also, please do not bring up new arguments during cross.
Generally looking for speaker/participants broader understanding of the topic and belief in the argument being presented.
Secondly, attentiveness to the opponents arguments, display the understanding and specifically counter those.
I am parent judge for Public Forum. I can flow speeches as long as I understand what they are saying. Here are some general preferences:
- I am not familiar with debate jargon or with theory debate
- If you choose to speak fast, provide speech document
- Cross Examination is an important part of the debate to me and I will pay attention to it
- Hold each other accountable for time
- It would help if you can provide a roadmap before speech after constructive
- I will give/cut speaker points based on coherency and substance
- Weighing is very important and explain properly
Lastly, have fun and be respectful!
I will be listening to the speakers carefully and looking for flow, consistency, evidence and sources of evidence. Will be noting down all the key points and assess based on content presented and will go by the data for final out come. I have judged in Berkley and other tournaments around Bay area before.
For speaks I average a 29.7/29.8 so you will be fine
My Paradigm is as follows,
I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judges the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.
I have not participated in a debate team and come from a Marketing background and am well trained in how to make a powerful case and appeal to people with evidence-based arguments.
Given that Marketing background, I value confidence, clarity, and presentation -- in addition to strong and clear arguments. Make sure you lay out a good story and a clear path from A to B to C through your presentation. Start strong and finish strong. Make sure you don't make unfounded assumptions about what your audience knows or doesn't know; i.e., don't talk over my head.
High speed presentation will likely result in a loss of clarity and decline in quality of presentation, so could result in a reduction in scoring -- especially if it is too fast for me to follow along.
I will be looking for solid arguments and a powerful rebuttal, and will not be counting out how many arguments are being made. I will be looking for clear citations of source materials for key facts, and make sure those facts are relevant to the argument being made.
I am a parent judge. Please be respectful and do not spread. I will flow the debate so please keep the debate clean and easy to follow.
I am a first timer as debate judge. I will learn along the way.
Hi, I'm a parent judge. Unfortunately, due to the power outage, I run into severe buffering issues when unmuting and turning camera on, so I will keep it off to ensure I can hear all arguments without lag. Please be respectful to your opponents!
Remember to clearly outline your impacts and respond to all arguments!
Speak slowly and I will try to take notes, thank you for your accommodation!
TLDR: Do what you want and believe is the best strat in the round. Just don't make up stuff, be nice to each other and have fun. Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated 3 years for IVC. Coaching/judging speech and debate for ms, hs, and college. Competed in mainly Parli, LD, Extemp, and Impromptu. Competed in both CC and 4-year tournaments. Mostly ran policy and typically lean towards policy debate when judging. Also like T (As Ayden Loeffler would say "layers and layers of theory"). But open to all types of arguments.
Weigh impacts. Let me know how you want me to weigh and evaluate. Love case debate, disads, counterplans, etc. Not the biggest fan of conditionality but you could run them. Speed is a tool but be clear. If your opponent wants you to slow down just slow down, especially with tournaments being online. Collapse so don't go for everything and please signpost.
I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.
I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.
Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.
Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:
1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.
2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)
3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.
4. Do not be rude in cross.
Once again, do not spread.
I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging public forum debate, online and in-person.
Please treat everyone with respect. Use conversational tone and speed. In your final focus, I would appreciate clear analysis of why your team should win. Thanks.
This is my second year judging debates. So I am still relatively new to judging. It will be very helpful, if you speak clearly and at a slow to moderate pace.
Doing so will ensure the best understanding of your arguments, ultimately providing you the best chance to secure the winning ballot.
Looking forward to an exciting debate.
I'm a parent judge from last year.
Say clearly and articulate your points well.
Please be polite, slow.
And have fun!
Former debater in the JV/Open Policy Division for James Madison University, 2nd place finish at JV/Novice Nationals, 2-time VHSL State Qualifier, and former varsity PF captain for Harrisonburg High School.
Hell yes include me in the email chain:
If you guys have any questions after your round concerning the debate, please email me/ask me I’d be more than happy to answer anything debate-related and give you my view of the round (either why you won or lost).
I currently view debate as a game we play to critically test and challenge approaches to change the world for the better. If one side has successfully developed the debate with a clear argument and direction while refuting the other side and providing offense against the opposing team's args, they will win my ballot. If you’re putting in hard work debating, I’ll work hard in evaluating correctly with little intervention providing feedback for both sides on how you guys can be the best debaters with the experience I’ve had in your shoes. The relationship between debaters and judges is a two-way street, if you don’t give any effort/don’t care, I won’t care either.
Conduct- Don’t be a douchebag, I encourage aggressiveness in rounds and during cross-ex but you know when you’re being a douchebag, I will stop the debate and tell you if you are but you’ll already know it and you will be docked points. Any explicit language and disrespect, I’ll vote you down.
Time- You should keep track of your own prep time and opponent's speech times, prep ends when the document is saved. don’t go over your time.
Clarity vs. Speed
I’m fine with speed if you’re good at spreading. AKA if I can’t understand you while you spread, you‘re not doing a good job. If you can spread while having clear and concise diction then feel free to but if you’re not a good enough speaker yet, don’t do it. Slow down on analytics, don’t spread through them because they will get lost.
For policy, I prefer one on one cross-ex’s if you want good speeks unless your partner is really struggling, like badly. Don’t be an a-hole and don’t talk over your opponents or even your partner, you’ll be docked points.
I’ve been a policy debater for most of my JMU debate career, so if you debate policy I have high expectations. Do warranted line-by-line analysis and have solid args starting with the basics. I really value top-level impact calc, and like love it, if you don’t address impact calc at all you will lose the round.
If you have a DA you need a rock-solid link and good uniqueness args. If you lose any of these it will be really hard for you to win any risk of the DA happening. Do impact calc and turns case args, I love offense for both sides.
Have a good perm other than that, I’m fine with generics but if you’re running an advantage cp then explain it thoroughly because I don’t run these often as a debater.
This is the side of the debate that I’m slowly getting into so don’t assume that I know everything but I do know a decent amount. I’m still catching up on lit but give short explanations and actually have an understanding of your literature but slow down on those analytics because I will admit I can get lost in the sauce. Love a good alt debate, I prefer alts that actually do something but if you flesh it out it’ll make it easier for me to analyze the round. Have a rock-solid link, and try and make them specific to the AFF, if you don’t talk about the AFF at all and conceptualize the link to the AFF, you haven’t done an excellent job. Do something, some analysis. The NEG still needs to win why the AFF/links create uniqueness for the impact.
Not a big T expert, so the explanation is key. Honestly, provide a coherent view of what the topic would look like without the limit that you set on it versus what the AFF justifies when you are impacting the T debate. That could include a case list that they justify that explodes research burdens or specific ground loss. You do not have to win in round abuse, I’ll judge that for myself. Impact it out well and you should be good. Again, analyze the other team's evidence and make smart args against it.
Dropped theory arguments are so easy to vote on, it's lazy but I can’t resist so don’t drop them. Provide a reason why the abuse outweighs any other possible impact and make it a big deal. Just don’t blaze through it and expect to win even if it was dropped.
I did speech and debate all throughout high school. I've competed in parli, public forum, congress, and policy but I am a parli debater first and foremost.
I will judge your debate on the flow and your ability to express your ideas with confidence. Speaks do not necessarily determine who wins or loses but they are important and add to your ability to persuade others of your argument.
When you are debating, please for the love of God signpost. I hate having to guess which argument you are on or what you are trying to refute. Neglecting to do so automatically makes the debate that much more difficult to understand clearly. On this note, I am well aware that time is limited but please do not speak so quickly that I can't understand you.
Weighing is critical to debate and I will keep track of this throughout the round. I will judge your arguments based on your reasoning, the evidence you provide, and how effectively you weigh your impacts, among other factors.
To be completely honest, I rarely used K's or theory when I competed so I am pretty unfamiliar with them. If you use either I will probably get confused. Unless you are confident you can explain your K/theory shell super well and feel it absolutely necessary to your case do not run it.
Don't run anything off-topic because I can't and won't consider it.
Please don't pull any silly arguments and treat your opponents fairly.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to ask me before the round. Looking forward to a most delightful debate!!!
Debated PF at Westwood High School, 2018-2022
Send Email Chain before round starts and add me: email@example.com.
I agree with Amogh Mahambare's Paradigm.
K's and Theories are fine, but make sure to articulate it well and clearly.
Speed is fine, just don't spread. Treat me as a flay judge for better results.
For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for mechanisms of arguments, analysis of impact, proper structure when presented, with attention to how you explicate the arguments you believe best sum your case.
When it comes to style, the ability to flow from one arguments to the next and the clarity of presenting your argument is important. That being said, respecting your opponent is of utmost importance.
It is also important to see how you collaborate with your teammate, building on top of their arguments, refering to points made by teammate (without repeating them whole) to better your point
I mostly judge PF these days; if you have questions about other events, or more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I competed primarily in LD and NPDA, so I'm pretty technical and flow-oriented.
- Read whatever you want. Creative, weird, and interesting arguments make judging more fun and will probably help your speaker points.
- I'll call for cards at the end of the round if anything looks sketchy.
- Speed is fine, but make sure you're clear.
- I don't flow crossfire.
- When I judge, I effectively look at all of the pieces of offense that were extended through the final focus speech. I then go through each one and effectively decide which matters most. Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first.
- No new arguments in summary or final focus, except in response to new arguments that your opponents have made.
- I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless it's in the final focus; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.
- Speaker points are based off of a combination of technical skill and being nice.
Contentions/case - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.
Framework/Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks. That said, if your framework doesn't have any evidence/warrants to back it up, I probably won't consider it when I evaluate the round. I have a soft spot for Marxism, anti-colonialism, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari.
Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow. I think given the inconsistent community standards in PF, theory is a necessary tool for debaters to shape those standards.
put me on the chain: email@example.com
if you're a novice don't stress
generally tech > truth
i don't care what you argue if you explain it clearly and aren't discriminatory
debate should be accessible
spreading is ok as long as you are clear and share your doc but not preferred (spreading =/= speaking quickly which is always fine)
ask me any specific questions before the round
policy: don't send me a disorganized doc
1. I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.
2. I am a big believer in fact, so please be correct in your facts.
3. Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.
Congratulations on making it to my paradigm, this is the first step to a great round!
TL,DR for those who ain't got time for that: I'm experienced in debate as a coach and competitor. I'm not the best with speed and if you wanna go quick give me the speech docs please. Give me some decent framing/weighing beyond surface level. Depth over breadth in general. I am cool with K's and all that jazz. Be ethical.
Do not feel afraid to ask me what something is or what I mean by something. Read the intro, how I vote, and your specific section of debate is my recommendation.
I coached mostly PF and LD for 4 years total and I have competed for even longer, placing in college nationals and plenty of tournaments. I have a bachelor's in political science and a minor in philosophy and I listen/read sci-fi and philosophy in my free time (amongst other things). So I am an experienced judge and debater with high academic literacy.
I tend to want to keep a face of impartiality while judging, I try not to go beyond a flat expression when possible. Let me know if you don't prefer this, I can certainly try to be more expressive in what arguments I like versus don't to help y'all out.
How I vote:
Depth over breadth in general.
I try to be as tab ras as possible, when conflicting arguments are similar in strength, especially, since I weigh links heavily. Especially the depth and explanation of the link. Links usually come down to which one is more true in the round, and who gave me the most depth.
I can keep up for the most part on flows but I have trouble at high speed, as I only have one ear so it makes it more difficult to hear at times. I still listen to podcasts and youtube videos between 1.15 and 1.5 speed pretty much always, so I can certainly keep up to a certain point, but clear tags and authors and dates will be necessary and you need to have good pronunciation. So in general, air on the side of flay or fast but not spew speed.
Dropping something in a speech and bringing it up later is pretty much a no-no. If they discuss something in CX I think it's fair game to talk about in your next speech but I don't flow cx so it needs to be on the flow from a speech in order to really count in the round.
Paraphrased and cut evidence needs to be legitimate and not exaggerated. The more you power-tag your evidence the less likely I vote for you. The more you paraphrase the more I rely on your links to be legitimate.
Use of logic, common knowledge, philosophical implications, etc... are all ways to provide evidence to an argument that doesn't necessitate the use of cards. Feel free to use them, I weigh these types of arguments and believe they matter depending on the topic. In general, evidence is preferred in matters of things likely to happen. And the philosophy should have implications to some ethical framing and told why it matters. An example I see students fail at too often that I know could be better is privacy. You need to tell me why privacy matters in this round, not just that it invades privacy but that it causes actual harm to people like distress, corruption, etc....
Road map and organize the flow well in the speech, please. If you plan on following a CP/K/etc... format please let me know how many sheets I need.
Be clear about what your arguments mean for the round, i.e. go back to the framing of the round, whether that be framework of a case or argument. Tell me why it matters for who I sign the ballot for.
Please be ethical. Do not steal prep, get evidence to your opponents in a timely manner, and treat debate as a friendly game. Plastic trophies don't matter after a few years, trust me I have thrown away countless awards from random invitationals at this point. What matters is the work you put in and the memories you get out of debate. Look to 'steelman' your opponents argument, i.e. try to be even better than your opponent at explaining their argument. If they are having trouble framing their argument, help them. This gives you lots of credibility and allows for cleaner wins if you are good enough.
Understand what you are winning and losing on, it's probably not worth going for things you are way behind on unless it's critical to winning the round.
I don't time evidence transfers until they start being laborious. Be respectful of my time and your opponent's time.
Roadmaps can be off time as well and I recommend you use one if you are doing more than telling me aff or neg flow first and the other 2nd (i.e. policy style flowing). Just tell me where you are starting if it's just an aff and neg flow of traditional debate.
I'm open to hearing essentially any argument, including things like speed Ks. The impacts matter a lot to me. Why are the in round impacts worth talking over the education of a traditional round. Why is this an a priori issue or a prerequisite to in round impacts?
Weighing- I've heard a lot of basic impact calculus this year and it's been okay. But you need to do the comparison to why things like your probably impacts matter more than their magnitude impacts. People miss the clash on impact weighing far too often. Usually, you fight over whether the probability vs. magnitude matters more, but if you both run nuclear war you need to argue why your timeframe and/or probability are stronger, or that your severity is stronger. What I mean is, why is nuclear war worse in one area over another (usually because it will cause some other bad impacts like climate change, effect air quality, destroy more crops, etc...).
Tag teaming- In general, I am cool with tag teaming to answer questions or to help your partner by clarifying the language of the question they want to ask. I don't want partners to be ignored and talked over. Each of you need to know what you are talking about, tag teaming only helps the collaborative nature of the debate.
Speaker Points- I tend to give the strongest debaters speaker points but rudeness and influency do make a difference. If the tournament allows, I'm more than willing to give low-point wins because one mistake can cost you a round even if you were the better debater. This is rare but does happen.
I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.
I'm cool with teams running alts but the other team can perm them. Pro does not need a specific plan but not having some sort of model or idea to what you are doing will hurt you in most rounds unless you show me why your ground is more broad than a basic model. This can have multiple parts to achieve something.
Dropping arguments as the 2nd speaking debater is still dropping arguments, don't give new refutation in the summary as I will not listen by that point and will sign my ballot. Figure out what to go for and what not to, figure out how to win without directly refuting an argument, or just get good in general.
If you are using Val/Cri's, only debate over them if it matters for the round, disagreeing over the minutia of which utilitarian framework to use is not fun to sit through or debate it. Clash with the key differences if you need to and don't be afraid to clash if you feel it gives you ground you wouldn't otherwise have.
Cool with CPs and Plans, the same rules apply from policy if you choose to do this especially. Consider reading that section if you are wanting to run a CP or plan.
I will drop you if you just say cost/benefit analysis as your framework without any other context. You need to tell me how to weigh certain costs and benefits over others. Seriously, tell me why things matter.
Please don't put too much fluff and defense in your case, that's what refutation is for. Only define the terms that need defined. And everyone reserves the right to clarify a definition in the next speech after a definition becomes an issue.
Depth over breadth, please.
I'm cool with K's, CPs, etc... and I will flow the different main arguments on separate pieces of paper, just let me know on stuff like theory, framing, etc... where to flow and I will really appreciate it. I tend to take debate as a serious mental game, and respect what it can be even if most of the time it doesn't reach that. So give me reasons to vote for weird arguments that matter because things like K's and Theory matter when it makes a difference in the debate space.
Like I said above, I'm fairly comfortable with speed to a certain point but just be cognizant about your pronunciation and your taglines with the author and date. I keep a good flow and can handle most people's speed but I can't keep up with spewing usually.
Learn how to actually impact calc, look above for some instruction as I discuss it in how I vote.
I tend to not be conditional, if you feel other arguments are better than others, collapse to what you think will win you the round.
As a judge, I strongly prefer and lean towards calm, strong speakers who make eye contact.
• Maintain decorum.
• Do not be rude.
• Do not speak over each other or cut people off.
Take your time to convey your points and thoroughly extend. Please do not spread. I will be looking forward to the rebuttal speech and verbal exchange during crossfire.
Have fun! :)
Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy
About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)
Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:
- Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
- Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
- Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
- Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
- Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)
Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.
- Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
- Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
- Be rude (-.5 point)
- Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
- Steal prep (-.5 point)
If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.
Hey debaters! Here is some information about me that I think is important to know before you start the round:
- I am a lay judge.
- Assume I'm completely new to the topic so whichever side convinces me the best will be voted for.
- Please refrain from spreading, I will most likely miss arguments if you spread.
- Speak clearly with logic and analysis, not just evidence. Evidence is useful in many situations, but always include logic and warrants to back it up, it's useless to just read cards during a debate round.
- I expect both teams to be timing themselves during your speeches and I'm fine with a 10-15 second grace period for each speech just to finish up your last thoughts.
- Please remember to be respectful at all times during the debate round especially during cross x, I will not accept behavior that is not respectful.
Finally, remember to have fun! :)
I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!
Email for evidence chains and whatnot: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ultra Important Ground Rules
In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.
-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.
-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.
-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.
-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.
-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.
-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother
likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).
-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.
-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.
-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.
I am a flay judge but don't spread.
I favor tech over truth but don't go too far with this.
Make sure to extend your arguments in summary and final focus. Do not to bring up any points you dropped earlier in the round and if your opponent drops an argument, mention it.
In summary and final focus, please point out the key voter points of the round and collapse, it will help your case.
For organization in speeches, either be very clear in what point/contention you are talking about or just go down the flow. Also, please include an off-time roadmap.
I personally am not a fan of theory/critiques so I wouldn't recommend running them, but if you do, notify the other team before starting and make it as accessible as possible.
Any other types of debate:
I'm not very familiar with Policy, Parli, or LD so explain things very clearly. In the ending speeches, bring up voter points and state why I should vote for you.
I am a parent judge with no direct debate experience. Please speak at a normal pace and I will take notes along the way. During the debate round, I pay special attention to the dynamics of the interactions among debate teams and how well the partners collaborate as a team.
I've been judging debate for last 3 years. I enjoy good factual debates, professional courtesies and sportsmanship. I love to see teams challenge each other on facts and evidences rather than just through sound. Tell me how and why should I vote a particular way.
Add me on the your Google Doc or Cards: email@example.com
For urgent issues, you can SMS me at +1 408 391 9027
I am a traditional parent judge. I have limited experience of judging.
Please do not read fast; I cannot give you my vote if I do not understand what you are saying.
I want to see you clearly say which arguments you are refuting to in rebuttal and response speeches. Please number your responses so that it is very clear -- please signpost!
I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.
Please be respectful to each other. If I see you being disrespectful and unnecessarily rude, I can almost guarantee that you will not get my vote.
I am a parent judge who has been involved in debate for almost two years now. I am a lay judge, but I do flow. I don’t mind speed, as long as you speak clearly. Try to avoid spreading if possible. Please be respectful to your opponents: I am much less likely to vote for you if you are rude during the round. Good luck!
I am a new judge this year, please don't spread in your speeches and talk at a moderate pace.
Follow these guidelines and you will be successful with me as a judge -
1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!
Be nice to your opponents in round, and if you are rude in crossfire or speeches I will drop your speaker points.
2. Please provide full cards
When giving cards, please send the link to the website, the authors name and date, and the paragraph from the website.
3. I am big on weighing
Please make sure to weigh your impacts to show why you are winning the round and tell me what you are weighing off of.
4. Make sure to time yourself
I'm a parent of a PF debater and have taken the role of judge in PF debate for two years.
Some preference below:
- Analytical, logical and evidence.
- Clear presentation, structure and signpost.
- Engage with the arguments presented by your opponent.
- Logical argumentation with good clash on the topic. Not constantly reading material.
- Speak at moderate speed, but not top speed.
Very lay judge (this is my second tournament judging ever) do NOT be impolite or yell in cross.
Don't say "Judge, you WILL vote for me because..."
Don't be condescending in general, especially in cross. Be nice.
Evidence sharing: firstname.lastname@example.org if you need to create an email chain
I will vote based on whichever argument makes the most sense to me--make a compelling argument (the narrative is important) and explain why your opponent's argument doesn't make sense (with EVIDENCE)--don't lie.
I don't understand theory. Please don't read it unless you can explain it to me in very simplistic terms.
Kritiks: if you read these, you have to make them VERY understandable and convince me to vote for you. I don't understand these either.
Speaker points: confidence, enunciation, and not making up evidence are my main deciding factors. Don't take advantage of your opponent.
Bottom line: have fun and keep it respectful and enjoyable for everyone: debate is supposed to be fun.
Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.
1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)
2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.
3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.
4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.
5. Don't be rude.
I'm a lay (parent) judge, so speak slowly, signpost, and don't use too much jargon. Be nice and have fun!
I am a new judge. This is all new to me. Please talk clearly and slowly. Thank you!
Hackley '21 | Umich '25
Currently doing policy at Michigan and coaching PF.
Before the round, tell me your favorite song and I will play it like a baseball walk up song before your speeches.
--- PF ----
I think I'm a pretty standard flow judge. I'll evaluate anything, and you should do whatever you do best in the round. That said, here are some preferences I have:
Speed is totally fine. I'll be able to flow mostly anything, unless you're spreading 3081 paraphrased blips per second. I will not flow off a speech doc, I can't read.
The second rebuttal should frontline the first, but I won't drop you for not doing it. If the second rebuttal doesn't frontline, then the first final focus should pull the defense from the first rebuttal. Don't go over defense that doesn't have a response in 1st summary that's wasting time.
More progressive things: Theory is fine but not encouraged. I do not want to evaluate a paraphrasing or disclosure round, it's just not very fun. If you win, you win, but don't expect good speaks. My bias is that paraphrasing is good and disclosure is good, but that won't impact the round. I'm probably one of the best K judges you will get in PF. Tricks are truly horrible things, but if you win it you win it.
Post-rounding is encouraged. Please ask questions during my RFD, it helps me focus feedback. If you think I made the wrong decision, feel free to tell me that and reason with me. I'm not very smart, so it's very possible I'm wrong. If you believe my decision was wrong, punch me in the face.
--- Policy ---
Note: Basically nothing in the PF Paradigm applies, don't read it.
I only started doing policy in college, and have watched single-digit high school policy rounds. You should treat me as if I know literally nothing about the topic (because I don't know very much about the topic). It'd also help me make a better decision if you went a little bit slower than top speed.
I'd be comfortable judging either a policy round or a K round, but I'd probably be better at evaluating policy rounds. I'll vote on absolutely anything so long as there are warrants and you are explaining things well.
Tech over truth within reason - it matters to me that you are making good arguments. Those arguments can be as bizarre as you please, so long as you're explaining and warranting things well.
Impact calculus that's somewhat specific to the impacts being read would probably be good. The less I use my brain, the happier you will be. (I'm not very smart)
All things considered, I'd rather the aff have a plan, but who am I to tell you how to debate. I'll be generally sympathetic to framework arguments but don't let my preferences impact your strategy too much.
Please face me during speeches, I feel really uncomfortable when teams don't do this.
Have fun with it and be nice to each other.
I am fairly new to judging but I like to see good sportsmanship and strong, compelling speeches.
Please speak coherently. I will be looking for the most significant arguments and then logical responses. I look for good and thoughtful delivery.
I greatly enjoy hearing arguments that students bring to bear on compelling contemporary topics! Thank you for engaging in this important exercise and seeking to think critically about issues we face. The world needs smart, capable, analytical minds more than ever and I look forward to seeing your talents on display as a debate judge. While I come from a family of debaters, I didn’t enter the realm until I went to law school. After graduation, I served as a law clerk for a federal judge and later became a litigator where I appeared daily in court representing a state agency as a civil prosecutor in child abuse and neglect cases. I now teach at a law school and direct our international programs. I have judged countless moot court competitions at the graduate level and have enjoyed listening to high school debators grapple with the challenging issues of our time at many national tournaments as a lay judge on the high school debate circuit.
I am a lay parent judge who has judged a lot of tournaments, but I know absolutely nothing about (and care nothing for) technical debate. I have, however, been subjected to listening to my son talking too fast in the other room for the last three years and I still don't get it. You won't do yourself any favors by presenting that format to me. Convince me as a lay judge as to why your position should win and please don't address nuclear war and extention as your key argument for any topic because while it relates to many areas, I know WE WILL ALL DIE and you won't win on weighing or impact on that basis.
Be calm. Be respectful to one another. Know your worth and enjoy the process. I look forward to learning from you and wish you every success in the endeavor!
I'm a parent judge, I've judged 7 tournaments, so I am ok.
I do not have much experience on the debate topic so please make sure to explain everything very thoroughly. Please do not use too much debate jargon as I do not understand most of them.
Please do not run any squirrely arguments, because I will have a hard time understanding them.
I will try to be a tech>truth judge but please don't make things too unbelievable.
English is not my first language, so please talk slowly and clearly so I can understand you. If I can't understand what you are saying, I won't be able to vote for you off of it. Also, please signpost and make it clear whether you are talking about your case or the opponents' arguments. Make your speech easy to follow. This will make it easier for me to understand your points and vote for you.
If you bring up sensitive topics, have a trigger warning. Please also avoid bringing up politics, religion, race, etc. if it is rude or derogatory.
If you talk very fast or unclear, I will take off speaker points.
Please be respectful to your opponents throughout the round and maintain a sense of seriousness.
Most importantly, I prefer confidence over anything else. Even if you don't know the answer to a question, present yourself well.
Good luck everyone!
I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Public Forum is an event designed to be judged
by anyone - that is what appears in the description of the event provided by the NSDA. Debate
I am a parent judge but have judged for multiple years since 2016. I mostly judged PF but I also judged Congress and Parliamentary.
I am flay, meaning I take notes, but not in a flow style.
I like to focus on direct clashes and rebuttals of your opponent's arguments. Points need to be extended in every speech, and if one team brings up a point that is not extended, I will not consider it. It is also up to the opponent team to bring this to my attention.
I will always weigh impacts. I primarily weigh on the magnitude, but I will also consider timeframe and probability.
Do not spread. I want every speaker to give their speeches in a clear, systematic way and emphasize the main points they want to resonate with me.
I have been judging LD and PF debates for about 6 years. I do flow cases so it will be great if you could provide me with an off-time roadmap and signpost your arguments. I judge based on tech>truth.
It is important to have a clear framework, so make sure that you state that this is contention 1, subpoint 1 etc. Please extend your arguments and make sure that you have cards for your evidence since I do read them. I like clash so you have to defend your contentions during cross examination.
Please be respectful to your opponent during cross examination. Do let your opponent finish their question or sentence. I will sign my ballot the second that I hear any discriminatory language.
Have fun, do your best and good luck!
Now that I have judged 100+ debate rounds, you can think that I (mostly) know what I am doing.
Please clearly organize your contentions (for example) using a numbered theme, let me know exactly what the evidence is and what the links are from your evidence to your contentions. Also weigh your impact well, not only what could happen but how probable it would happen. It would be best if you could weigh your marginal impacts, that is, how much impacts can be attributed to your contention.
When you repudiate your opponent's contentions, I'd appreciate critical reasoning, such as what are exactly the logical flaws and/or why their evidence is weak. Remember, no matter how ridiculous an argument is, it will stand if you don't point out why it is wrong.
Don't use scare tactics. Don't tell me the world will end tomorrow if I don't vote for you :-)
I take notes but not as detailed and organized as your coaches train you to do. I don't take notes during crossfire. Include whatever you get from the crossfire in your speeches. Make crossfire purely Q&A. Don't try to make your questions like speeches.
Keep time yourselves so that I don't have to interrupt. Being able to keep your own time shows how disciplined you are in the debate. Nonetheless, I will run a timer as well and will give you a 10 sec grace period before I interrupt.
Finally, stay calm, respect your opponents, and avoid using any provocative or condescending language.
Have fun debating!
Hi all! Think of me as a flow judge but leaning towards flay. A few things to note:
-If you read a turn in rebuttal, tell me what the impact is or else I’ll only count it as defense. If you’re the second speaking team, address both sides of the flow during rebuttal (aka frontline). Also respond to any turns in rebuttal or it's conceded
-An unaddressed argument is essentially conceded, but any concessions made in crossfire must be brought up in a later speech. Explain the implications of the concession (why them agreeing to your point matters in the round)
-I was a 1st speaker when I did PF so I rly value summary speeches
--When extending an argument, u need to explain all 3: claim-warrant-impact (frontlined when necessary) for it to count. A tag or an author's name doesn't mean anything if the evidence or impact is unwarranted. On the flip side, saying your opponents "extended by ink" isn't a valid rebuttal.
--No new offense after the 1st summary, but anything I vote off of in your final focus must be here
-I try to be tech>truth but if I hear a repeated card that sounds too good to be true, I’ll call for evidence at the end of the round. If it’s misconstrued, it won’t affect my decision unless your opponents brought it up during the round. However, your speaks won't do great so please don’t lie :/
-I have 0 experience with progressive arguments (plans, kritiks, theory, etc.)
-I can't handle too much speed. If you're spreading (please try not to), signpost clearly
-Don’t paraphrase evidence
-If your opponents call for cards and they don't receive it within 2 minutes, it may affect your speaker points and I'll allow your opponents to prep
Feel free to ask any questions before the round! You can also add me to any email chain: email@example.com. Looking forward to a fun round :)
I have been judging Public Forum debate tournaments since fall of 2020.
I look for clarity, consistency and quality of delivery. Please try not to speak too fast so it is easier to follow. It is important to be respectful to your opponents. Also, please explain your arguments in plain terms.
Please ensure your data and stats are factual and supported by credible sources.
Finally, don't forget to have fun!
Thank you and good luck!
This is the first time that I've judged this event.
Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.
I am a parent judge. So please keep technical aspects of the debate to a minimum. If you can avoid spreading it would be perfect. Try and avoid speed-talk. I appreciate addressing and making eye contact with the judge. Please explain some of the definitions and/or acronyms you may be using. I give credit to sticking to the full topic. For example in one session "Should liberal countries coerce non-liberal states to become liberal', it is not about liberalism vs autocratic govermnents - it should be about the entire topic. I don't mind if you remove your mask to talk during your turn. I typically take notes and keep time. Before every section try and provide a roadmap of what you are going to present and stick to it. I love a good debate or a speech! Good luck!
Debate: I am a lay judge, please speak at an appropriate pace and explain why your side is more important for me to vote on. Define any terms that you don't think a non-debater will know. For clashing arguments, try to tell me why your side of the argument is more clear and probable. Please explain how your arguments work and also explain your evidence rather than just saying the name of the author. Please time yourselves and your opponents, as I will not keep track of time. Be respectful and enjoy the debate!
For speech: I value your presentation skills like body language, eye contact, and clarity. For interpretations, I like to clearly see many different characters and connection with the audience through your expressions and theme of the piece. In oratory, I enjoy good humor and stories that make your speech seem more personable.
For impromptu/extemp: using your full time to the best of your ability is one of my top judging mechanisms. I will look to see how much you can develop your content and not be repetitive.
One thing I've noticed having judged semi/final rounds at the TOC in Kentucky, the best speakers have a great connection with the audience, whether that's humor in extemp/info/impromptu, incredible expressions and gestures in interp, and personal stories in oratory, they really make an effort to make their speech be memorable.
I am a PF parent judge. You can call me a mostly "lay judge". I judge based on four main categories.
1) Research: You should have a decent amount of prep done. It should be important that you have a good amount of cards, sufficient enough to back-up your case, as well as in rebuttal.
2) Presentation: You should be able to convey your message. I look for good inflection in tone, and emphasis on the right words. No Spreading Please. Also, please don't go too fast. You should have the right amount of content, and should not be rushing through your speeches. Also, I am not too picky on time. I only cut speaker points, if you go more than 15 second over time.
3) Crossfire: Please give everyone an equal opportunity to speak. If you take up the majority of the time, or interrupt your opponent, I will take off speaker points.
4) Context/Content: You should have the right content. You should be able to have a good amount of both offense and defense. Also, I prefer numbers over words in evidence. I also would like signposting, and off-time roadmaps. It makes it easier for me to understand where you are.
5) Summary: This happens in both Summary and Final Focus. You should be able to sum up what has happened in the round. Basically, I want you to summarize all of the points you gave, and extend them. You should be able to summarize all of your blocks, frontlines, warrants, impacts and evidence in your favor.
I am in my second year of judging PF debates. My judging paradigms are -
- Communicate arguments clearly with logical reasoning and good evidence.
- Speak clearly.
- Weighing arguments is important.
- I will evaluate arguments that are extended through the round.
- Collapse on the strongest arguments in summary and final focus.
- I don't judge Theory.
Parent and never have done debate. Please talk very slowly and explain everything clearly. Dont be rude in crossfire. Dont use any complex debate words. Please provide definitions for words or terms that a normal person wouldn't know as well.
I am a volunteer and have judged a few tournaments before, but I am still new to judging. I appreciate a clear delivery and analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.
I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.
Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.
Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.
I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument
A couple of notes
Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.
I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.
I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!
Notes on Education
Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.
I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.
Evidence often is not enough
Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:
1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.
2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.
From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.
Counterplans and debate tech
Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.
I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.
I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.
How we treat each other
This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.
talk slow; i'm a lay parent judge
assume i don't know the topic; i flow links, warrants, and impacts -> give me a good warrant, and i'll vote on your impact
I'm a flay judge. I have been judging Varsity PF for 3 years now.
I believe evidence and impacts are the most critical while arriving at a final decision.
I enjoy debates where there are limited number of contentions and each team goes more into depth. Depth really shows how well prepared you are and how much you know on the subject matter. I like debaters who can talk confidently like a content expert rather than read from prepared notes and rehearsed lines.
I would like debaters to be civil and very respectful to each other especially during cross.
I am a lay judge with 3 yrs of judging experience. I would like participants to speak loud and clear. Also, would be great if they can keep the camera on their face while talking. Sometimes I see their heads only and hard to figure out what they are saying.
I evaluate Public Forum Debates based on strong logical arguments, supported with evidence. Slow down , since I can flow only what I can understand. Abusive/Disrespectful arguments are not tolerated.
I'll evaluate any argument you run as long as you warrant it properly. I lean tech > truth on everything and if you point out technical concessions I'll drop arguments accordingly. Be respectful to your opponents (banter is fine just don't be bigoted or cuss them out) and have fun. Feel free to ask me any questions after the round, I'm here to help.
Email is ChefBoyardini@gmail.com, yes I want to be on the email chain
I am a parent judge, please speak at an understandable pace, and please articulate your words. Discourage Debate jargons. Don't be rude keep it professional, refrain from mocking and other criticizing movements. Present your evidence properly and expand on why it matters. Good luck!
I am a former Oklahoma Speech Theater Communications Association State Policy Debate Champion (1998) I also debated in CEDA in college and went on to coach in the Southern Oklahoma Jr. High and High School competitive speech teams.
Stock Issues: Legal Model – Topicality – Significance of Harm – Inherency – Solvency – Advantage Over Disadvantage
Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages
Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model – Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true.
Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model – Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
Game Player: Gaming Model – Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.
I am familiar with all of these judging paradigms. If you believe I should follow one then present an argument for it and support it with evidence. Without evidence and analysis, I default to being a stock issues judge.
For additional insight on how I judge individual issues please see the following link: https://www.nfhs.org/media/869102/cx-paradigms.pdf
Philosophy Updated 9-5-17
Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging
Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.
1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.
2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.
3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.
4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.
5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.
6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.
7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.
ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:
Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”
If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.
I have started participating in debate tournaments as judge since 2021. I have judged LD and Parli in CFLs. I like debate participants finding weak point in their opponents argument and exploiting that to prove their point. I get to learn a lot through debate and topics getting discussed. I enjoy the seriousness of time keeping and structured format. Looking forward to judging more.
My preference is that the speakers should have a moderate pace in their speeches so that the judge could fully understand them and specifically when they are speaking about their contentions.
Be polite and respectful through the debate.
I request that both the parties could time each other while speaking and warn/alert if they are exceeding the given time limit
I am a parent judge, who has judged a few tournaments in the past. The most important thing to me is talking at a rate I can understand. That means no spreading. If you don't speak clearly then it will be harder for me to weigh you in the round. Make sure to enjoy the debate, but at the same time remember to remain polite and courteous.
Flow Judge - do whatever u want
- I am new to judging, so it would help if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.
- Please be respectful towards your competitor teams.
- Please stick to the prescribed time durations for each team.
I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.
I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.
I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.
I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.
I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.
I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.
Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.
Hi! I am a parent judge. Please avoid speaking too quickly, using only debate jargon, and being rude to your opponents.
Hello debaters! I am a relatively new judge so I do not have much experience judging. However, I am a parent judge, so I know a little bit about how PF works.
Please speak slow. I am not used to fast-paced arguments.
So that I can follow along and make sure not to misunderstand your points, please send me a speech doc of your case before the round: email@example.com It would be much appreciated.
I promise to not vote off of cross or something like that. My daughter who does PF has given me some guidelines. I will give relatively high speaks unless you are rude.
Other than that, that is all! Please have fun and be nice.
For email chains, please add: firstname.lastname@example.org
MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME
A reluctant judge who’s a parent,
Better make your speeches coherent!
Don’t run theory or a clever K,
Risky strategies because I’m lay.
Surely, you don’t dare to spread.
Rely on good warranting instead!
Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--
Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.
I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,
Of all the arguments apropos.
Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,
Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.
Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--
Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.
My ballot is truth over tech,
Especially when probability is but a speck.
Terminal impact of nuclear war,
When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.
I end this with typical lay dross—
Have fun and be respectful in cross!
--Parent Paradigm Poet
PS. Add me to the email chain (email@example.com). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs
Welcome to the debate round. I am looking forward to knowing your thoughts by conscientiously listening to your viewpoints on the topic under discussion. I have a fair experience in judging debate rounds and am a parent judge as well.
Please, try to talk at a voice level respecting the audience and allotted time. Also, stay relaxed and calm which will help you be more productive in the rounds. I am confident you will do your best.
Email - firstname.lastname@example.org.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
I am a parent judge. Please talk slowly and monitor your own time.
Evidence is important:
1) Explain why I should prefer your evidence over your opponent's.
2) Tell me why I should believe your author is saying. With that being said, I tend to believe data, statistics, and empirics over author's opinions.
3) I put greater weight behind recent cards,
- It my first time to be a parent judge, and English is not my native language. Please speak clearly and slowly.
Brief background of my debate experience:
I have been involved in speech and debate since the 90's. I debated policy in high school and another 4 years as a scholarship debater at USC (NDT). I also coached a LD program in a Southern CA high school a few years back. Recently, I have been judging rounds quite frequently over the last 4 years, mostly in PF and LD, but I am also familiar with this year's policy topic.
Speed is fine as long as it's clear. I will buy k's as long as the links are clearly explained and contextualized. I will only buy theory if there's clear in-round abuse. Leave tricks for Halloween.
Feel free to add me to the email chain for evidence: email@example.com
I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.
I am a parent judge . This is my third year judging PF debate.
Please speak slowly, clearly and articulate your points well (Do not spread).
I pay close attention to cross fires and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.
Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.
I have been a judging PF from 2018 onwards. I have judged varied tournaments from Novice to Varsity levels.
Present your story clearly. My preference will be clarity over ambiguity.
I don't mind if you speak fast.
I also weigh based on maturity of the thought, clear communication and metrics relating to your argument
I have been judging for almost 1.5 years. I prefer participants to speak slowly and clearly rather than fast with a lot of information. The debate should be focused on main ideas instead of spending time on the details. During crossfire, please be respectful and allow the other debater to finish talking.
I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't spread.
Time yourself and your opponents.
Please add me on the email chain (if rules allow)! firstname.lastname@example.org
Email me above^ if you have any questions about my paradigm too (or ask me before the round)
- will try to be tech > truth
- not super well versed in Ks, F/W, or tricks debate; run at your own risk
- speed is fine (but I'll have a little trouble with spreading), send speech docs pls
- will rank POs
- make sure your speech is appropriate for where it is (eg no constructives in 6th cycle)
and make sure to have fun :)
Normal talking speed helps me understand you better.
Hello, I am a parent judge.
Please slowly and clearly. Please stay on topic and be organized, and do not beat around the bush. I will also consider the evidence you provide.
Speak clearly and concisely. New to judging.
I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 6 years of experience in debate.
What I'm looking for in debate rounds:
I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.
If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.
I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.
In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.
Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.
Adrian Youngquist (they/them)
I have been coaching LD for Palo Alto for 5 years, and before that, I was an LD debater there.
For lay tournaments: I believe that lay tournaments should be lay–flay. I am capable of judging a fast round, but I really do not want to. I will drop speaks if you instigate a fast round. Debate flay—you can speak like a fast newscaster but don't sound like an auctioneer.
For non-LD debate events: I've judged them, I know the format (most familiar with PF, less so with others), all of the below applies, except I will not be at all familiar with the topic lit.
I will vote on pretty much anything unless it is offensive, but if your case is strategically abusive, your speaks will suffer.
Impact your arguments. If your argument has no explicit impacts and solid links to those impacts, I won't vote on it. Have a clear ballot story, and do plenty of weighing. I won't weigh, extend, or cross-apply for you, and if you don't tell me how to evaluate the round, you probably won't like how I do evaluate the round. If your opponent does weighing and impacting and you don't, even if their weighing and impacting is poor, they will almost surely win. Debate clearly with well-explained links.
In general, I'm well-read in the topic literature (for LD). I'll probably know when you're making things up or misusing your evidence. I will vote on bad evidence if your opponent doesn't call you on it as long as it's not blatant cheating, but I won't be happy about it, and your speaks will suffer.
I was not a circuit debater, but I have experience with circuit arguments, and I will vote on them. I'm not comfortable with fast spreading, but some speed is okay. If you're extremely clear, 300 wpm is okay. Otherwise stick to a little above 200 max. If you see me stop writing, you are unclear, too fast, or saying something that doesn't merit writing down. (Also see my note on lay tournaments.)
LARP debate is fine. Exception: I hate extinction link chains. Unless the topic is explicitly about something like nuclear weapons, climate change, or a similarly large threat, I don't want to hear it. If there are more than two–three links, I don't want to hear it. These arguments usually just get in the way of substantive debate. Cards are almost always power tagged. I lower speaks significantly for any bad link chain that just attempts to inflate impacts.
If you are running something complicated like a nuanced K, explain it well, slow down on the analytics, and run it at your own risk—be warned that I don't have experience with the literature or this type of debate. I will vote on it, but don't expect me to understand something if you don't clearly explain it. The same goes for complicated FWs, though to a lesser degree. Explain things well and don't expect me to vote for you/believe your arguments just because you use big, fancy words.
I prefer topical debate, so if you want me to vote on a non-topical K, performative case, or other non-topical argument, you need to explain your ROB extremely well. Know that this is not my preferred type of debate, and as above, run it at your own risk.
I'll vote on theory/topicality, but I strongly dislike frivolous/abusive theory. I default to competing interps, but in cases of frivolous theory I am very receptive to arguments for reasonability. Don't run theory just for the fun of it.
Speaker points: I believe that speaker points are meant to encourage and discourage norms in debate. Your strategic decisions, argument quality, weighing, and round framing, as well as the way you treat your opponent, will determine your speaks. I don't assign speaks based on perceived speaking ability.
- Abusive arguments will severely lower your speaks.
- It should be a given, but do not be offensive. If you are lucky, only your speaks will suffer. If it is bad enough, it will lose you the round.
- Be polite and don't be a bully.
- Don't force a circuit round at a lay tournament, especially if your opponent is clearly uncomfortable with it
- Stay within the time limits. Go ahead and finish your (short) sentence after time, and it is okay to answer a question after time runs out in CX (you don't need to ask me, please). Past that, I will not flow anything you say, and your speaks will suffer.
- My pet peeve is misused statistics. Analyze statistics well or point out your opponent's misanalyzed statistics and I will give you bonus speaker points. Egregiously misuse statistics and your speaks will drop.
Congrats for making it this far into my (long) paradigm. Before the round, tell me the best name for a pet cat you can think of and I'll bump your speaks by .2 (more if your cat name is absolutely brilliant).
On email chains: Your adding me to an email chain and giving me a copy of your case does NOT give you license to read less clearly or skip parts. If I do not catch something during your speech, I will not put it on my flow. I use your case for technological difficulties and informational purposes only—referring back to evidence when specific parts are disputed, exact wording of tag lines, plan texts, and interpretations, etc.
I 'm a lay judge. Please:
1. Speak clearly and slowly. I cannot weigh an argument if I can't understand what you are saying.
2. Be polite to your opponents. Do not interrupt mid-speech. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
3. Please do NOT take too much time nor ask for too many cards. If I notice that you are doing it to extend your own prep time, I will be deducting speaker points.
4. It's extremely helpful to have more meaningful taglines. For example don't just say "Violence", instead say "Decrease in Violence".
5. Please keep your own time. If your opponent's go overtime, let them finish their sentence then cut them off, if necessary.
6. Don't expect that I understand the debate lingo or the topic.
7. If your opponent's drop an argument, you MUST extend it if you want me to weigh it.
Good luck and have fun!
Hi, in order to make it easy for me to understand your case more thoroughly, please kindly speak at a reasonable speed since I am a parent judge. Thank you.
*** Note: Instead of an email chain, I prefer you create a public Google doc (that anyone can access) to share your evidence this avoids the delays of email. Please post the doc link in the chat before the round; Be prepared to post evidence requested in a very timely manner and be selective of what you ask for. If you're reading evidence, you are expected to produce the card as soon as you're asked. Recently, rounds have been taking too long, and it seems like some teams are turning evidence sharing into extra prep time!
I'm a parent judge. Been judging for the last 6 years. My kids did/do Public Forum. I was a policy debater in high school, and judged a few tournaments in college. Keep in mind that was several decades ago.
So far, my judging experience has been mostly Public Forum, some Parli, less Policy, and even less LD.
1) Have fun. Enjoy every round. Make friends between rounds. I met my best friends from high school on the team.
2) Assume that I'm new to the topic because I AM new to the topic. Take time to convince me of your side of the resolution. If you use topic specific acronyms, make sure to define them first before using them. I will come to the round with a clean slate and judge based on what I flow
3) You can speak faster than conversational, but you NEED to be clear and articulate. Don't go faster than your ability to speak clearly and persuasively. Make eye contact with me to make sure that you can assess whether I'm keeping up with you and understanding your arguments. If I don't understand an argument, I can't vote on it
4) Whenever you can, establish frameworks to help me weigh the round
5) Help me by giving me a short roadmap before your speech. It's not required, but it can help me (and I think, you) know what you will be doing. It also helps if you are effective in signposting during your speech.
6) Be cordial and polite to each other during cross-ex and throughout the round. Being rude, offensive, or arrogant is no fun and doesn't earn you speaker points. Being polite, smart, inquisitive, and strategic does. I don't believe rounds are won/lost in cross-ex alone, but I do think that cross-ex is great place to setup your arguments through strategic questioning.
7) Help me weigh the arguments in your final speeches. Tell me why I should vote a certain way. The side that makes it easiest for the judge to evaluate why they're winning the round is often times the clearest winner.
8) I don't really care much for arguments revolving around debate theory as I'm not familiar with it, so try to avoid it if you can. I much prefer the clash over either side of the resolution.
9) Read #1 again. :-)
Firstly and most importantly, it'll be difficult for me to follow your argument if you speak too fast. Speak slowly.
I prefer weighing in summary and final focus.
Crossfire matters, I flow cross, although it's not as important as the other speeches to me.
I'm not too strict on time, I'll usually give a grace period of a few seconds after you go over time in your speeches, but please try to keep track of your own time.
Extend your arguments, I also expect both teams to frontline their arguments.
I expect you all to keep track of your own prep time.
Another small thing, I don't really care what year both team's cards are from, although it would be great if both teams cross-examined each other's evidence.
I'm a lay judge but I've been judging debates for a while now. I promise I'll be unbiased and work hard as a debate judge.
I am a lay parent judge. I prefer that debaters don’t speak too fast so that I could follow your arguments.
I will judge based upon:
1) solid logic and reasoning.
2) strong advocacy of your position.
3) utilization of evidence.
4) clear communication.
I am a parent judge. Please speak at regular speed. If you speak too fast, you risk losing me. I value logic in an argument. I have a strong background in statistics, so please make an effort to fully understand the evidence you present, especially those with numbers. Statistically a good posture and good manners correlate with higher speaker points that I give.
hi yall! i coach congress for leland, but i also did pf and policy a fair bit during my time debating
TOC '22 Congress Quarterfinalist
- dont feel pressured to do only late round speeches — I'll bump up good constructives/authorships so don't worry about not getting clash in as an early speaker
- PO's will generally be ranked pretty highly, depending on how many mistakes you make/how efficient you are
- i vote between a mix of argumentation and presentation — both are important for ranking well
- i like questions that try to point flaws in logic, try to keep new evidence for your own speeches (basically no leading questions)
- debatey terminology like "warrant" and "framework" are okay with me, but i know some judges don't like it so proceed with caution
- don't forget the congress roleplay! That also means that you can include arguments that come as a consequence of previous legislation — e.g. if theres a docket that includes VAT tax and UBI, and VAT tax was passed in an earlier round, then you can now use that to fund the UBI bill! don't forget the congressional rhetoric too
- please please please please figure and stick to splits at the beginning of the round — too many times in which people got screwed because the aff/neg cycle screws over later speakers. if you are forced/choose to flip, ill bump you up
General debate (excluding Congress):
- if rules allow, add me on the email chain: email@example.com
- feel free to run unique and strange arguments, as long as they are explained well and arent offensive
- progressive arguments (Ks, high theory) may be evaluated if i can understand them, but I have basically no experience in progressive arguments, so run at your own risk
- spread at your own risk (250+ wpm), and send a speech doc past 200+ wpm
- signpost pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- anything racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. = automatic drop (duh), also make sure to include content warnings when necessary
- please don't be rude
- being funny will help ur speaks, debate can get dry without it
- ill disclose if tourney rules allow and both teams agree
- paraphrasing is okay, I will assume that your card tags are correct until someone contests them (if there is slight ambiguity then that's okay, but if there's wild misconstruing I may have to intervene)
- in cross, i'll be watching but not flowing so if theres anything flow worthy, bring it up in the subsequent speech
- please extend your links and warrants throughout the debate, i swear i will cry if you dont
- extend in rebuttal, and second rebuttal should have frontlines — anything you go for must be in summary and FF
- you can win off of a turn, but you would need to weigh those turns against the opponents contentions
- please do your own weighing, i dont wanna do weighing for you cuz im super lazy
- hopefully i dont have to read through cards at the end of the round, but i will do so if it RFD depends on it
- no third final focus, you know who you are
- ive done a bit of lay policy, so i know about how the general debate format works
- anything circuit (kritiks, theory) must be explained spectacularly to a dodo like me, also run at your own risk since i know nothing about k lit
- framework (burden of proof, net benefits, etc.) will default to utilitarianism until someone provides a framework to follow
- im a bit newer to these debates, but i think most of the general debate concepts dont change, so just explain your jargon
gj for making it thus far into my paradigm, hope round runs smoothly
any questions? email me at firstname.lastname@example.org