Tabroom.com

47th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2021 — Cambridge, MA/US

LD Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Vatsal Agarwal Westford Academy

Ellie Agler Sequoyah High School

Last changed on Fri January 8, 2021 at 6:40 AM EDT

Hello. In high school, I did LD debate for two years, and I highly enjoyed it and look forward to judging future rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me)

1. Please do not spread. I can handle fast talking to make your point across, but I was trained in classic LD, and if you are going so fast as a reasonable person cannot understand you, I will not be able to take notes/judge your point appropriately. I do not give warnings.

2. Please keep your cases somewhat understandable to a lay person. Remember LD debate is all about supporting your value around the topic, and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made up evidence, I will call you out on it when I disclose.

3. If possible, please roadmap your speeches for AF 4 and 2 minute rebuttals and Neg 6 minute rebuttals. By that point, we will have covered much ground and it can get confusing for someone who does not know the debater's case inside and out if they go in without an outline.

4. I appreciate when one actually clashes with their opponent. If you spend all your rebuttals talking about why your value is so great and not why your opponent is in the wrong, you aren't actually debating, you're making a persuasive speech.

5. I allow and encourage debaters to keep their own time. I will also keep time on a stopwatch. I can give warnings at a debater's request, but I will not cut off speakers when their time is up. When your time is up, finish your sentence and stop. If you go over by more than like 10 seconds I do deduct from speak points.

6. Do whatever to keep yourself comfortable during the round (sit or stand, drink, etc) but unless you have a medical condition, please do not eat during a round. It's distracting and no one likes seeing someone talk through a mouth full of food.

TLDR: I am a classical LD judge and my judging style reflects it (aka I will judge on value debate and how well each debater supported their style). If you want a judge who loves moral clash debate, I'm your gal. If you are running a seven off on how robots will take over the world unless we adopt the affirmative, you may want to strike me.

Sira Ahuja Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 14, 2024 at 12:17 PM PDT

Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Walt Whitman High School. Competed in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate in high school and two years of College Policy Debate at Binghamton University.

Add me to the email chain: Siraofla@gmail.com

TOC 2024 Paradigm.

Background: I have spent considerable time judging and researching the military presence topic so I'm confident I will understand most arguments related to the topic.

I'm a good clash judge and a great judge for K v K debates. You have better judge options for everything else, but I am somebody who will evaluate almost anything.

My subjective feelings and opinions.

I'm not opposed to voting on any particular argument, as long as you don't do anything illegal.

I will REALLY appreciate a well debated T debate, especially at the TOC. I think T vs policy AFFs can be an excellent strategy and I think creative 1AR's to topicality are an amazing demonstration of work and well thought out topic research.

New AFF's are good, especially at the TOC. I do not not think you have to disclose if you are breaking new. [THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP ARGUMENTS]

In the past, I have been WAY TOO lenient with negative teams, and I'm doing my best to correct for that. I will not be giving any negative ballots to a 2NR filled with tagline extensions (unless the AFF is worse).

I think framework debates in Policy vs K rounds are usually very badly debated. Framework refers to any set of arguments that provide instructions about how to understand other arguments. At some level, ALL weighing arguments are framework arguments.

Enthymemes in debate are a big problem.

I think the AFF gets a permutation.

I do not default judge kick. I can be easily persuaded that judge kick is bad by the 2AR.

Consult counterplans should have a solvency advocate.

Pics are sometimes some of the best research and sometimes the worst.

29.5+ = deep elim contender. 29+ = You should make it to elims.

How to get my ballot.

1. Tell me what the ballot does. IDC what the round is about, judge instruction and ballot framing is ALWAYS important. The first question I ask myself is always, what does it mean to vote aff/neg?

2. Quality > Quantity. One good argument can beat out 10 bad ones.

3. Be better - this is a competition, don't lose.

Arjun Akwei Hire 8 rounds None

Alyssa Alves AF Brooklyn

Sam Anderson Eagan High School

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 2:58 AM CDT

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.
I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).
I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.
As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.
I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.
As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.
Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.
I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.
Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.
Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".
For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.
I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.
I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.
Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).
K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.
Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.
Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.
I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.
Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.
Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).
Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.
I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.
Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.
There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.
I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.
Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.
Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.
Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.
RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

josh Anyaosah Brookline High School

Nicholas Aranda Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 1:08 AM MDT

BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA Communication Studies -K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kristen Arnold Harrison

Last changed on Thu June 15, 2023 at 7:12 AM EDT

Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

Theory

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

Liz Ascoli Brookline High School 8 rounds

Adam Astrachan Durham Academy

Last changed on Sat April 2, 2022 at 2:54 PM EDT

Overview Stuff:

She/They

Hi, I’m Aphe Astrachan (Aphe pronounced aff-ee). I debated at Durham Academy for two years, and am currently a sophmore at Duke University. I experienced a fair amount of success on both the local and the national circuit, so although I tend to prefer more progressive forms of argumentation, I’m still open to your standard value/value criterion debate. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: aa424 at duke dot edu. I want to be on the email chain regardless of whether or not you’re spreading- it’ll save me time if I have to call for evidence, and it’s the only real way I have to see if you’re miscutting cards. Record your speeches, we're not doin speech redos. Also please stop saying stuff like "my time starts on my first word," it's annoying, patronizing, and makes you look like a dweeb.

March/April 22 specifics:

I am big fan of epistemological arguments on this debate, especially critiquing or supporting dialectically constructed standpoint epistemologies.

Quick Prefs:

Larp/Theory/Topicality : 1

Postmodernism K’s: 2 (with the exception of Baudrillard 1, and queer futurism/rage/pess : 1)(I've probably read your lit)

Non postmodern K’s: 3

Identity K's: 2

Phil: 2-3

Tricks: 5.

Cliffnotes:

Howdy folks. I try to be tech over truth in all instances, but that doesn’t mean I hold the same threshold of argumentation for everything. I have especially low thresholds for answering a-prioris, truth-testing, and anything which is clearly untrue. I’m willing to vote off of anything with the exception of racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic… arguments. Also on this: Don’t read identity cases if you’re not the identity being represented in case (with the exception of you reading a card at the top of case which makes an argument for why you should be able to read it). My favorite form of debate while I was debating was LARP with healthy doses of theory and topicality mixed in: I’ll vote off of exempted or paragraph theory, but please send analytics if your opponent asks for them. Although it wasn't my favorite while I was debating, I think that introduction to critical literature is the most important thing which debate actually achieves, and thus value K's highly. I didn't run too many K's as a debater but I've read an extensive amount of postmodern theory and should be able to understand most arguments made in most K's. I default to a comparing worlds paradigm, and if you don’t present any framework in round I’ll assume we’re having a nice wholesome util debate.

ALSO

Although I love doing LARP debate, I think that problem of induction is a really good arg against it, and will definitely evaluate it. I highly encourage debaters going up against LARP cases that aren't running a LARP case themself to at least run it as a one off because it's currently a glaring hole in the middle of most debates that isn't paid enough attention to. Especially phil v Larp rounds please give it a shot, preferably not Hume's version :P

See also: Andrew Garber's paradigm.

Tanish Bhowmick Hire 8 rounds

chad bigsby Brookline High School 8 rounds

Jacob Blair Hire 8 rounds

Nate Blais Rothesay netherwood school

George Blumenschein Montville

William Borges Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat December 5, 2020 at 10:15 AM EDT

Roslyn ’20

Brown ’24

Email: william_borges@brown.edu

***UPDATE FOR YALE 10/3/20: THIS ONLINE FORMAT MAKES IT HARDER FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SO PLEASE BE CLEAR AND SLOW DOWN FOR IMPORTANT ARGUMENTS.

Hi my name is Will and I use He/Him/His pronouns. I debated LD for Roslyn High School for three years. I was in one bid round and multiple elim rounds at Newark, Princeton, Columbia, among others. I have background in lay debating on the local and state circuits and am always down for a well-executed lay debate. I would say that the people who influenced me most in my views of debate were: Michelle Li, Nina Potischman, Kathy Wang, and Scott Klein. If you don’t wanna read anymore just debate like you would in front of any of these judges and we should be fine.

QUICK PREFS:

-K/Performance: 1

-Philosophy: 1/2

-Theory: 1/2

-Larp: 2/3

-Trix: 3/4

GENERAL STUFF:

I am pretty tab and will listen to any argument as long as 1) it is well warranted 2) you can explain it well without jargon 3) it is not blatantly homophobic/racist/discriminatory. Make arguments that you enjoy making, I won’t hold you back as long as they are executed well. IMPORTANT: PLEASE WEIGH NO MATTER WHAT YOU ARE READING!!!!

DEFAULTS: I really don’t want to default but if I must...

-Tech>truth (I agree with Michelle Li that it's the debater's burden to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence so I will not intervene)

-Text>spirit

-Ethical confidence

-Drop the debater on theory

SPECIFICS:

K/performance: The K was my go to in HS. When done properly a K/performance debate can be one of the most interesting rounds to judge. With that being said, it can very easily be done improperly. I am familiar with Weheliye, Wynter, DnG, Lacan, Baudrillard, among others but don’t expect me to fill in stuff based on my knowledge- I will only evaluate what you tell me. If you’re going to read a K in front of me ask yourself: can I explain this argument well and do I know the lit. Performances should also be well explained but please feel free to be as creative as you'd like. I’m so down for Non-T K affs but try to have them relate in some way to the topic being discussed (doesn’t have to defend the res).

Theory: Theory is cool. I think that it is especially cool when there is an actual abuse story. That isn’t to say that I won’t vote on friv theory if the argument is cold conceded or well warranted. I do not enjoy it when very blippy paragraph theory that is not fully warranted in the 1AR becomes the entire 2AR. If you are going to read meta-theory make sure it is sign posted as such. I default to weighing shells on the same layer absent sign posting. PLEASE SLOW DOWN FOR INTERPS/COUNTERINTEPS.

Philosophy: I think phill is dope. I started reading more Phil towards my senior year. I am familiar with virtue ethics, pragmatism, Kant, Levinas, and others. I think that if you're reading a framework heavy aff you shouldn't go for like 1,000 blippy "fw precludes x." Instead, I prefer a well justified logical syllogism. I think that framework debates with lots of framework interaction are very very cool. I also think that weighing is SUPER IMPORTANT if you want to go for a Phil-heavy strat.

LARP: In general I think LARP is chill. I'm fine with CPs, DAs, PICs, plans, etc. I find that LARP debates have the potential to be super interesting and actually teach me about new stuff about politics/economics/global affairs. If you're going to read a position please do your research beforehand and understand all the nuances of your argument. PLAN FLAW IS DOPE!

Trix: Oh boy. So I don't particularly dislike trix because I have used them before in round so I get where your coming from if you use them, but I have come to the realization that they can be annoying to judge (e.g. when the debate boils down to how many dictionaries support one particular definition of resolved). I'm down for Trix if they will genuinely make me think (e.g. those wild paradoxes) but please don't assume that I am familiar with any of them and explain the argument because if I am not comfortable with it, I will not vote on it.

SPEAKS:

Things that will boost ur speaks-

1. Entertaining CX

2. Making a funny tik tok reference in one of your speeches

3. Not spreading if your opponent isn’t spreading

4. Well warranted arguments and extensions

5. Slowing down for tags

6. WEIGHING

7. Strategic collapse in the 2NR/2AR

8. Creative non-T affs that relate to the topic

9. Creative interps

10. Sending out analytics and prewritten blocks

Things that will tank ur speaks-

1. Making openly discriminatory arguments

2. Being a jerk

3. Not having the email chain setup

4. Under-explaining arguments

5. Lack of weighing

6. Untrue evidence ethics accusations

7. Buzzwords

8. Not letting your opponent speak after you ask them a question

9. "What's an a priori"

10. Using power-tagged ev

Alex Bornote Hire 8 rounds

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Cooper City High School

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM EDT

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

ed bracey Hire

Alex Bravo American Heritage Boca/Delray HS

Last changed on Sat June 4, 2022 at 2:11 PM EDT

Thanks for checking out my paradigm, here it is:

(Updated June 4, 2022)

DEBATE

Public speaking is an art and few learn choose to learn it early on, so for that I commend you. Our voice is our most powerful tool, and in time we all learn to master it. Few realize the power of their words in the moment that they say things, but it should remain as a critical imperative to be deliberate and informed in our expressions. Ignorance is truly the enemy of grace in this activity and ignorance can happen at any moment we've said something we know nothing about or we've handicapped our opposition through the manner in which we've chosen to express ourselves.

The debate events used to be powerful learning tools that prepared students for a well-lived life, full of lasting friendships, and an advanced understanding of rhetoric that would prepare them for not only college but any task or event that makes their way to their door. The culture of debate has profoundly changed since the inception of spreading, which is an activity that a debater performs to fine tune his speech and for the purposes of memorization. For some reason, students began using this technique during official debate rounds for strategic purposes. In their consideration, the students believed that delivering their arguments with greater speed resulted in a more efficacious debate - hammering out all the details that could possibly be considered on both sides of the argument.

The spreading style forever changed the debate events and created a culture of spreading, which detracted from our natural ability to speak publicly to all those who would listen to us. As a reminder, debate was meant to prepare the student to engage in meaningful dialogue with anyone in our proximity, but the spreading culture caused students to become handicapped from this ability by warping their ideas of what constitutes substantial dialogue. The problem is that spreading caused the competitors to adapt their entire presentation to the logos, instead of balancing the logos with ethos and the pathos (the three cannons of rhetoric). The purpose of true debate is to understand that there's one truth being conveyed through two (or more) interpretations. The winning debater is able to articulate their interpretation in such a way that it includes the other interpretation all while balancing the canons of rhetoric.

The best debaters that I've ever seen have mastered the art of deliberate speech. Deliberate speech is not spoken fast, its spoken to the pace of a golden mean. Deliberate speech has an air of gravitas and is presented with bravado so as to create a lasting impression. Deliberate speech is golden, its harmonic, it never betrays the notion that every person in the room is involved in the presentation you're presenting. Deliberate speech balances the three canons of rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos) to a fine tune of perfection and effectively includes the three types of evidence accessible to the debater (assertion - which is based off of a priori reasoning; philosophical in nature; professional opinion, which is based off of expert testimony that has been published through some means; scientific in nature; and empirical, which is based off of observable data beset and embedded in the framework of our reality; mathematical in nature).

Your voice is the most powerful tool in your arsenal - of all the skills you'll come to learn in debate its the manner in which you deliver speeches that matter most because delivery will always include content if its done deliberately. Discovering your voice is half the work, once you've found it you'll be able to develop your own style and through some practice you'll be able to champion tournaments. Debate transforms your ability to consider and evaluate information, and most importantly equips you with the skills you'll need for the rest of your life when it comes to responding to the information you're presented. These debate events when done right are a means of accessing grace and natural talent - allow the activity to be as enriching as it was designed to be and keep spreading out of it.

LD invites us to consider the ethical, moral, and philosophical implications of a resolution. A strong and functional framework that contains a strong philosophical analysis of the resolution and implores us to consider inherent values or core doctrines in our evaluation of the debate is foundational. Furthermore, our claims must be supported by warrants (evidence), which must lead to demonstrable (and measurable) impacts. We must never make any claim in the round that isn’t officiated by evidence that allows us to prove our claims, and we must never make assert impacts that we cannot properly measure.

As all debate events implore us to do, we must be willing to substantially engage with our opponent's notions - with their values and the subsequent arguments that follow form. Discover the nuances in debate and bring them to light, lead by example, and remember to always respond to what has been asked of you to address. Stay organized and signpost to make sure your opponent and I are able to follow your reasoning. Don't leave unanswered questions and remember to provide compelling reasons to either support or reject a notion. All of what we have to say in the debate are notions regarding the truth until there is agreement on the notion at which point our notions become the truth. Use cross examination to do just that and find aspects that we can agree upon - this will set you up a paradigm for which to evaluate the round in your voter's later on. Remember that points that aren't addressed are conceded points. (That's not an excuse to spread).

Stay away from abusive argumentation, which is anything that handicaps your opponent in such a way that they cannot properly recover. Examples include spreading, making new arguments late in the round, responding to points you already conceded, or anything that follows that suit. Never allow yourself to be aggressive or derogatory towards your opponent - remember that no one is better than anyone else in this activity, its about finding out what we believe in. Convince your opponent as much as you're convincing your judge, don't become frustrated with them if their arguments are misleading or there is an insensibility in what is being said; point out the defects and clarify the situation eloquently. Remember that there's one truth you're both channeling through two different interpretations - no matter what the truth will remain. So, its only sensible to interpret the truth to the best of your ability.

Please summarize, crystallize, and weigh the arguments before the round ends - I'm interested in understanding your own evaluation of the round and will be weighing that in to my own decision. Don't lie during this part of the debate and say something you never said before or say you proved something you never proved (doing such would be abusive and the chances are high that I'll catch on). Demonstrate your victory to me through clearly delineated reasons, and don't forget to signpost that last speech should make it crystal clear which team was victorious.

Please call me Judge Bravo during the round if you have a need to address me directly during your presentation, however, I'd prefer it if you kept my name out of the debate round.

Perfect scores are attainable, but rarely given.

PF invites us to consider the practical applications of a resolution on a global scale. A strong and functional framework that contains a strong situational analysis of the resolution and implores us to consider the inherent conditions of the resolution through a convincing lens - one that allows us to strategically explore the context of the round; a weighing mechanism of sorts doctrines in our evaluation of the debate is foundational. Furthermore, our claims must be supported by warrants (evidence), which must lead to demonstrable (and measurable) impacts. We must never make any claim in the round that isn’t officiated by evidence that allows us to prove our claims, and we must never make assert impacts that we cannot properly measure.

As all debate events implore us to do, we must be willing to substantially engage with our opponent's notions - with their framework and the subsequent arguments that follow form. Discover the nuances in debate and bring them to light, lead by example, and remember to always respond to what has been asked of you to address. Stay organized and signpost to make sure your opponent and I are able to follow your reasoning. Don't leave unanswered questions and remember to provide compelling reasons to either support or reject a notion. All of what we have to say in the debate are notions regarding the truth until there is agreement on the notion at which point our notions become the truth. Use cross examination to do just that and find aspects that we can agree upon - this will set you up a paradigm for which to evaluate the round in your voter's later on. Remember that points that aren't addressed are conceded points. (That's not an excuse to spread).

Please call me Judge Bravo during the round if you have a need to address me directly during your presentation, however, I'd prefer it if you kept my name out of the debate round.

Perfect scores are attainable, but rarely given.

SPEECH

Jeff Browder Sunnyslope High School

John Browder Sunnyslope High School

Bradon Bryngelson Millburn High School

Last changed on Tue February 27, 2024 at 12:31 AM MDT

Quick Notes

My email is bradbry1@gmail.com. I am open to talking about results, feedback, questions, concerns etc.

I give out event specific paradigms before rounds.

I am fine with the use of technology in debate rounds. However, I will stop you and check if I feel you are using any tech in an inappropriate way (i.e. Looking up info in the middle of a round)

Speak clearly and fluently for the sake of myself and your peers

I can understand spreading or other forms of complex and speedy speech, but I won’t give you points based off that. If you know how and can speak clearly while doing so, feel free

I will not do the work for you in any round. Especially in important debate rounds. I won’t draw connections, fill in blanks, or preform any action that is not directly pointed out by you as the speaker. (i.e. Cross-applying arguments, linking impacts or points, etc.)

TRUTH OVER TECH!!!

Speech and Debate is meant to be an inclusive environment. I will not tolerate aggression of any form in my rounds. I will DQ anyone should they attempt to preform any action (verbal or physical) that attacks another. Just be kind, respectful, and courteous

Paradigms

-Speech Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

The way you preform your speech (The physical actions, verbal speaking, etc.)

How well you address your topic

I do not judge based off…

My personal interest of the topic

Props. However, in the case of Informative, I will give points for a creative use of boards to emphasize speech

-Interp Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The way you preform your acts (Verbal speaking, physical actions, etc.)

You will not be judged based off…

Which pieces you choose

-Debate Events

You will be judged and scored based off…

The content of your speech (The points, connections, examples, etc.)

Your arguments

Your examples (including citations)

The linkwork you do (I will not do any linkwork)

Your Impacts and Warranting (This is included in weighing)

How you preform in the debate and follow debate format (Clash, formatting, etc.)

Speaker points

Way Below Average – You’ve preformed aggressive actions against others

Below Average – You performed poorly or in a manner that negatively impacted your room or event

Average – You performed okay and upheld the standard in your room or event

Above Average - You performed well or in a manner that positively impacted your room or event

Way Above Average – You performed incredibly and had mad major positive impacts to your room or event

Holden Bukowsky College Park Independent

Last changed on Sat June 29, 2024 at 10:02 AM CDT

Updated 6/13/24 for Post-Season

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8-8.5/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theory - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, Barrington AC, Bellevue WL, Clear Springs EG, Jordan FJ, Jordan KV, and McNeil AS.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Jordan (TX) institutionally, and with Cypress Woods MM, and East Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are decided by me, and 2. speech times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be pleased.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, impact calculus, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and especially when it's not about the specific terms of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 620 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 197 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.69% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just be able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons I will be extremely thankful. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me enjoy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's and instead

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. If I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Why are we obsessed with bad T arguments that do not have an intent to define words in the topic in the context of the topic? Come on y'all, act like we've been here.

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Nolan Burdett Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 18, 2023 at 2:02 PM EDT

burdettnolan@gmail.com

Experience

I debated on the TFA and TOC circuits for 4 years in high school (2012-2016) and have been coaching and judging on/off for the last few years. I'm comfortable with speed and familiar with most arguments around the circuit. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask!

Paradigm

I will generally vote on any argument that is warranted, extended, explained with reference to the ballot, and does not create an unsafe space for students or participants involved. I encourage creativity with arguments and don't have strong feelings toward any specific style or type of position. I will not evaluate arguments that don't have warrants, even if they are conceded. Bad warrants are OK - they just have to be impacted to a ballot story.

I do not assume any particular role of the ballot or theory of debate - I will look at debate, education, and arguments in whatever way you tell me to. I do generally assume that my ballot must be connected to some decision-making paradigm and that my decision about the winner must stem from this paradigm, regardless of what that may be. I am open to diverse arguments that apply to debate in creative ways and will evaluate offense accordingly.

Evidence/Flowing

I tend to flow constructives off of speech docs and rebuttals by ear, even when there is a doc sent out. That means if you add an analytic in your constructive while in the middle of a speech doc, it is highly likely that I will miss it and not vote for it. Clarity, sign-posting, and spacing are really important to me because they help me flow. Flowing speeches well is hard. If your speeches are easier to flow, you will have an advantage.

I will only look at evidence if 1) It is explicitly called for in round 2) A warrant/explanation is mentioned that I do not have in speech 3) If I feel it is possible that evidence is being misrepresented. I generally think that debaters should be explaining the warrants in their evidence during speeches - but at the very least, tell me how good and warranted your evidence is in the speech so I can verify the claims you are making.

Speaker Points

I do not have an objective scale for awarding speaker points. I try to award them based on how well I feel a debater has performed relative to their own average performance (average being 28). But, if I think you deserve to break at the tournament you're at, I'll usually start with a 29. I acknowledge that this is not a perfect system but it is how I award speaks. If you are a stronger, more experienced debater hitting someone significantly less experienced: the way to get high speaks from me is to win the round effectively and efficiently with a clear ballot story, then continue to use the rest of your speech time to have an engaging debate with your opponent's position. The more educational, the better. I'm begrudgingly receptive to strategically sidestepping clash in most situations, but not this one - respond to their position, please!

Otherwise, I generally award speaker points based on strategy, execution, efficiency, creativity, performance, clarity, and personality.

Feedback

I give oral disclosures and feedback unless explicitly instructed not to. I try to spend a few minutes going through each speech offering feedback and constructive criticism. If you want to test out a new position, I'm a good person to innovate in front of - I'll try my best to give a few tips and thoughtfully engage with what you've written or put together.

Conclusion

Once again, if you have any questions or are confused by what's written above, just ask. I'm very open to questions. Otherwise, try to learn something, get along, and have some fun!

Ranjana Burke Hamilton High School

Camille Caldera Hire 8 rounds

Anjali Carlson Plano East Sr. High

Kim Casey Carrollwood Day School 8 rounds

Brittany Cavallo Hire 8 rounds

Ivy Che Hire 8 rounds

Andrew Chin Stuyvesant High School 8 rounds

Preetham Chippada Walt Whitman

Last changed on Wed January 20, 2021 at 10:43 AM EDT

I debated LD for Lexington (MA) and graduated in 2015. I now coach LD at Walt Whitman (MD).

General Preferences:

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say clear as many times as necessary but I will get frustrated if you don’t slow down and make an actual effort to be clear. Don’t start your speech at full speed because it can take me a few seconds to get used to your voice and be able to understand you spreading. I don’t read your speech docs while I flow, so be clear on advocacy texts, interpretations, tags, and author names.

I am very comfortable not voting for an argument because I could not understand it in the first speech even if it is crystal clear in your final speech. I am also very comfortable not voting for nonsense arguments, even if they are dropped.

If you are sharing docs, prep time stops when you save the document. Email only one compiled document. Don't compile speech docs or pull up files outside of prep time.

I went mostly for policy-type arguments in high school so I believe they are the debates that I am best at evaluating.

I am not the most well-read judge for a lot of philosophical debates. That said, I think that I can understand most frameworks as long as you present them clearly.

I enjoy good theory debates, but I think most of the theory debates I have ever seen are a form of argument avoidance. A lot of generic shells frustrate and bore me. I like when debaters read cards to support T standards. I think RVIs are logical. I don’t think textuality make any sense as a voter on topicality because as long as both debaters have a definition, they both are textual. From there, topicality is a question of whose interpretation is best for fairness, education, or advocacy skills. I won’t vote off of an offensive counterinterpretation unless you provide an RVI or have standards that justify the offensive plank of the interpretation.

I like kritikal debates and encourage you to read Ks in front of me. I don’t care if your aff is topical or not. I am, however, comfortable voting on T against non-topical affs.

Defaults:

In the absence of any arguments otherwise, this is how I will evaluate debates. This, however, is not an indication of preferences.

-Theory is an issue of reasonability.

-Aff does not get an RVI on theory.

-Theory is a reason to drop the argument.

-Theory is a question of norm setting.

-I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.

-Neg defends the status quo.

-Counterplans are conditional and judge can kick the counterplan for the neg.

Arguments that I am not a fan of (but I will still vote on):

-Presumption and permissibility triggers

-Skepticism

-Meta-theory

-Affirmative framework choice and affirmative contention choice

-Theoretically justified frameworks

-Theory about case order (ethical frameworks first, role of the ballot first, etc.)

-Indexicals

-Most spikes

-Most a prioris

-Contingent standards

Arguments I won’t vote on (even if dropped):

-All neg theory arguments are counterinterps

-Evaluate the round after the 1AR or 2NR

-Resolved a priori

Here are the things you can do to get higher speaks:

-Spreading drills

-Provide a clear ballot story

-Be respectful

-Use all 3 minutes of CX asking questions. I’m okay with using prep time to continue CX, but I prefer that you don’t use CX time to prep.

-2NR and 2AR overviews

-Word economy

-Proper prioritization of flows

-Don't go for too many arguments in rebuttals.

-Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.

I don’t like disclosing your speaks while your opponent is present, but if you find me individually or email me (email given below) I will tell you what your speaks were.

Evidence ethics:

The round stops when an accusation of evidence ethics is made. This includes card clipping and misrepresenting evidence. I will evaluate the accusation to the best of my ability. If I find that a debater has cheated they will be given a loss and zero speaker points. If a debater makes a false accusation, they will lose. I have not yet figured out what to do for speaks in that scenario.

Contact Info:

preetham.chippada@gmail.com

Rob Choudhury Jericho Unaffiliated

Amanda Ciocca Christopher Columbus High School

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 3:24 PM EDT

Please add me on the email chain: amandaciocca@gmail.com

I feel like this is important to add at the top bc no one reads paradigms anymore: OPINIONS ON 1AC DISCLO AND TRICKS HAVE CHANGED

Most of you are familiar with my judging preferences but just a little background on me. FSU grad with a Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation

Im most comfortable with K's, K v T-fwk, LARP, and some phil, slightly more comfy evaling substantive theory debates.

Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.

Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Jack Ave, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.

Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Heritage Independent WT, Clear Springs EG, Lincoln East BH

Pref guide:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Phil: 2/3 (more comfy w Kant, Hobbes, Rawls, Butler)

Trad: 3

Theory: 2

Tricks: 4

________________________________________________

LD Specs:

Does Amanda vote you down for being mean? This seems to be a question floating around so I'll just say this: any blatant verbal discrimination/harassment of an opponent will get you an L 20. I don't tolerate in-round violence, I will stop the round and will ask you to leave the room. HOWEVER, if you just are slightly big headed and/or arrogant idc. You do you, but just be respectful to other people in the room. Please use proper pronouns!! The round is no place for hate.

Theory: I bumped theory from a 3 to 2 because I've been enjoying it a lot more. Used to really hate 1AC disclo but have recognized its necessity sometimes. Also have started to really enjoy a good theory debate but PLEASE read paradigm issues on your shells! I've voted recently on ROTB Spec, ASpec, Disclo, and CSA. Let that guide your prefs however you'd like.

Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.

LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.

K- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :)) Please extend the text of the ROTB, I need some framing when extending. Please refer to my tricks section to see my opinion on K tricks.

Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.

Tricks- LOVE K TRICKS BRING THEM BACK! Have voted on Indexicals and Solipsism. This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.

Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.

Christen Cioffi James Logan High School

Kathleen Clark Tempe Preparatory Academy

Charmaine Connell Munster High School

Last changed on Sun May 30, 2021 at 6:16 AM CDT

Hello Everyone!

Thank you for taking a look at my paradigm! For the sake of clarity, I am listing everything below in bullet points, but please feel free to ask for more info if you need it!

* My name is Charlie Connell and I use she/her pronouns. You are welcome to call me "Charlie" during rounds. Let me know if your name, pronouns, or anything else needs to be changed. We're all about positivity here! :)

* I have participated in debate for nearly 12 years as of 2020. I started debate in 2008.

* I used to do parliamentary debate in middle school and policy debate in high school.

* I have judged and helped to coach LD, Public-Forum, Congress, and World Schools debate.

* I am okay with both philosophical and empirical arguments as long as they link.

* I prefer everyone/every team keep their own prep times, speech times, etc. Technology can be buggy so I feel it's most fair to let everyone time themselves.

* I typically weigh advantages versus disadvantages in any round. Prove to me that your side does the least amount of harm while producing the most benefits.

* Neg team, prove to me that the Aff team's side has little to no benefits. Essentially, is the Aff case worth the trouble of passing it?

* Kritiks are fine as long as you are polite and the evidence clearly supports your claims. K-Affs are still weighed against Neg's arguments if they link, just like any other case type. You'll need to clearly define standards, the resolution's violation of those standards, and your plan-text's solvency. If no clear links are present or the K is not supported by your plan-text, then I usually flow Neg.

* I do not disclose my RFD (written or otherwise) anywhere but the ballot. This is out of respect for all debaters in the round. I do not want the decision of one round to affect your focus in any of your other rounds. I want all debaters, not just my own team, to feel and do their best during competitions! :)

* Please do not be rude to one another (name-calling, mocking one another, excessive interruptions during CX, talking during other people's speeches, etc.). It's the *only* reason I would ever auto-vote for the other team...ever.

We're here to judge the worth of the case and its arguments, not you or the other team. All of you are essential and carrying on a great tradition that will serve you very well as you grow. I really thank you and your partner (if you have one) for all your hard work! Remember that right now, we need to be kind to one another more than ever. As long as all of you do your best, I will do mine! :)

Michael Convey Mavericks

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 8:14 AM MST

I'm 100% a game judge, the flow is like a chess board and it is your job to navigate it with whatever tools you have at your disposal. You can run anything; Theory, Topicality, Ks, CP, DA/AD/Plans/KPlans but for all of those you need to give a "why" and impact calc for everything, fail to do that and you will lose the round.

That being said stock issues are inherent to an argument, if you don't solve for anything or you can't show significance then you will also lose. Topicality is loose for me but again if you fail to solve for something or show it's significance then you lose.

Spread as fast as you want, I was reading at 340 wpm once upon a memory. If you turn into a mumble rapper like Post Malone then you are not communicating effectively and you'll have stuff drop on the flow. Clear and fast is fine, murmuring quickly is not fine. When in doubt slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Too often debaters are reliant on judges reading their card for them to put them on the flow rather than conveying the information. If there is something in the debate that is the razors edge that will make or break the round then I will evaluate it but that is rarely ever the case (I have only seen it once, same source cut two different ways).

My default settings:

I will hear theory arguments if you are deeply against any of the following but otherwise this is how I vote.

Disclosure has to be consensual prior to the round but when you are giving the constructive what are you really gaining from not exchanging? Plus it is in the NSDA manual you have to produce evidence for your opponent at their request.

Aff gets fiat for world building otherwise the debate can't happen.

Neg gets conditionality to truth test with multiple worlds.

General sportsmanship should be observed. I was a debater, I promise you I know abuse when I see it. If your opponent checks it and you don't have some good reason for trying to push that envelope you'll lose. Be excellent to each other.

I do private coaching but I also care deeply about the debate community so please feel free to reach-out with questions after your rounds. coachmike@citronoline.org

Private Coaching Link

https://www.citrononline.org/camps-and-coaching/p/private-coaching

B.S. Ecology from Arizona State University

M.L.S. Environmental Law from Sandra Day O'Connor Law College

M.S. Geospatial Intelligence from Johns Hopkins University

Debate Director of the Citron Online Speech and Debate District

E. Cook Aragon High School

Last changed on Tue April 30, 2024 at 2:06 AM CDT

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

Add me to the email chain: jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less

Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story

LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

Colin Coppock Kudos

Hugh Corkery Oak Ridge High School

Last changed on Thu March 7, 2024 at 9:37 AM PDT

2022

Similar preferences to those below. I still value clarity and clash. For Congress, I value presentation, delivery, and style as well. Most of all, be your authentic self. Make passionate arguments you care about. Discuss the real-world impacts. Be respectful of your opponents and have fun!

Stanford 2020 and 2021

Here are some preferences:

I prefer traditional NSDA LD debate. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. I'm getting better at it, though, so if you have more "circuit-type" argumentation, be sure to signpost and explain.

It is also my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018). And this year's NSDA National Champion competed at this same tournament a couple years ago. So there is lots of crossover.

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this resolution. It matters and your opinions matter, so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2019

Please put me on the email chain: hcorkery@eduhsd.k12.ca.us

English teacher. Long time baseball coach; first year debate coach!

Here are some preferences:

Stay with traditional NSDA LD debate. If you are on the circuit, I respect your skill set; I’m just not ready for it yet. If you spread, run theory, and/or kritiks, I will do my best to keep track but I do not yet have the experience to judge it yet. And it is my belief that skilled circuit debaters can be just as skilled at traditional debate (take a look at NSDA Nationals 2011 and 2018).

Signpost. I will flow, but you can help by keeping the debate organized.

Crystallize. Break down the debate. Tell me what you think are the most important voting issues. Weigh arguments and impacts.

Have fun debating the big ideas of this very important resolution. I am a Marine Corps veteran and I understand the real-world impacts of foreign policy decisions. Your opinions matter so challenge everyone in the room to consider this topic both philosophically and practically.

Stanford 2018

Public Forum debate was designed with both the public and the lay judge in mind. For this reason, I'll judge your round based on the side that presents the clearest, best-supported, most logical argument that convinces the public and the public's policy makers to vote one way or another on a resolution.

I appreciate it when you explicitly state when you are establishing a "framework," making a "contention" or claim, providing a "warrant" or "evidence" and analyzing an "impact."

For speaker points, I value poise, eye contact, gestures, and pacing (changing your voice and speed to make effective points).

Finally, since this is JV Public Forum, we need to have a "growth mindset" and understand that this level of debating is developmental. JV Public Forum debaters are trying to improve and ultimately become varsity debaters. Winning is obviously important (I've coached sports for 20 years), but in my mind there is a clear distinction between JV and Varsity levels in any activity. JV is developmental competition. Varsity is the highest level competition.

Brenda Dacas Pembroke Pines Charter High School 8 rounds

Garfield Dacas Pembroke Pines Charter High School 8 rounds

Elana Daniles North Mecklenburg High School

Last changed on Mon January 11, 2021 at 2:59 AM CDT

Elana Daniels

Pronouns (she/her)

4 years HS Policy debate @ Edmond North High School

University of Alabama 2023 (ROLL TIDE!)

Double majoring in Political Science and Communications.

Add me to the email chain: dontreadaplan@gmail.com <i made this in high school hahaha

First, if there's anything in this paradigm that isn't clear, please feel free to email me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify!

General notes!

Please keep track of your own prep time.

I do read the evidence sent in the chain. Quality of evidence is important!
Clarity > Speed. Since the rounds are online now please read a little slower, zoom can make it hard to understand you.
Read whatever you are most comfortable with. I will evaluate every and any argument provided it is explained, warranted, and implicated well. I won't vote on claims without warrants even if they're dropped. I won't vote on an argument that I don't understand.
Debate safety is a priority for me: use trigger warnings when necessary, use your opponent’s correct pronouns, and don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic ect.

Public Forum

I really enjoy public forum debate, I did it my freshman year of high school. Please keep in mind that I wont be as well versed in the topic as you are so refrain from using any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or buzzwords. Ultimately the biggest problem I see in PF debate is a lack of warranting, evidence comparison, and impact calculus. These three things are essential to winning my ballot. I am a very technical judge, I flow everything (including cross-ex) and dropped arguments are true arguments. Warranting and evidence comparison is essential. You should explain should I prefer your evidence over your opponents evidence. Similarly you need to compare the impacts, do not just extend your own impact while ignoring the opponents, think about why does your impact outweigh? Lastly please be respectful of each other and have fun!

LD Paradigm

I’m more familiar with the traditional form of LD, but I do have experience in policy debate so I’m open to hearing more progressive arguments. Please keep in mind that I wont be as well versed in the topic as you are so refrain from using any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or buzzwords. I think framework is important and should be carried throughout the entire round. If you tell me to view the round through a certain perspective then all the work that you do needs to fit under that perspective. I like clear voters that show me you know how to prioritize and evaluate everything that has happened in the round. Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

Speaks:

What gets you good speaks:

Following the flow
Making things interesting
Clear spreading
Productive CX

What hurts your speaks:

Wasting CX or Prep time
Being rude to opponents or partner
Clipping
Stealing prep

+.5 speaking points for each GOOD TikTok reference/ puns. They are very appreciated :)

Suchi Dara Lake Highland Preparatory School

Grant Davis Millburn High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:24 PM CDT

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE! This page is meant to be something you can read right before round and get a general idea of what's up

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bullies get dropped

If your argument needs a trigger warning, either ask before the round S T A R T S or don’t read it. Don't say mid speech "trigger warning!" because judges cannot just up and leave a round the same way you can, and you're not actually giving any students time to react. I think like 90% of tw are super performative and framed as “imma read this, deal w it”

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

@Impact.Institute_ on Instagram for 100% free, high quality, virtual Congressional Debate resources.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any pronouns work, but do not call me mister

Congress 2016-2019 for Eagan High School in MN, traveled a little bit but certainly wasn't a circuit kid

Congress coach 2019-present at Armstrong and Cooper High Schools in MN

Parli (NPDA) for the University of Minnesota 19-20, 20-21 (I read topical affs and cap/ableism on neg)

PNW CARD Debate for 1 semester (closed research packet, but I loved sliding in Marxist lenses)

Congress judge first, but pls don’t assume I'm not a "debate" judge :)

Overall, I prefer chess over checkers. But both are valuable games!

Email chain or questions/critiques/whatever AFTER the round: Davi3736@umn.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LD:

-Ask before you spread. I probs can't understand your spreading, I'll clear/slow you until I can, but 70% is a decent starting point

-Not flowing off a speech doc but pls share it w me

-Tech>everything: I used to say “except for xyz” but instead, just be a good debater. I’ll vote for stupidity idc. However, “get good” is probably an able normative response to “speed bad” so b careful w ur language. Wipeout, war good, dedev, truth>tech, idc just say it w your chest and let it rip.

-Judge instruction is my fav part abt this activity, followed by conceding fwk, followed by turns of any kind

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress:

#AbolishPOs (don’t worry I still rank y’all)

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Ryan Davis St Michael Albertville High School

Last changed on Tue June 25, 2024 at 8:25 AM CDT

STMA '20

UMN '24

(they/she)

2023 CEDA Octofinalist

2X NDT Qualifier

Email: ryandavistx@gmail.com

TLDR: Do whatever you do best, just be nice :)

General:

I did 4 years of LD in high school, now I do policy in college. Run whatever. Write my ballot for me. I care the most about accessibility in the round, so please make sure that you make the round as accessible as possible. I don't think you need a card for everything--good answers don't need them. Answer questions during cx--I'm over "i DoN'T hAvE a cArD for that". Please don't call me judge, it's weird. Don't ask for time to preflow--do it beforehand or do it during prep. Please respect both me and your opponent during the round, if you do anything blatantly disrespectful, I will tank speaks. Add me to the chain, it's at the top. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after the round, or you can email me after the round if you have any questions too :)

Specifics:

Kritiks: I'm familiar with very few K's but I'm totally open to any. Clear links are very important and links of omission shouldn't be the only thing that you are going for. You need to clearly explain the alternative/explicitly kick it. It's very important that you take the time to contextual the K to the round.

DAs: I love them! The way to make sure you win is to do clear impact calc and tell the story of the DA.

CPs: They're fine, they need to be competitive and have a net benefit. No net benefit means that I probably won't vote for it. PICS are fine.

Topicality: I'm not the best person for T debates, but it's hard when there is little discussion about the world of the topic according to each side's interp and good impact calc coming from both sides.

Theory: Please stop reading under views in the 1AC--I don't care, you can read theory in the 1AR--READ MORE CARDS. If you're going to read it, go slower on it and make sure that you do really clear impact calc. I'm very sympathetic if I think there is clear abuse. I also will vote on dropped theory pretty easily (do with that info what you will). I will protect the 2NR when it comes to theory debates because 2ARs are getting away with too many new arguments when going for theory. Despite being a 2A it's hard to convince me of condo, usually, if the neg is running bad blippy args I'll vote on it, but otherwise, it's tough to get me to vote aff. Perf con is probably fine.

Impact Turns: If you're going to do it go for the good ones that actually are worth debating(Heg Bad, Dedev, or Prolif), I don't like spark (you can still read it I guess). Don't double turn yourself

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but you need to be clear and give me time to switch pages. If I can't understand you I'll yell clear, but it's your job to adjust from there. Make sure that you go slower on analytics, perms, theory, or anything where specific wording matters/I can't find it in the speech doc.

Spikes/Tricks: Please just don't. They're so bad for debate and a waste of everyone's time.

Other: If you're on the circuit please be nice to lay debaters and just be nice to people in general. For accessibility reasons, if you can, please send a speech doc. It's even better if it includes analytics and anything with specific wording (perms, theory, etc.), but I get you're pressed for time, so if you can't it's ok, just slow down. I will tank your speaks if you continually misgender someone, are racist, homophobic, etc. Please make the round a safe place. If you feel unsafe in the round, please just let me know however you're most comfortable and I will intervene.

Katie DeBois Harrison

Last changed on Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:26 AM EDT

Updated 12.04.2021

TLDR

Background: Been judging for a long time, I'm currently a science teacher who judges sporadically during this time.

How I determine the winner: I will pick the strongest argument a round for that to determine the winner. It could come from any theory, k, or traditional style. If you are going to run a k or theory, do it well and be confident in that because I am not the most familiar in them. I strongly prefer traditional debate (like if you run traditional debate, I will appreciate 10 times more), but do what you feel will help you win the round. (More in this in the long version).

Weighing and voting issues: give me them so I know what you believe are the things I should value highly in the round. It will help you win.

Speed: speak clearly and if you speak too fast after me telling you to slow down 3 times, I will likely stop flowing. I judge what I flow, so that could cost you the round.

Respect: Be respectful of everyone.

GOOD LUCK!

LONG VERSION
Basic Information About Me:

I am a teacher and I have been judging in the circuit since I was a junior in high school for Novices, and then during my time in college I have judged here and there (so about 7 years). Most of my judging experience does come from 6 years ago, so I am not an expert in the nuances of debate.

Debate Style/Technique/Arguments

I know and understand the fundamentals of debate. Like don't go new in the 2, I know what is a turns is, what are extensions are, etc. I am aware of theory and k-shells, but don't fully understand the nuances in them. If you are going to run these things on me, I would expect that you know what you're doing and that you could "guide" me through the round as to why you're running them and why you believe that using them would help you win. I won't know if you're doing them correctly, so I am assuming that you are. If I suspect that it was not done well, then I probs won't pick you. With that being said, I do like when there is some type of traditional debate, but run what you feel most confident in or what your strongest arguments are.

I feel most comfortable and confident judging traditional style debate. It's fun for me, and if you want the best decision where I can fully defend my reasoning for decision forever, you should have a traditional style round. One thing that I do love is solvency. Please explain to me how your side solves best.

That brings me to my main point, I am not going to nitpick your "technique" in the round. However, I will nitpick the strength and delivery of your argument. I vote for whatever argument(s) hold(s) the most ground in the round. If your main argument is not the strongest argument in the round or you just weren't good at expressing why it should be, don't expect to win. Were you convincing enough? Was there a lot of evidence to support that argument? That is what I mean by strength and delivery.

Weighing and Voting Issues

Weighing and voting issues are IMPERATIVE to me. Since I do base my vote on what is the strongest argument in the round, weighing and voting issues tell me that from your perspective. We all have different experiences and backgrounds because of that, we are going to value things differently. I might value an environmental or education argument highly because of my interests and passions, but you may value a criminal justice or economic argument highly because of whatever reason. Weighing and voting issues tell me as a judge what to value and sort of how to think. When you weigh and give me voting issues, I will then look at the rest of my flow and figure out how that compares to your competitor's arguments. If you don't weigh or give me voting issues, then I will do that for you and it might not be in your best interest because it might cost you the round due to the strength of your arguments. You and I could think that your strongest arguments were 2 separate arguments and that's what could cost you the round.

Speed

We are in a pandemic and we are doing all of this virtually. With that we have to deal with potential complications of technology and wifi, and those barriers that prevent us from seeing each other in person. For that reason, I care a lot if you enunciate your words and speak clearly. I am comfortable with most speeds, but would prefer if you build up to it and don't go super sonic speed. I judge what I flow. If you are speaking too fast and/or you aren't clear, then that will be a problem. If you are speaking too fast for my comfort, I will say "Clear" or "Slow down". I expect you to slow down and stay at that speed for a little while. If I do say "clear" or "slow down" 3 times in the round, and you don't fix/adjust your speed, after the third time, I will likely stop flowing for you for the rest of the round. You will most definitely lose speaks as well, and since I judge what I flow, it might cost you the round. Don't let this happen to you.

Respect

I get that debate is competitive. I get that everyone wants to be the best and win the tournament. That in no way gives you an excuse to be disrespectful to your opponent or me. If you curse or say something transphobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, or anything offensive at any point in the round, you will lose. I will drop you with whatever is the lowest score I could give you. This comes from the moment we are all in the "room" together to the moment I submitted my decision. At no circumstances is any form of offensive language acceptable, even if it's under your breath. There are like a billion different words and phrases you can use in the English Language, you can avoid saying something offensive. I have no tolerance for this.

Facial Reactions/Expressions

One thing I've found out about myself is that I am a person who shows a lot of my emotions through my face. If I am making a face and you're wondering, "oh that doesn't look good". You're probably right. It either means I am miserable, bored, or like I am confused out of my mind. If you see those faces, I'd change your argument so you don't have to see those not so good faces.

One Final Note

Good luck to everyone! I know we are living in a crazy time right now, but you got this! Be confident in who you are as a debater and you will do well. I typically like to give a "reading test" in my paradigm, but there isn't one this time, so be happy about that. :)

Jackson DeConcini Durham Academy

Henry Deeth Dulles High School

Audrey Demas Roslyn High School

Rachel Diamond Agoura High School 8 rounds None

Kavita Doddamane Plano East Sr. High

Krishna Doddamane Plano East Sr. High

Bennett Dombcik Durham Academy

Yeou Dong Plano East Sr. High

Bennett Eckert Greenhill School

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 11:57 PM UTC

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, 'phil,' and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

luke eriksson Scarsdale High School

Tom Evnen Lake Highland Preparatory School

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 5:38 AM EDT

I’m the Executive Director of National Symposium for Debate, as well as the site director for NSD’s Flagship LD camp. I’m also an assistant LD coach for Lake Highland Prep.

I debated circuit LD for 4 years in high school, and I graduated in 2003. For what it’s worth, I cleared twice at TOC, and I was in finals my senior year. Since then, I have actively coached LD on the national circuit. For a period, I was a full time classroom teacher and debate coach. I have also coached individually and worked as an assistant coach for a number of circuit programs. I coach/judge at 8-10 TOC level tournaments per year.

Email for docs: tomevnen@gmail.com

TLDR rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 1
Policy - 2
Theory - 1
Tricks - 2
T vs K aff; K aff vs T - 1 (I’m happy on both sides of these debates, regularly vote both ways in these debates, and coach both ways in these debates)

Longer explanation of rankings:

Re my policy ranking - Feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them frequently. I’ll admit that I do the least amount of thinking and researching on the policy wing of topics. This probably makes me an OK, but not excellent, judge of policy vs policy rounds. In policy vs something else rounds, the 2 ranking doesn’t affect things much, except see paragraph below.

Re my tricks ranking - Again, feel free to read these arguments in front of me. I vote for them (and against them) frequently. I find well thought out tricks that are integrated with the substance of your phil framework or K interesting. I find a lot of other tricks fairly boring. Again, see paragraph below on adaptation.

Generally speaking, I won’t have any objection to what you read. You are usually better off reading your A strategy in front of me than substantially diverging from that strategy to adapt to me. When relevant, you should tweak your A strategy to recognize that I am also open to and comfortable with the standard maneuvers of debate styles other than yours. For example, if your preference is policy arguments and you are debating a K, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume you can cross-apply the aff or that extinction outweighs the K, when contested. Similarly, if you are a phil debater, you should recognize that I won’t functionally assume that your phil framework precludes the util tricks (modesty, extinction first, etc.).

Whatever your style, if you have thought carefully about strategic interactions with opposing styles, and you are comfortable winning those debates in front of a judge who does not assume all of your priors, I will be a fine judge for you. If you need a judge who is strictly “in your lane” stylistically, then there will be matchups where I am not your ideal judge.

In terms of my familiarity with arguments: in phil lit, I am well read in analytic and continental philosophy (less so analytic philosophy, except in the area of ethics) and in the groups in between (Hegel and post-Hegelians, for example). In K lit, I’m well read in critical/Marxist theory and high theory, and I’m pretty comfortable (though slightly less well read) with the identity literature. I actively coach debaters on all of the above, as well as on theory, T vs K affs, K affs vs T, and (some) tricks. My debaters read some policy args, and there are scenarios where I encourage that, but I am less involved in coaching those arguments.

Miscellaneous

As a general policy, I don't disclose speaks.

Generally speaking, I'm not very receptive to arguments like "evaluate after the 1n" or "no neg analytics" (you know the genre). I'm fine with these arguments when they are scenario specific, and you can give an explanation why a type of argument needed to be made in a specific speech; obviously those arguments are sometimes true. Otherwise, I don't think these arguments are worth reading in front of me -- I never find myself comfortable making decisions based on sweeping claims that mean debaters generally can't respond to arguments.

Michael Fain Hire 8 rounds

Adegoke Fakorede Hire 8 rounds

Walter Farwell Buffalo HS

Bennett Fees Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 17, 2023 at 2:15 PM MST

he/him

email: bennettfees@berkeley.edu

I debated for 2 years at Brophy College Preparatory in LD. I did NPDA at Berkeley.

General Stuff:

I’ll vote on any argument that’s warranted
Speed is fine, just be clear.
If you’re going to do an analytics dump just slow down so I can catch them and if you are reading multiple responses to an arg please number how many points there are before you spread through them (i.e. 4 points…)
Speaks boost if you flash analytics and disclose open source.

Tech -------X-----------------------------------Truth

Flows the doc ----------------------------------------X--Flow what I hear

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------X----------------------------------Movements?

Offense/defense on T -------------------------X-----------------Impact turns

Extinction outweighs vs K ---------------------------------------X---- Link level args/perm

Conditionality bad -------------------------X--------------------Infinite and good

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs --------------------X----------------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Internal Link Answers ----X--------------------------------------Impact Defense

Actually extending arguments ----X--------------------------------------- Shadow Extensions

Policy: Love these. Please know the evidence and the internal link story well and extend arguments not just authors during cross applications. As always, weighing is ultra-important. Affs should have inherency and weighing should start in the 1AR. For CP’s you should say "condo -> judge kick" if you want me to judge kick. For DA’s quality over quantity- a couple well-cut cards with warrants that says what you want it to say > seven one-liners

Phil: I know a lot of phil as it was actually written by the author and I’m very comfortable judging these types of debates. Be sure to make comparative fw answers as well as line by line their framework. In debate I think phil gets used as a cop-out in favor of hiding tricks which I’m not a fan of. I’m fine with independent voters justified by the fw just be clear about them. If you must read tricks then be upfront about them and they should be grouped at the top or the bottom of the doc

Theory/T: Great. I think that line-by-line is especially important in these kinds of debates and value as many specific ties to the topic as possible. Weighing between standards is also a must that is too often overlooked. I default competing interps, DTA, no RVI, and fairness as a voter; however, I can be easily persuaded otherwise. Semantic heavy shells like nebel can be ok if it's cut right. I have a low tolerance for friv theory shells. Also, if you have a saucy justification or explanation of a standard that is unique from what most people would read SLOW DOWN so I can flow that independent of the stock stuff.

K: While I didn't run many kritikal positions in high school, I do it much more now and enjoy these types of debates. I’m comfortable with Baudrillard, Warren, Deleuze, Bataille and stock Ks, anything else I approach through how you explain the thesis of the K so be sure to describe what exactly your K is/does and why that means I should vote for you (clear overviews that explain the framing > extending obscure terminology) . I tend to buy “non-falsifiable” evidence versus most psychoanalytic theories, provided they’re warranted. I don’t like Floating PIKs and think the K needs to win its thesis of the world to win the round. I always appreciate a good link wall. For K affs v Topicality you need to explain how the process of debate functions under your model and should do more than just impact turn the voters. I think most K ROB don’t make much sense and the analysis of why certain impacts come first should just be included in the framing.

Edward Feldman Hamilton High School

Last changed on Tue April 13, 2021 at 4:34 AM EDT

This is a debate - not a contest to see who can read a prepared statement the fastest. The debaters should prepare their written arguments but not read them. The written arguments should be used as the basis for the oral debate.

There is no substitute for presenting a clear and concise oral argument in support of the debater's position. The debater cannot and should not assume that the judge has received or, if received, will read the written statement.

This is a debate and it is up to the debater to orally present, explain, defend and prove his/her argument. To paraphrase of the famous line from the movie "Philadelphia" - "Explain it like you are explaining it to a second grader."

Absolutely no ad hominem attacks or comments should be made. The debater should let the facts speak for his/her side.

Affirmative -Arguments must be fact based and set forth without resorting to emotion or unsupported hypotheses. Rushing through the argument to get everything in is not preferable. It is better to leave out part of the argument during the initial presentation than to go so fast you cannot be understood or present an argument so convoluted as not to be understood. The goal is to convince the judges that the Affirmative argument is based in fact, logic and reason to the extent it cannot be denied.

Negative -It is up to the negative position to attack the conclusions and rationale of the affirmative position. It should be precise in its attack, but based solely on the argument. As with the affirmative, the position should be clear and concise, but the Negative should always targeting the Affirmative position with either rationale for such position's failings and/or alternative conclusions. To that extent a step by step rebuttal may be warranted. Even a simple dismissal of part of the affirmative as "not based in fact" is acceptable - if such dismissal is then backed up with counter-facts.

Cross examination - the art of cross examination is to get the other side to give your argument. The best cross examiners actually testify by asking questions in such a manner that the "witness" answers with a simple yes and is not given the opportunity to respond with long answers the eat up the questioner's time. For example: Q "Is it not true that people program the computers?" - A "yes" - Q "And people make mistakes" - A - "Yes" Q. "So if there is a mistake by the programmer then there will be a mistake by the computer." - A "Yes Q. "So the computer is no better than the person who programs it." No answer is required as the point has been made. - The best cross examination is one in which the witness is made to testify against him/herself while making the other side's argument for it.

Summation - the is the last opportunity to stress the strong points of your side and the weak points of the other side. It should be simple and direct and, whenever possible, a litany of comparisons between the two sides showing how your side is right and the other side is wrong.

Jayanne Forrest Lake Highland Preparatory School

James Gan Newport High School

Last changed on Fri March 11, 2022 at 2:17 PM PDT

Hello. This is my first time judging debate. I hope I don’t do too bad of a job and look forwards to judging your rounds. Here are my preferences so you can know going in what kind of judge I am (or if you want to strike/preference me.)

Pref shortcut: stock = policy = framework > Theory > K > Tricks

1. Please do not spread. I lived the majority of my life in China so I find speed hard to flow. If you are going to spread do it in Chinese. I do not give warnings.

2. I am lay so do not run too complicated things like Kritiks and underviews. While I attempt to be unbiased, I still think we should keep things in the realm of plausibility. Remember LD debate is all about supporting your value around the topic and refuting your opponent's arguments. If I can tell you are using highly biased or made-up evidence, I will take it into consideration when I cast the RFD.

3. Roadmapping is very important. I am not confident in my ability to flow the arguments in the right place so make it clear to me which argument goes where.

4. Clash is also critical to a debate. If you spend the entire time orating on the beauty of your case but not saying why your opponent is wrong, that is a speech not a debate, so it isn’t particularly strong.

5. Please time yourselves. I will keep time and if you go overtime that will affect your speakers. I will not give warnings and it is up to you to stop.

6. Do whatever you want that makes you comfortable during the round as long as it doesn’t make the other debater annoyed (ie. Laughing and eating).

7. Theory: I will flow it, but I have a high threshold. I hate frivolous theory and it would be nigh-impossible you to win off of it. If the AC is super stock and you are considering running theory just because you can, please don’t, you’ll probably lose.

In conclusion, I am pretty lay so don’t pref me if you enjoy running 10 pages of trix while spreading 500 mph.

For Limited Prep speech events:

I will start the timer after I read the topics. Please keep track of time by yourselves, as I believe the ability to know how much time you have used to be an integral part of this event. I will only count what you said before the timer ends.

Communications are key and I will give extra speakers to people that can make me laugh or cry.

Simran Gandhi Lexington HS

Andrew Garber Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 30, 2024 at 5:55 AM EDT

TL;DR: speak at a fast conversational pace (or even just a conversational pace); read fewer, better-explained positions; I'll try not to intervene much. I'm bad at flowing.

Update (Harvard RR 2023): I haven't judged since last year. Please take the speed stuff seriously.

Background. I debated national circuit LD for Cambridge Rindge and Latin, qualifying to the TOC twice. I graduated high school in 2019 and have debated and judged little since then. My email is andrewg4000@gmail.com -- feel free to email me any time (even if you just have random questions about debate or want book recommendations or something).

Defaults. I aim to be as tab as possible as long as the round remains safe for the debaters. I'll try to assume whatever the debaters assume so that I minimize intervention. If both debaters assume fairness is a voter, then I'll assume that it's a voter, even if it's not explicitly justified. As a debater, I ran philosophical frameworks, theory, some policy positions, and the occasional K. Because of my experience as a debater, I will be more familiar with some positions than with others. That said, I will try my best to understand your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Speed. Speak slowly. I do not flow off speech docs. I am terrible at flowing and listening, and always have been. I am likely much, much worse at flowing than I was as a debater, since I judge LD about once per year. You might think that while spreading you're clear, or slow, or understandable, but you're probably not. If you slow to a fast conversational pace, I will be grateful and reward you with higher speaks. Given all this, if you're going fast, don't get upset at me for missing some of your arguments.

Arguments I don't understand. I am not receptive to arguments I don't understand. (To clarify, I mean positions that were ill-explained. For example, I know something about Kantian moral philosophy, but explain it to me as though I don't.) Debaters often cut cards from dense or poorly written sources (e.g., Kant, Baudrillard... really most K and phil authors fall under here) and then specifically cut the cards so as to be as information dense as possible, making the arguments extremely hard to follow. I will probably from now on be more receptive to just not evaluating these arguments or at least having a low threshold for responses. Unfortunately, most debates I've judged have come down to trying to evaluate two positions I don't understand. My decisions in these cases are probably fairly random; you have been warned.

Respect. If you are debating against someone with clearly less knowledge about debate than you have (e.g., you're varsity debating a novice or a circuit debater debating a lay debater), please make the round as accessible to both debaters as possible. If you can only win with obscure positions and debate jargon, then debate has failed you; you're not good at debating, you're just good at playing inside baseball. (For the same reason, I like arguments that I can understand without being an expert in the relevant area of academia/public policy/whatever the current debate trend is. My role is not to be an educator, but nonetheless I want to judge engaging, educational rounds.)

On a related note, I dislike when debaters are mean to each other. I was vicious in this sense as a debater. For example, I sometimes cracked jokes at the other debater's expense when I had a decisive advantage. I regret doing so, and this sort of behavior usually makes me uncomfortable. I particularly dislike the personal call-outs in some debates. Although in very rare instances this behavior might be justified, I think that it is more often close to bullying or intimidation than a just accusation. You are in high school, and I'd like to see you be respectful and kind to each other.

See also Ishan Bhatt's, Pacy Yan's, and Jacob Nails's paradigms.

Appendix A. Important Articles.

I highly recommend "Plato Beyond the Platitudes" by Marshall Thompson. I also recommend "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell.

Appendix B. Miscellaneous paradigmatic thoughts.

- I don't need voters on a theory shell to be extended unless contested.

- I don't understand most issues with fiat. See this excellent article. For example, if you defend the resolution and say that you "don't defend implementation," I am willing to dismiss this argument if the other debater says "they don't defend implementation -- hahahahahaha" and moves on, unless you give a compelling explanation for why not defending implementation is coherent.

- I default truth testing.

- I default epistemic/ethical confidence rather than epistemic/ethical modesty.

- On theory, I default drop the arg, reasonability (sufficient defense is enough to reject the shell), and no RVIs. The threshold for sufficient defense depends on the strength of the arguments for reasonability. For example, if you say that theory is almost always bad, substance is amazing, and only the most extreme circumstances make the round such that the judge can't vote for the better debater, then my threshold for sufficient defense will be low (i.e., my threshold for what counts as sufficient offense for voting on the shell will be high). If I have to default to reasonability or if there are not many arguments for reasonability, then I will assume a fairly high threshold for sufficient defense.

- I don't evaluate arguments that tell me to change speaks (e.g., "give me a 30").

- I think that debaters should justify something like drop the debater if they want to make an independent voter. I am unlikely to vote on independent voters unless such a warrant is present (see above: I default drop the arg). If it's the 2NR or 2AR and you're answering an independent voter without a drop the debater warrant, quickly pointing out that the voter lacks drop the debater and providing a quick reason to drop the argument instead of the debater should be more than enough.

- I am still a bit confused about how I should evaluate 2AR weighing. Right now, I tend to think that if 1ARs have impacts to weigh against NC impacts, then they should weigh in the 1AR rather than in the 2AR. I have so far erred neg on debates where the aff could have weighed in the 1AR but waited until the 2AR to do so. I think that the same should apply to NCs against impacts from the AC. But this is probably the least certain part of my paradigm.

- Here's another thing that annoys me: people who try to spread, but they're basically going at a fast conversational speed while changing their pitch of voice so that it sounds kind of like they're spreading. Spreading doesn't help you here.

Appendix C. Against Spreading

Spreading is bad:

It makes debate much less accessible;
It makes it easier for people to get away with nonsense (e.g., cards that make no sense, extremely blippy arguments) since judges can't tell what the debaters are saying;
Usually it encourages debaters to learn pretty useless skills (e.g., talking extremely fast) rather than some actually useful speaking skills (speaking with good emphasis, efficiency, eloquently).

Counterarguments:

Spreading teaches people how to process information quickly. Reply: I haven't seen much evidence for this claim, nor that it transfers beyond a narrow type of information (speeches/lectures delivered quickly orally). Anyway, this skill is very specialized and not that useful. It's good for listening to videos at faster speeds, but most of my non-debater friends can do this too.
Spreading allows people to introduce more evidence, make debates more interesting, go more deeply into cool literature. Reply: See point 2 above, which moots most of this argument.
If I don't spread but my opponent does, I'll lose! Reply: This is why I want to enforce both debaters not spreading. Anyway, I don't think the disadvantage is that great; efficiency and good strategy can make up most of the loss.

Didn't cover most of the things here, nor did I explain them well. Hope you get the gist though.

Bharti Gautam Newport High School

Zack Gelles Hire 8 rounds

Sanjay Gera Plano East Sr. High

Colton Gilbert Little Rock Central

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:24 AM CDT

Background

First, and most importantly, I am a Black man. I competed in policy for three years in high school at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School; I did an additional year at the University of Kentucky. I am now on the coaching staff at Little Rock Central High School. I have a bachelor's and a master's in Communication Studies and a master's in Secondary Education. I said that not to sound pompous but so that you will understand that my lack of exposure to an argument will not preclude me from evaluating it; I know how to analyze argumentation. I have represented Arkansas at the Debate Topic Selection for the past few years (I authored the Middle East paper in 2018 and the Criminal Justice paper in 2019) and that has altered how I view both the topic process and debates, in a good way. I think this makes me a more informed, balanced judge. Summer '22 I chaired the Wording Committee for NFHS Policy Debate Topic Selection; do with this information what you want.

Include me on all email chains, at bothcgdebate1906@gmail.com andlrchdebatedocs@gmail.com ,please and thank you

Randoms

I find that many teams are rude and obnoxious in round and don’t see the need to treat their opponents with dignity. I find this mode of thinking offensive and disrespectful to the activity as a whole

I consider myself an open slate person but that doesn’t mean that you can pull the most obscure argument from your backfiles and run it in front of me. Debate is an intellectual game. Because of this I find it offensive when debaters run arguments just run them.

I don’t mind speed and consider myself an exceptional flower. That being said, I think that it helps us judges when debaters slow down on important things like plan/CP texts, perms, theory arguments, and anything else that will require me to get what you said verbatim. I flow on a computer so I need typing time. Your speed will always outpace my ability to type; please be conscious of this.

Intentionally saying anything remotely racist, ableist, transphobic, etc will get you an auto loss in front of me. If that means you need to strike me then do us both a favor and strike me. That being said, I’m sure most people would prefer to win straight up and not because a person was rhetorically problematic, in round.

Update for Online Debate

Asking "is anyone not ready" before an online speech an excise in futility; if someone's computer is glitching they have no way of telling you they aren’t ready. Wait for verbal/nonverbal confirmation that all individuals are ready before beginning your speech, please. If my camera is off, I am not ready for your speech. Online debate makes speed a problem for all of us. Anything above 75% of your top speed ensures I will miss something; govern yourselves accordingly.

Please make sure I can see your face/mouth when you are speaking if at all possible. I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I understand how invasive of an ask this is. If you CANNOT for reasons (tech, personal reasons, etc.) I am completely ok with going on with the camera off. Debate is inherently an exclusive activity, if the camera on is a problem I would rather not even broach the issue.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case someone's internet cuts out. When this issue arises, a local recording is a life saver. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent; that is a quick way to earn a one-way trip to L town sponsored by my ballot.

Lastly, if the round is scheduled to start at 2, don’t show up to the room asking for my email at 1:58. Be in the room by tech time (it’s there for a reason) so that you can take care of everything in preparation for the round. 2 o’clock start time means the 1ac is being read at 2, not the email chain being set up at 2. Timeliness, or lack thereof, is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves. Too often debaters are too cavalier with time. Two things to keep in mind: 1) it shortens my decision time and 2) it’s a quick way to short yourself on speaks (I’m real get-off-my-lawn about this).

Short Version

My previous paradigm had a thorough explanation of how I evaluate most arguments. For the sake of prefs and pre round prep I have decided to amend it. When I debated, I was mostly a T/CP/DA debater. That being said, I am open to just about any form of argumentation you want to make. If it is a high theory argument don’t take for granted that I understand most of the terminology your author(s) use.

I will prioritize my ballot around what the 2NR/2AR highlights as the key issues in the debate. I try to start with the last two speeches and work my way back through the debate evaluating the arguments that the debaters are making. I don’t have to personally agree with an argument to vote for it.

T-USfg

Yes I coach primarily K teams but I have voted for T/framework quite often; win the argument and you have won my ballot. Too often debaters read a lot of blocks and don’t do enough engaging in these kinds of debates. The “Role of the Ballot” needs to be explicit and there needs to be a discussion of how your ROB is accessible by both teams. If you want to skirt the issue of accessibility then you need to articulate why the impact(s) of the aff outweigh whatever arguments the neg is going for.

I am less and less persuaded by fairness arguments; I think fairness is more of an internal link to a more concrete impact (e.g., truth testing, argument refinement). Affs should be able to articulate what the role of the negative is under their model. If the aff is in the direction of the topic, I tend to give them some leeway in responding to a lot of the neg claims. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. The aff should spend time on impact turning framework while simultaneously using their aff to short circuit some of the impact claims advanced by the neg.

When aff teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they neglect to articulate why the claims they make in the 1ac implicate/inform the neg’s interp and impacts here. A lot of times they go for a poorly explained, barely extended impact turn without doing the necessary work of using the aff to implicate the neg’s standards.

When neg teams lose my ballot in these debates it’s often because they don’t engage the aff. Often times, I find myself having a low bar for presumption when the aff is poorly explained (both in speeches and CX) yet neg teams rarely use this to their advantage. A good framework-centered 2NR versus most k affs involves some type of engagement on case (solvency deficit, presumption, case turn, etc.) and your framework claims; I think too often the neg gives the aff full risk of their aff and solvency which gives them more weight on impact turns than they should have. If you don’t answer the aff AT ALL in the 2NR I will have a hard time voting for you; 2AR’s would be smart to point this out and leverage this on the impact debate.

If you want toread a kritik of debate,I have no problems with that. While, in a vacuum, I think debate is an intrinsic good, we too often forget we exist in a bubble. We must be introspective (as an activity) about the part(s) we like and the part(s) we don't like; if that starts with this prelim round or elim debate then so be it. As structured, debate is super exclusionary if we don't allow internal criticism, we risk extinction in such a fragile world.

If you don't read a "plan" then all the neg has to do is win a link to the resolution. For instance, if you read an aff that's 6 minutes of “whole rez” but you don't defend a specific action then the neg just needs to win a link based on the resolution OR your impact scenario(s). If you don't like it then write better affs that FORCE the neg to get more creative on the link debate.

If theory is your go-to strategy, on either side, please strike me. I am sick and tired debaters refusing to engage substance and only read frivolous theory arguments you barely understand. If you spend your time in the 1AR going for theory don’t you dare fix your lips to go for substance over theory and expect my ballot in the 2AR. LD, in its current state, is violent, racist, and upholds white supremacy; if you disagree do us both a favor and strike me (see above). Always expecting people to open source disclose is what is driving a lot of non-white people from the activity. I spend most of my time judging policy so an LD round that mimics a policy debate is what I would prefer to hear.

I’m sick of debaters not flowing then thinking they can ask what was read “before” CX starts. Once you start asking questions, THAT IS CX TIME. I have gotten to the point that I WILL DOCK YOUR SPEAKS if you do this; I keep an exceptional flow and you should as well. If you go over time, I will stop you and your opponent will not be required to answer questions. You are eating into decision time but not only that it shows a blatant lack of respect for the "rules" of activity. If this happens and you go for some kind of "fairness good" claim I'm not voting for it; enjoy your Hot L (shoutout to Chris Randall and Shunta Jordan). Lastly, most of these philosophers y’all love quoting were violently racist to minorities. If you want me (a black man) to pick you up while you defend a racist you be better be very compelling and leave no room for misunderstandings.

Parting Thoughts

I came into this activity as a fierce competitor, at this juncture in my life I’m in it solely for the education of the debaters involved; I am less concerned with who I am judging and more concerned with the content of what I debate. I am an educator and a lover of learning things; what I say is how I view debate and not a roadmap to my ballot. Don’t manipulate what you are best at to fit into my paradigm of viewing debate. Do what you do best and I will do what I do best in evaluating the debate.

Robby Gillespie Legacy Christian Academy

Mike Girouard Milton Academy

Last changed on Wed October 14, 2020 at 7:49 PM CDT

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

Richard Glover McClintock High School

Balaji Gopalakrishnan Ardrey Kell High School

James Grey Montville

Srini Guda Thomas Edison EnergySmart Charter School

Logan Guthrie Mountain View HS

Last changed on Sat November 12, 2022 at 6:47 AM PDT

Logan Guthrie

Coach at Mountain View High School, debated policy for Arizona State

lmguthrie0624@gmail.com

Overview

Hi, I am a tabula rasa judge that tries to minimize intervention as much as possible. This means that I value thorough extensions and arguments that arrive at a terminal impact. Unless otherwise argued, my default role as the judge is to compare competing worlds within an offense/defense paradigm. I am comfortable with speed and any literature base. Below are some thoughts on specific match-ups:

Plan vs. Counterplan

- I really appreciate numbered net-benefits when the debate gets muddled. Highlight the few stand-out impacts and then give judge instruction on how my decision should come together

K vs. Policy Affs

- Framework is really important. The K doesn't make much strategic sense if it doesn't re-orient the way I view my ballot or the round itself. Be sure to explain why ontology or epistemology comes before policy-making

- Alt's don't need to 'solve' the links of the criticism if you win framework. Just prove why the ballot is only a question of orientation, or a referendum on ethics, etc.

K vs. Fw

- Both sides should spend a significant amount of time on impact framing. How do I weigh a risk of unfairness against the risk of framework reproducing fascism? The debater that answers that question best is probably going to win

- Defense counter-interpretations are more persuasive with a clear model of debate under the k

- Topical Versions of the AFF (TVAs) with an explicit plan text are more persuasive than general assertions that the AFF could have been topical

K vs. K

- Comparative analysis is really important. Re-explaining their theory of the world or a particular structure through the lens of your own literature base is persuasive

- Be sure to emphasize the terminal impacts of the K -- Ex. Neoliberalism is an internal-link, not an impact

- The perm is probably important. I appreciate multiple, diverse arguments to prove or disprove competition (DAs, Solvency Deficits, etc.)

Theory

- Theory debates can get really messy, especially with competing interps, so weighing between standards or voters is key. I much prefer quality over quantity; collapse to a few standards or a single voter and sit on it

Random

- Please do your best to have the speech doc flashed when prep stops

- I usually only read cards after the round if they are flagged

- Clean up the room before you leave, it helps the tournament directors out a lot!

Ted Hahn Charlotte Catholic High School

Taesik Han William G. Enloe HS

Andrew James Harding Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 2, 2021 at 1:32 PM EDT

Andrew James Harding

Add me on the email chain: andrewjharding1@gmail.com

TL/DR Debate: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. Tech>Truth. I'm okay with speed, but I need pen time for tags. Plans and K Affs are cool. Ks, CPs, DAs, T, and legitimate theory are cool. Tricks and non-basic phil are not cool. Performance args can be cool, but you'll have to make sure I fully understand the arg. AFF must have offense on case in the 2AR. I'll vote neg on presumption. I default to competing interps. I'll drop the debater. Fairness is an IL to education. CX is binding. CP texts are binding. I'll vote on condo if abuse is clearly shown.

TL/DR Speech: Second-year college student/debater with nine years of debate experience. I will judge at an NSDA/TOC standard.

Speaker Points (25-30 Scale):

30-29.5 - Excellent, late elims

29.4-29 - Great, mid elims

28.9-28.5 - Good, early elims

28.4-28 - Okay, might break

27.9-27.5 - Decent, won't break

27.4-27 - Bad, won't break

26.9-26 - Very bad, won't break

<25.9 - Disgraceful, you've engaged in inappropriate behavior, won't break

Background: I graduated from The Woodlands HS in Houston, TX. I'm currently an undergraduate student at the George Washington University double majoring in Asian Studies and International Affairs, as well as double minor in Political Science and History. I'm also a member of GW's Parliamentary Debate Society, ranking 18th in Novice of the Year Standings for the American Parliamentary Debate Association. I debated all four years in HS, competing in CX for 2.5 years as a 2A/1N and LD for 1.5 years. For other events, I competed in DX for 4 years and occasionally other IE events. I've qualified to TFA State for 3 years in CX, LD, and DX. I've qualified in DX to the TOC and NSDA Nationals twice. In CX and LD, I'm familiar with and have ran both policy and critical arguments, mainly based off of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony during senior year.

General: I view debate as the ultimate game of strategy. That being said, debate is also a game of persuasion. It is your job to persuade me that I should prefer your arguments over your opponent. I expect ethical discourse and effective argumentation. An argument consists of a claim, warrant, and impact, so PLEASE include all three when extending and weighing arguments. Regardless of whatever argument you're going to run, it ought to be ran properly. I don't care about how you sit or dress, but make sure you're respectful of your opponent and listen to any request they may have to make the round better for everyone. I would prefer to see a good technical and strategic strategy that has been well prepared. I don't want you to just read the case and prep your teammate gave you. Don't assume I know what you're saying. My main focus has been on policy-type arguments, but I'm always open to new experiences and learning. I like to give long RFDs and many comments as I want people to be the best debaters they can be. Don't feel bad if you need to ask me to shut up so you can leave the round.

*** CX ***

General AFF: I shouldn't have to guess what the 1AC is about. I don't want to hear many new case cards, for I believe the 2AC should incorporate as much of the 1AC offense as possible. T can be a voter and should always be covered well. The 2AC should be: case, T, then the 1NC order. There should be something on the flow against every off case position. I want to see ADVs kicked as the debate moves along. The 1AR is tough, but coverage of all remaining off case is expected or there should be some arguments made that can address multiple off at once. 2AR MUST include heavy case analysis. If the case debate is lost or not warranted well, I'll presume neg.

Policy AFFs: Love them. I expect to hear inherency either on top of the 1AC or within each ADV. There needs to be an IL to every IPX. Solvency must explain what your specific plan solves your ADVs. If the USFG is your actor, then you must defend that USFG action is key and/or good. That doesn't mean you must justify EVERYTHING the government does, but you must defend the position that the government is the best actor to solve problems. Big stick impacts should probably o/w deontologist impacts if you want access to impact calc.

Middle of the road AFFs: I'm okay with them, but I'm not too familiar with them. For the most part, everything said about "Policy AFFs" above apply here. Frame impact calc however you desire, but I'm to suspect SV is the way to go here.

Critical AFFs: Love them. The AFF must be in direction of the resolution with evidence that links the two together. I must hear an advocacy statement, for I need to know what your AC calls for what I would be voting for. While I enjoy fancy taglines, I must be able to identify the purpose of each card. Impact framing and/or ROJ ought to be included. Don't assume I know your literature. There's a good chance I won't, but if you articulate well enough, there shouldn't be an issue. On T debates, you must give me reason why I should weigh case against T or I don't think you'll get my ballot.

General NEGs: The negative shouldn't walk into round without a skeleton of a strategy ready to go. I enjoy a good 1-off K debate as well as a 6-off policy debate. While I understand the strategical value of reading as many offs as possible (I've done the same), it's nice to read 3-4 off that allow for in-depth analysis in the negative block. The 1NC MUST address case. Not doing so will make me believe you're attempting to skirt away from actual clash and just hope to win on overloading on off case. Case turns are wonderful. However, a win is a win and while I won't like you, I'll listen to you. I should hear case in the block. Kicking arguments that don't advocate for a world outside the AC are totally fine and I expect it. The 2NR should only go for one off (or two if it's a CP with a DA for the NB) AS WELL as at least one case argument. Again, you do you at your own risk.

T: Love it. If you have a shell that the AC links well into, I want to hear this debate. I will listen to squirrelly shells, but I highly doubt I'll vote on them. There must be an interp, violation, standards and voters. Including "Drop the debater" is optional as you obviously want me to even if you don't read it. The block should answer the line-by-line effectively and show why the AC is skewing the debate. Don't read T with 8 other off and argue "wE hAve nO gRounD" as I'll probably buy 2AC defense easily, so pick your standards carefully. I need a TVA and caselist in the 2NC, even if they ask for one in cross as I won't flow cross. I default depth>breadth if there is no debate over the matter.

DA: Love them. I absolutely love politics DAs (base, political capital, midterms, elections, down-ballot, congress, courts, international affairs) as I know this area the best, but DAs in general are nice. A DA should include at least 4 cards (U, L, IL, IPX), but 3 is doable. I'm not a fan of 2 carded DAs. More than 4 are cool. Inherency/Uniqueness should be as recent as possible. If your U ev is from 2016 and the 2AC spreads through a N/U card from 2019, you're not winning the DA. The link should be as specific as possible as I'll believe the plan would trigger it, but I understand the use of generic links. However, there's a good chance I'll buy "AFF not k2" arguments if the link is generic. IL must connect to the IPX.

CP: I'm okay with them. I didn't run them often, but I understand how they function and will happily listen to them. 3 parts: text, solvency, NB. There must be a clearly defined CP text THAT IS BINDING. Meaning, if your text refers to granting parole to Syrian refugees, but the AC is about climate refugees, you better hope the AC let's you getting away with it as it's up to the AFF to call you out on it. If the 2AC doesn't test it, then they missed their chance and I suppose it's up to you to do as you please. It'll reflect in your speaks though. If you attempt to change the text after being called out on it, I will not only dock speaks as you're creating an unfair burden on the 2AC, but I will only consider the CP as what the text says it's doing. After the text, I need to hear a solvency advocate through a from of evidence. This evidence should explain why the CP will solve the issues of the AFF. A net benefit MUST be attached to the CP. While I'll expect a DA, you do you if you have another idea, but know it's a risk. Losing the NB means I no longer consider the CP. If you're going for the CP in the 2NR, you must also go for your NB.

K: Love them. I'm most familiar with critical literature addressing capitalism, hegemony, and biopower. With that being said, I understand the basic concepts on most kritiks. I'm not well-versed in postmodernist thought, but I will listen to the best of my ability. You'll have to do a lot of work in the overview to make sure I know what's going on. Kritiks needs a link, impact and alternative. I REALLY want framing (ROJ/IPX), but it isn't required to win. The more specific the link the better. However, there must be SOME relation to the AC. Meaning, I'll listen to state-bad links, but that would mean the AC defends the state. The block must include heavy link analysis. There must be a clearly defined alt. I'm not a fan of vague alts or reject alts. I want to be introduced to a new way of thinking or acting. If you're going for the K, I need very, very strong alt work. HOWEVER, I will buy the K as a linear DA with the link and impact if I'm told to. I want to know my role in the debate in order to influence how I weigh impacts.

Theory: I'm usually not a fan. The only theories I've ran as a 2A are: disclosure, 50 states fiat, condo bad and "generic links." I don't really enjoy theory debates as I believe they distract from debating the content of the debate at hand. However, I do believe theory can be necessary when there is legitimate concern over actions that have occurred during a round. This may be my LD experiences creeping in, but I believe the negative should only advocate for one conditional world. However, I doubt I will buy condo if there are two condo args. Three is pushing it, and four makes me heavily favor voting on condo bad. I don't like tricks debate as it completely distracts from debating the issues at hand. If you run theory, I need an interp, violation, standards and voters. Run theory at your own risk and only if there are legitimate concerns.

Performance: I'm okay with it, but I may not be the best to judge for these arguments. As a white, cis, heterosexual male, I will not able to fully understand performance if it is based off of personal experience due to the privilege society has presented to me. While this doesn't mean I won't fairly weigh the arguments, I can't promise that I'll either understand or analyze the argument as someone else could, but I will do the best I can. I would want an explanation for the performance so I can have a general idea of what to expect and to look for. Make sure I know how you want me to evaluate the argument, mainly through framing.

*** LD ***

General AFF: Same as CX. I think AC under-views/spikes are a waste of time. Can they strategically preempt NC offense? Sure. However, I'd like to imagine a good debater to just read arguments that don't violate any spikes. If that happens, you've wasted valuable time that could've generated additional arguments. Rather than reading an under-view, I would much rather hear an additional contention/advantage. This doesn't mean you can't read under-views/spikes, but I won't be too pleased. If you think you can get me to change my mind on this, go for it, for I love learning new arguments and strategy.

Traditional AFFs: You should use the entire 6 minutes. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a Value (V) and Value Criterion/Standard (VC) with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. I'd like to hear, at least, two contentions with three being preferable. There should be, at least, three cards per contention with four being preferable. I would prefer depth over breadth.

Policy AFFs: Same as CX.

Middle of the road AFFs: Same as CX.

Critical AFFs: Same as CX.

General NEG: Same as CX. NR should collapse the flow. If you're running multiple off in the NC, I expect you to go for 1 in the NR (or CP+DA/NB). In the NR, I will only accept new arguments IN RESPONSE to any 1AR offense (ex: Perm ATs). There also shouldn't be many new cards read in the NR, if any at all.

Traditional NEGs: The NC case should take around 4-5 minutes to get through with 2-3 minutes left to do the line-by-line on the AC. There must be a FW that includes, at least, a V and VC with evidence. Feel free to include other evidence or additional framing mechanisms. If your FW is the same as the AC's or you want to weigh the debate under AC FW, make that clear so I know that not including your own FW is a strategical move. You should have at least 1 contention, preferably 2, with at least 2 cards per contention. While that isn't required (you could shotgun 7 contentions if you really want to), I would prefer more depth over breadth. When on the AC, there should be significant engagement with FW. I expect you to cover the flow. That doesn't mean have an answer for every card (Would be nice though), but there should be arguments made on every AC contention.

PHIL: I like phil, I just haven't been exposed to it well enough to fully comprehend and judge rounds focused on phil arguments. That being said, an argument is an argument and I'll flow it. If you're going for phil arguments in the NR, you REALLY need to explain and warrant the arguments. Assume I know nothing you're talking about, no matter how "basic" it could be. Same regards to weighing, extensions, and warrants apply here too.

T: Same as CX. TVA of the AFF should be in NC. I'm more likely to buy 1AR basic defense due to the timing allocation for the 1AR. However, if you go for T in the NR, I'll have a higher threshold for 2AR analysis. No need to make the "Drop the Debater" argument; I know you want me to.

DA: Same as CX.

CP: Same as CX.

K: Same as CX.

Theory: Same as CX. Please don't waste my time with frivolous theory. Sure, I'll flow it and you can win with it, but I will set a high threshold for you to win the shell and your speaks will reflect my displeasure. Any "tricks" fall under this category. While I don't like disclosure theory, I think the debate could be fair.

Performance: Same as CX.

*** PF ***

General: I did not compete in PF during my time in HS, but I've judged local PF tournaments at the MS and HS level. Just like in policy, weighing, clash, warranted extensions, line-by-line, and strategical arguments are expected and will be rewarded. If there is a specific framework you want me to value, make the argument. I'll default to util if no FW arguments are made. I don't care about speaking style, speed, or general presentation; I vote off arguments that you win on the flow. That doesn't mean you ought to be rude or ignore the value of persuasion, rather I'm making clear that arguments o/w presentation. I'd prefer for you to NOT read policy-type arguments, but do as you please. Cross-Fire periods should be respectful and fairly balanced; If, for whatever reason, I must intervene during Cross Fire to maintain order and/or the integrity of the event, both/all debaters will be given 25 speaks. I will presume CON if there is no extended and warranted PRO offense coming out of the Final Focus. Any framing arguments shape the round and I value them over contention level analysis. However, you WILL (probably) NOT win my ballot if you just win FW. You must apply the FW to the contention level debate so there can be 1) weighing and 2) world comparison. If no framing is given, the debate comes down to contention level. Arguments must be extended and warranted out for them to have a chance of appearing on my ballot. I expect weighing - please don't make me intervene on which impacts I prefer. Arguments should be reasonable, meaning there ought to either be an established and/or implied link to the resolution that makes logical sense. Don't assume I have background information about your arguments; it's your job to inform and persuade me. New arguments made in the rebuttals and/or final focus won't be flowed.

First Constructive: Establish the case. Include any framing arguments.

Second Constructive: I expect offense to be extended, warranted, and weighed. There should be good coverage of the flow with line-by-line coverage. While new offense is technically allowed, I'd prefer you to use evidence from the first constructive speeches to generate offense and/or defense.

Summary: Start collapsing the flow and focus heavily on weighing and world comparison. While line-by-line is always important, you should start crystallizing the main arguments in the world. Meaning, you don't need to win every single argument on the flow, but with whatever arguments you'e going for, you should always cover the line-by-line.

Final Focus: Voters. Weigh the arguments you're going for with what your opponents are going for. World comparison is expected. Line-by-line still matters; don't forget to balance time between offense AND defense with the arguments you're going for.

Rachael Harris Frank W. Cox High School

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 5:36 PM EDT

email: harrisrach19@gmail.com

NCFL: I'd prefer if you kept your mask on but I recognize that not every judge will feel the same way

TL;DR for prefs: yes if you're trad, sure for lax and well explained prog, no for almost anything else. we will not vibe with anything else and I'd like to give you the opportunity to be judged by someone who has the capacity to give your arguments the credit they deserve.

TL;DR: I'm chill if you're chill. Respect your opponent. Generate clash. I make my decision however you tell me to.

**Control F if you're looking for anything specific. This is extensive and is mostly a combination of my friends' paradigms.

INTRO:

Hi, everyone, I'm Rachael! (pronouns: she/her):

competed in LD & PF for North Allegheny (Wexford, PA)
was pretty trad, made my appearance at a few nats (notables: PA States, NCFLs, & NSDA)
coached @ Olentangy (OH)
privately coached some successful students ('21 VA state champ in LD)
instructed at camps (LD @ CDC & PF @ BRI); authored briefs for CDC (2021)
Allegheny College (PA) alum; B.S. in computer science, double minors in political science & philosophy
Carnegie Mellon University (PA) grad student; M.S. candidate for information security policy & management.

i'm still heavily involved in the debate community; i judge for Olentangy when i can, but Ohio uses speechwire, so it's not recorded below. when i'm not judging, i'm running tab.

email me w/ any questions about the round

GENERAL DEBATE COMMENTS & OVERVIEW:

Please don't be rude or abusive. (If you do not treat your opponent with respect, I will not hesitate to give you the lowest speaks that tab will allow me to give)
I believe in inclusivity in a debate. Proper pronouns, content warnings, etc. are all part of this as well. Use them. Be respectful.
Signpost. Always.
If you think you've gained any offense in CX, please mention it in your next speech. (I do not flow CX).
If you're going to extend something across the flow, be sure to impact and weigh it. I will extend it, but I will not do the work for you.
A PROGRESSIVE ROUND IS ONLY PERMISSIBLE IF BOTH TEAMS AGREE TO IT. (I would prefer to be a witness to this discussion so that I can ensure that this has been consented to by both parties). I will try to evaluate it as best as possible. Please do not expect me to be the 'prog' judge on the panel. I am, in every sense of the term, a traditional judge. (Note: I will be able to spot a lax version of a CP, DA, K, etc. Don't be that kid who runs progressive stuff at a traditional tournament, especially if your opponent has had little exposure to it or is relatively new -- "that's a war crime" - Dan Hepworth)

I find this increasingly more important with the online format. Circuit debaters should make more of an effort to make rounds more accessible to trad debaters. I will not sympathize with your excuses for reading multiple offs against trad kids. You should have a trad case to read against especially novice trad kids. If you do not adapt appropriately, I will not hesitate to drop your speaks.

I reserve the right to call for evidence. I will try to wait until the end of the round to do so, but if there is a lot of dispute over one specific card, I'll probably want to see it. (Please don't make me question your evidence, though).

Please note that in most instances, I will only request evidence if there is a large controversy about it. Otherwise, I will only read or call for a card if you specifically tell me to (i.e., "Rachael, call for the card").
(You should have evidence for a lot of the claims you make. Simply saying that it is a "logical" argument and that you don't "need" evidence to substantiate a claim will not only waste time, but it doesn't satisfy the normative obligations of a formal debate.)
"Unwarranted arguments aren't good arguments" - Eva Lamberson.
It is your obligation to not miscut or powertag evidence.

JUDGING:

I am a fly on the wall. Debate in the style that you want to. It is always good to be adaptable and able to fit the standards of your judge, but it is also good to have a style of debate that is unique to you.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (LD-SPECIFIC):

Note: I did trad. I coach trad. I write LD briefs for CDC so I've usually read a decent bit of topic lit.

I try to be the best LD-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of an LD debate. Make sure that there is framework clash (please, please, please).
Please, please, please give me a decent framework debate. This lays the groundwork for my decision.

If you're linking in, follow through with that by showing how you better uphold the framework or better solve for the impacts of the round under the framework.
Give me a better response than something that, at its root, is "their fw isn't good because it isn't my fw" or "my fw prereqs theirs" That does nothing to advance the fw debate.

Don't spend too much time on the value debate. Morality and justice are pretty similar (note: not the same, but similar).
"If what you really want is the util debate, then just run util. Traditional debaters do this thing where they're like 'my framework is rights' but it's clearly just util." - Eva
Explicitly weigh under your framework
At the end of the day, realize also that winning the framework does not win you the round and losing the framework does not cost you the round.

For whichever framework that I buy (or still stands at the end of the debate), I will evaluate every argument within it. I will also take into account your voting issues so make sure to flesh them out and make them clear (please, please, please).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of an LD debate and I don't believe that I'm asking for too much of a deviance from that.)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the 2AR.

HOW I DECIDE A WINNER (PF-SPECIFIC):

Note: I will make this evident to both competitors before the start of the round.

I will try to be the best PF-Judge that I can. With that said, please try to keep up the normative obligations of a PF debate. Make sure that you weigh your impacts.

(PF defaults to util -- greatest happiness, greatest good for the greatest number).
Scope, magnitude, and probability are just a few ways to weigh.
(Be sure to meta-weigh if the weighing debate gets to that point.)

I will evaluate which contentions still stand at the end of the debate and which impacts outweigh (but only through the mechanisms that you provide for me).

(Yes, you should have your own style of debate and not conform to every judge's arbitrary or subjective standards, but you should still uphold the obligations of a PF debate.)

**Do NOT read new arguments in the FF.

CIRCUIT:

Read whatever you want but I don’t judge or coach circuit enough to know the ins and outs of a lot of tech arguments. This means maybe you should give me slower overviews or not go for super complex tech stuff. Speed is generally ok but probably go like 75% speed max if you're spreading in front of me especially if it's something particularly complex because otherwise I will miss a lot and that's bad for everyone involved. At least slow way down on tags or if you're transitioning to a diff off or something thanks. I don't care much about adaptation argument wise but I’ll only be able to understand what you’re saying if it’s slow enough to flow

FAQ:

Flex prep is fine.
Don't call me "judge." Rachael is fine.
If I'm nodding, it usually doesn't mean that I agree, but that I'm following your train of thought. I'm inclined to say that any other facial expressions usually mean what they suggest. I don't have a strong poker face so my suggestion is to adapt.
I like when rounds are informal/funny/relaxed. I'll increase speaks if you make me laugh.
I don't care if you stand, what you wear, if you swear, etc.
I'll disclose if I can.

ONLINE ADJUSTMENTS:

Please send speech docs even if you don't plan on spreading. Connectivity can be spotty and I think it is for the benefit of everyone in the round. Speechdrop.net, email, doc link are all fine. Don't send cards in the chat and don't spend over 2 minutes trying to figure out how to share docs.

If you send something from your school email, it will most likely take longer to get to us since we're out of your domain.

Time yourself and don't abuse your time. I will not flow, evaluate, or even consider off time arguments.
Don't be stressed if I'm not looking at my screen. I usually flow on paper so I'm not really looking and I have a second monitor, which is usually where my ballot resides.
I don't care about camera usage.
Mute yourself when you're not speaking and/or taking prep.

RETURN TO IN PERSON TOURNAMENTS:

I strongly prefer masking and distancing when possible
pls do not attempt to shake my hand

yes, I am the girl who had the lil pump K read against her @ harvard 2018.

good luck! have fun! :)

Hunter Harwood Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 4:47 PM MDT

Updated for TOC Digital Speech and Debate Series 2 :) --- I've been having issues with formatting while updating this paradigm, I'm sorry if this looks terrible on the device you are reading it on.

Email chains (add me): hunterharwoods@gmail.com

Pronouns: He/Him/His

I have been involved in high school and/or collegiate debate in some capacity for the last 13ish years. I competed on the Texas state and national LD circuits in high school and coached several nationally successful students in the few years after I graduated. I also competed on the policy team at UNT. I have a high level of experience judging circuit debate, although admittedly I don't judge very often anymore. Much of my judging history is not listed on Tabroom (shoutout Joy of Tournaments). I work full-time in software now, so I no longer coach, but I keep up with the community and judge the occasional bid tournament when I have free time. Debate has been the most impactful activity in my life since I started many years ago, and I feel the role of the judge is as an educator, to help instill the same "portable skills" that have helped me and countless other debaters achieve their goals. I balance that with the idea that debate is a game that should be fun for everyone.

I have always enjoyed reading judge paradigms to see how other people think about debate, but you may not feel the same way. Mine keeps getting longer - please at least read the tl;dr and the section about online debate at the bottom (if applicable). Whether I am judging you in a policy or LD round I will be thinking about the debate in largely the same way. If you have questions before the round, please ask. See also: Christopher Vincent's paradigm, I align closely with it.

tl;dr

(1) You must give a trigger warning if you plan on discussing a sensitive topic. If you're not sure if you should give a trigger warning, err on the side of caution.

(2) Debate however you're comfortable, as long as you can justify the practice in-round. I will evaluate any type of argument. At the same time, I could not realistically say I am a "tab" judge given we are all a product of social location and lived experience. Please don't make morally abhorrent arguments, and please be kind and professional.

(3) As the affirmative, I believe you need to tell me how to evaluate the round and then generate offense in this manner (this is intentionally broad). I love critical affirmatives and I'm always game for a straight-up policy debate. Whatever affirming looks like to you is most likely fine with me. I prefer the affirmative to at least refer to the topic. The negative can do whatever to disprove the affirmative, the topic, read a K or CP, etc. I like rounds where each team defends an advocacy. CX is [obviously] binding. Flex prep is fine and binding too. I think this year's policy topic and the Jan/Feb LD topic are both awesome - please feel free to break creative/out-of-the-box strats in front of me. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) I am fine with speed but please slow down a little if I'm judging you in an online round. Slow down on tags and author names, and please allow pen time in the appropriate places. I keep a detailed flow - please listen when I say "clear" or "slow" so I can do this. Please don't assume I know much about the topic or your authors since I do not coach or judge very often anymore (err on the side of overexplaining, try to minimize topic jargon where possible). I still feel confident I can evaluate most rounds but these factors are important to keep in mind.

(5) I will intervene as little as possible - when good weighing doesn't happen this becomes difficult, so please tell me exactly how to vote and why. I vote off the flow but I cannot help viewing the debate holistically, as a performance. Tech > truth, you can win with arguments that have untrue conclusions if you set them up properly and win the necessary planks. If you [technically] win with bad/dropped arguments I would rather give a low point win than intervene. LD rounds are very short so please keep that in mind when reading philosophically dense positions/high theory K's - I like these arguments but I like good explanations more.

(6) If you are making arguments off the flow/off the top of your head and you are not capable of spreading them without mumbling/slurring/jumping around, don't spread those arguments. It is [understandably] harder to spread "off the dome" than prewritten material, and it will come at the cost of me being able to understand you or be compelled by you. Slow down and group, cross-apply, weigh, make turns, win framing, etc - there are so many other routes to the ballot. I would prefer to follow your debate.

(7) I would much rather hear a round containing fewer arguments that are more complex, nuanced, and well-warranted than tons of arguments that are blippy, poorly explained, and hard to build a narrative around. I greatly prefer compelling arguments to bad ones. I also prefer engagement to evasion.

(8) If you have a position that was written by a coach, teammate, friend, etc, and you do not understand it as if you wrote it yourself, it is my strong preference that you do not read that position in front of me - if you read a position that I understand well and explain it poorly, that is not good for you, and if you read a position that I don't understand well and explain it poorly, that is also not good for you. It's a lose-lose.

(9) Please be very careful with evidence practices while assembling speech docs. Evidence ethics is important. When I debated we were very, very familiar with exactly how long it would take us to get through pretty much any file we had. During a policy round at Stanford I received a 31 page speech doc that ended up as a 15 page speech doc by the time we cut everything that wasn't read in the speech - that is ludicrous. This is the most extreme example but it was a trend and I don't like it.

(10) Please weigh so I don't have to do it for you. Tell me a good ballot story.

Longer Version

(1) Good debate starts with good research. Cheesy but true. You should feel confident walking into the round that you know more than anyone else in the room about the topic. Getting caught off guard is no fun. Being able to make awesome, carded, responsive arguments on the fly because you know your stuff is super fun. And a super topic-centric, contentious round is far more fun to judge than a super generic one. If I feel like you know a ton about the topic you're discussing (ie you explain it super well, don't have to constantly refer to evidence or quote it to explain warrants, etc), your speaks will be high.

(2) Theory Specific Stuff: I default to competing interps, no RVI's, drop the arg. You can change any of these defaults with arguments in-round. I ran a lot of theory in high school. Although my views on the subject have changed since then, theory is an important part of debate strategy, and I will vote for pretty much any theory arg. I will not vote for "wifi bad", "shoe theory", or really any shell that isn't about something that happened in-round. I generally think shells should be structured Interp-->Violation-->Standards-->Voters-->Implications (drop the arg v. debater). Justify why you should get an RVI if you're going for one. My threshold is pretty low on CI/I meet's for the 1A and 2A; if the affirmative is going for an RVI, the negative needs to do a lot more work to prove why the aff shouldn't get an RVI than the aff needs to prove why they should. I feel like this offsets the time burden placed on the aff should the neg choose to go theory-heavy in the 1N and 2N, but again, you've still gotta win why the RVI is a voting issue in both the 1A and 2A. I despise messy theory debates so pls don't be that person. I am okay with theory preempt-heavy 1AC's as long as the rest of the round is coherent.

(3) K debate <3: I ran a broad array of K's in HS and college. I don't love generic K's, I do love critical affirmatives that tell a great story, and I do love critical negative strats with extremely relevant link and impact stories and tangible alternatives. Please make sure the evaluative mechanism for the round is clear so I can vote on your K. Performance is great but please make sure I know how to evaluate it.

(4) Larp/policymaking: I love it when these debates go well/are extremely substantive and find generic ones to be excruciatingly boring. Please feel free to run creative/out-of-the-box plans and CPs in front of me.

(5) Tricks: I ran some tricks in HS. Not my cup of tea anymore, but I understand that they can be fun to run from time to time, especially if both debaters can throw down. I also believe that being able to answer them makes you a much better debater. If you're going to read stuff like this, don't be shady. I won't flow spikes that aren't clearly numbered. I will bomb your speaks if your strategy involves your opponent missing a tiny blip that you blazed through in the first speech, and if they missed it, I probably did too. That is not good tricks debate.

(6) I feel like this goes without saying, but arguments in bad taste or that justify bad things (racism good, genocide good), or use of rhetoric that I feel violates the safety of others (hate speech, slurs, sexism, etc), will cause me to immediately stop the round and have a serious, coach-involved discussion after I vote you down with the lowest speaks I can. Read this article by the legendary Chris Vincent if any of this is unclear (I'm sure you've already read the Vincent 13 evidence but the whole article establishes good norms)

https://www.vbriefly.com/2013/10/26/201310re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate/

(7) I think disclosure is a good norm. I obviously can't require you to do this, but I am pretty persuaded by disclosure theory as a result.

(8) Do not clip cards. It's easy to do it by accident, but I will hold you accountable regardless. If you're not 100% sure what I mean, https://the3nr.com/2014/08/20/how-to-never-clip-cards-a-guide-for-debaters/

If you follow those guidelines, you should not have any issues with clipping.

(9) CX is binding. I don't usually flow or take general notes during CX but I pay close attention. Flex prep is fine, but you may not use CX time as prep time. Any questions asked and answered during prep will also be binding. You must answer any question asked in CX, and if you and your opponent agree that flex prep is cool, any that they ask you during prep as well. If you are not okay with flex prep, please make that clear before the round begins.

(10) Be clear and concise. I'll say clear as many times as I have to. I don't think it's fair of me as a judge to stop trying to understand you just because I'm having to work a little harder at it. However, you're liable for anything I don't get the first time. Debate is a communication activity. If you're trying to extend an argument in the 1AR and I have no idea what you're talking about because the 1AC was 6 minutes of garbled tags and authors, that's on you. The speech doc will not save you in this regard. I feel like I've developed a pretty fair brightline over time for how clear and expounded upon I require an argument to be for me to vote on it.

(11) Being clear and concise doesn't just apply to spreading. Word economy and time allocation are super important. You'll be amazed at how much more time you have in your rebuttal if you weigh and do argument interaction concisely, while telling a good ballot story. Organization is crucial; consistently good debaters are not sloppy.

(12) Please weigh. Please. If you don't I have to do it for you, and nobody likes judge intervention. Avoid that situation entirely and do good weighing.

(13) Please stop reading generic, pre-written overviews in front of me. Your speaks will suffer. If you tell a good ballot story an overview is not necessary. A short overview at the end of your rebuttal is fine to wrap up key voting issues but that's not what I'm referring to.

(14) I might not know all of your jargon. I also probably won't know all your authors. Just explain things well and this will not be a problem.

(15) Speaker points: You'll start at a 28.7, and move in increments of .1. Good strategic decisions, conciseness, clarity, and confidence are all important to me. Pretty much everything I discuss in this paradigm will affect your speaks. At a bid tournament, 29 or above generally means I think you deserve a shot to break, above a 29.4 means I think you deserve a speaker award too. If the maximum increment set by the tournament is .5, I will round up and let you know that in the RFD. Although I start the round with all debaters at 28.7, I find I give speaks around an average of 28.3-28.6.

(16) Do not be mean to less skilled debaters. If there is a clear skill gap in the round, and you're a total jerk, spread them out of the room, intentionally make super complex args that they cannot engage with (basically doing things to exclude them from participating in the round in any way), you'll get the win but I will bomb your speaks. Debate should be inclusive, fun, and educational for everyone. Nothing is more demoralizing than getting dunked on while you have no idea what's happening. The flip side of this is that being kind, educational, helpful, mature, and still decisively winning a round against a significantly less skilled debater/novice will be a quick W30 from me, even at a bid tournament. We have to prioritize fostering an atmosphere in this community that will make people want to stay and get better, not quit. Relatedly, if your opponent asks you not to spread, and you do it anyway, I'm not going to vote for you. I don't care what their reason is. If you ask your opponent not to spread and then get up and spread the 1NC (why would you even try this), I'm going to down you too. I saw this happen at a local a long time ago and I've always kept it in my paradigm. It's mean and probably cheating.

(17) The case that you send in the email chain must be formatted identically to the one you're reading out loud. Same font size, highlights, stylization, everything. Don't be that person who sends their case in all caps or with the cards uncut or all highlighted or whatever. That's not cool and you shouldn't need to do that to get a leg up in the round if you are prepared.

(18) Time yourself and your opponent. I have noticed an increase in people not keeping time. Please make sure you keep your own time and time your opponent as well. Time prep and tell me how much you have left, and write it down yourself too. If you ask me "how much prep do I have left?", I'm going to take a speaker point away.

(19) Please flow.

(20) You should compile your speech doc during prep. I don't count flashing/emailing as prep but please do not abuse this; if it takes you longer than 20-30 seconds to get it done, I'm going to assume you're stealing prep and I'm going to remove the excess from your remaining prep time, or dock your speaks if you have no prep left.

Online Debate-Specific Stuff

a.) You MUST make local recordings of your speeches as you give them in the round. If you or I or your opponent drops off the call, please complete the speech without stopping, and immediately email the copy in the email chain. Failure to do this will result in any missed arguments not being considered. After reviewing community discussions on this issue, this seems like the best norm going forward.

b.) Pls don't steal prep.

c.) DO NOT GO FULL SPEED ONLINE YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE!!!! Go 75% of your top speed max. Spreading is HARD to follow online. I'm tired of flowing off speech docs, if I miss an argument completely I will not even flow the extension and that's on you. Also, I often mishear/misspell the author names, and sometimes I'm way off, so it would benefit you to say "extend [warrant]" as opposed to "extend [author name]." This is a good habit to get into regardless, some judges don't even flow author names and it's usually more convincing if you don't need to tell me the name of the card for me to know what you're talking about.

d.) Email chains are required, if you're flight B please set it up before the round. Yes I would like to be added, my email address is at the top.

e.) Try to find a way to see both me and your opponent during speeches, and please keep your camera on if possible. Body language is important, and I'm pretty expressive as a judge, so you'll probably want to see me while you're reading to see if I look receptive or confused. If there is a bandwidth issue, equity issue, etc preventing you from keeping your camera on, a simple "I'd prefer to leave my camera off" is enough and I will not ask questions.

f.) Debaters can tell each other "clear" or "slow" (please do not abuse this) during speeches. Other than that please make sure your mic is muted while your opponent is giving a speech.

If you have any questions for me before or after the round, please don't be shy. If you have any questions about the decision or things you could've done better, please ask as many questions as necessary after the round (time permitting) or in the downtime between rounds.

Debate can be stressful, and life is stressful enough as is. You should always feel safe and cared for in the debate community, and if you don't, please speak up; there are always people listening. Good luck, and most importantly, have fun!

Ryan Hemnarine University High School

Devin Hernandez Garland High School

Joshua Herrera Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Chetan Hertzig Harrison

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:04 PM EDT

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.

To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Sally Ho Scarsdale High School

Brent Hoffert Southern Lehigh

Last changed on Sat December 4, 2021 at 9:52 AM EDT

(General paradigm at the top, event-specific paradigms listed in [brackets]. If you're here for congress/speech/interp scroll to the bottom.)

I judge from a blank slate. In other words, it is up to the competitors to make their arguments, prove their points, and weigh the impacts. I will vote for the side that wins on the flow no matter how good or how flawed I personally think those arguments are.

The only time I bring in outside knowledge to a debate round is for very basic facts. Example: if a debater says that the current U.S. president is Lebron James, then I know for a fact that this is wrong and any arguments based on this being true will be dropped from my flow. This is only for basic facts that I am 100% sure of and which should not be in dispute; if a fact is at all controversial, complicated, or I am not 100% sure, then I will leave it up to the debaters to hash it out and I will not judge based on my personal opinion.

You must tell me how to weigh/decide the round, then you must tell me why you win under that decision framework. The jargon I'm using here is very LD but as a general concept it's true for PF too.

On warrants: if two opposing warrants contradict each other then I resolve the conflict based on warrant quality and relevance to the argument. I very much appreciate it when debaters go into detail about why a warrant should stand/fall to help resolve the conflict. If warrants contradict and neither comes out as superior then the arguments are a wash and I drop both from the flow.

On speed: I am fine with speed but my ear isn't as quick as it used to be, so please slow down for your tags and impacts so I can make sure we're on the same page. If this is an online tournament then please keep the speed to an absolute minimum because the audio distortion is a real problem. Please take this seriously.

[LD] The value framework is only important to me in terms of telling me how the round should be judged. I am very flexible when it comes to frameworks; all I care about is that the debaters' cases follow a logical structure and they explain why I should vote for their side. It's okay to appeal to your opponent's values, multiple values, or implicit values. You don't need to talk about "values" at all if you provide a clear mechanism for weighing the round.

[LD] Kritiks/theory cases are fine but you need some sort of offense. Even if you completely nullify your opponent's case you still need something on your side of the flow showing me why I should vote for your case/world/whatever. I do not believe in Affirmative burden in LD so if the round is a wash I do not automatically vote negative.

[LD] Special note on Utilitarianism: You must always link your arguments into the round's accepted framework, especially if it is your own framework. Util is no different. If you use Util as your VC you MUST provide a Util analysis at some point in the round. All Util frameworks boil down some concept of weighing net benefit and harm. Therefore to win the round you must explain exactly why your side gives the most benefit and/or least harm, and this means directly weighing your net benefit/harm against your opponent's net benefit/harm. If only one debater provides a Util calculus and the other does not then the one who does will probably win the round. I normally don't like giving such a specific paradigm but Util is very popular these days and I think it is very unfortunate how many rounds are decided entirely because someone uses Util and then never explains why they win under their own VC. If you have no Util calculus, you have no Util link.

[PF] I view each side as advocating for or against the position taken by the resolution, not on whether or not I "accept" the resolution or the pro/con case. This means that I do not give much weight to overly specific or unconventional interpretations of the resolution, and most theory/kritical arguments are limited to rebutting specific arguments. However I do not reject any arguments outright and I will listen to your justification for making that argument. I judge entirely based on whether analysis of the flow leads to advocacy for/against the resolution position; barring extreme circumstances I do not factor debate style into my RFD.

[PF] I do not flow cross examination. CX is for clarification and explanation so the debaters can hash out how their arguments interact with each other. There is zero benefit to being combative in CX because you cannot win or lose arguments during cross. I do still listen to CX though and what is said in cross can affect my understanding of the arguments made during the round.

CONGRESS: I primarily value good discussion. A good speech should 1) Have something useful to say, 2) Say it clearly, 3) Justify it with solid evidence and reasoning. Every speech should progress the discussion; no speech should merely repeat previously made arguments, even if you're giving a summary speech. Speeches early in a bill should provide new arguments. Speeches later in a bill should directly respond to arguments made by other senators. Speeches near the end of the bill should analyze/compare/weigh the arguments already made. Questions should similarly progress the discussion and try to reveal more about the speaker's position and arguments. I do not place much emphasis on how "congressional" your style is, however I view the goal of your speeches/questions to be promoting the public good via the role of a congressperson, and I will judge the quality of your speaking to the extent that it promotes/detracts from your advocacy for/against the bill.

Kaz Holley Riverside HS

Ashley Howden St Michael Albertville High School None

Brian Huang Syosset High School

David Iverson Buffalo HS

Justin Jang Hire 8 rounds

Stephen Jones Northeast

Pragya Kamal BASIS Peoria

Parveen Khan Lake Highland Preparatory School

Muhammad Khattak The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Sat December 12, 2020 at 11:40 AM EDT

Lake Highland ’18

Stanford ’22

Email: muhammadykhattak@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Momo, I debated for Lake Highland for five years primarily in LD and dabbled (4 tournaments, 2 each) in PF and Policy. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and TDI. I was an assistant coach at FlexDebate and am now head coach at Bronx Science.

I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you’re most comfortable with and I’ll adjudicate the best I can. In that sense, I consider myself pretty tab, and I care about making the right decision. That's all to say, I think debate is a game so just play it how you see fit.

Whether it's phil framework, Ks, tricks, policy, theory, PF, traditional debate, or anything in between, I'm here for it. My aim is to always make the least interventionist decision as possible; so as long as you aim to justify why your model of debate is comparatively better than your opponent's and win offense linking back to that model, you will win.

Don't do anything blatantly offensive or actively aimed to make your opponent feel uncomfortable, could lose you the ballot or speaks.

Notes on online debate

1 - you should time each other ; if someone who is speaking gets kicked, most likely they are unaware of this and continue to speak. The person who is flowing, alternatively, should pause their timer at that moment and continue to flow under the assumption that their opponent is still reading their doc at the same rate.

Once the person who was kicked gets back, if they had already stopped because they realized they were kicked, time restarts at the time the other speaker paused their timer with, although generally you should try not to stop since you should have a local copy of your speech anyways (see 2). The reason why you should try not to stop is because either (a) you're reading cards off a doc in which case your opponent is already flowing anyways or (b) there were extempted arguments which should be confirmed in flex prep and the local copy will help your opponent and myself hear what exact arguments were made. If the person who is kicked rejoins and is still giving their speech, then the point at which the timer was stopped should serve as a timestamp for when to read listen to the recording.

2 - Record a local copy of your speech, either on your phone or QuickTime, so that if the speech cuts out you can send a copy of whatever we missed. I'm not too keen on letting you redo speeches since the wifi may just cut out again, having a local copy makes it easier to navigate these inconsistencies in connection.

3 - You should probably slow down a tad bit*, the bits and bops of Zoom always makes it tough for me to hear what you're saying, and I'm not one to religiously flow off the doc.
*slow down and build up in speed please please i'm a terrible flower

you can implement this method if you'd like - in constructive speeches, read taglines slower and glide through ev or long nondense ev; emphasize what needs emphasis for you to win and transition between flows with large overviews that compare layers. You can follow this up in speeches where you're pressed to collapse (2n/2a) the debate by giving an overview on how the layers of the debate interact, what layer you are collapsing to and then speed up once you get into the substance of winning each particular layer.

all of this is to say, try to go a bit slower in areas where you can. Also using efficient strategy and breaking down rounds in a discrete way that isolates all relevant voting issues or layers can help in later rebuttal speeches and be opportunities to slow down

Bryan Kim Hire 8 rounds

Mark Kivimaki Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 30, 2024 at 2:49 AM CDT

Coach at Edina HS (LD, speech) and University of Minnesota (policy)

I've judged and coached pretty much all formats and styles of debate. I keep a rigorous flow, usually on paper, and I will evaluate the debate using the judge instruction that the debaters in the round give me. You should be clear and give me pen time when switching between flows. I care a lot about evidence, and my favorite debates are ones that involve well-researched and thought out positions.

I will not vote on an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or the opposing team's character.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

College Policy:

I exclusively read Ks when I was competing. Now mostly coaching policy arguments. I see a lot of clash debates, some KvK debates, and a few policy debates. Topic knowledge is medium.

Condo is good, but I can be persuaded either way. Judge kick is a logical extension of condo, unless you win it isn't.

Ks: Framework is where I start my evaluation of the round. You should be explicit about what your interp means for the debate if you win it and compare models. AFF teams defending a plan should read more cards about their AFF and less generic K blocks.

Competition debates for most process CPs should be unwinnable, but NEG teams often end up ahead due to subpar AFF debating.

T-USFG: Fairness is fine, clash makes less sense unless you do a good job of explaining an external impact. 2NRs need to engage with case somehow.

National Circuit LD:

Flow. You must use CX time or prep time to ask questions about what cards were read. If you don't do this, I will start your prep time for you and subtract speaker points.

Decent for philosophy arguments. I think a lot of LD debaters struggle to justify utilitarianism and more NEG debaters should take advantage of this.

Theory arguments: I am likely to conclude that rejecting the argument, not the team solves. Reasonability is underutilized. I have voted on "frivolous theory" before, but it needs to be debated technically and cannot rely on tagline extensions.

Tricks: Probably not the best judge for you. I need to be able to explain back the warrant for your argument to be able to vote on it. Sometimes "tricks" arguments meet this threshold, but often they do not.

Traditional Circuit LD:

I can judge whatever you put in front of me. Impact calculus matters a lot. I don't want to see arguments unrelated to the topic--my litmus test is that your argument must prove the resolution true or false. That means unconventional arguments are fine, but non-topical Ks or theory arguments are something I'd rather not see (unless your opponent also prefers to have a national circuit style debate).

Rahul Kolla Northview High School

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 6:00 PM CDT

Hebron HS '20, UT Dallas '24, 2A for one year, 2N for three, qualified to the TOC, debated for one year in college

Pronouns - He, him, his

Put me on the email chain - rahulk1325 AT gmail DOT com and Mavsdebate AT gmail DOT com

I prefer K v Policy>= K v K > Policy v Policy but will judge anything

Name the email chain: [TOURNAMENT NAME] - [AFF TEAM] vs [NEG TEAM] Round X

Stuff:

- Clarity > speed

- Tech > Truth in most instances

- Don't be violent (racism, sexism, genocide good)

- Clipping is bad (L and 0 speaks for the team who does it)

- Reject the arg > reject the team

- I flow on a computer

- Being funny is good - debates can get quite boring sometimes. Just don't be stupid about it.

- ~~I have invested most of my career into exploring critical literature bases and as such am more adept at judging Policy v K rounds and K v K rounds. But I will evaluate anything present in front of me.~~

- I've judged so many policy rounds that I'm probably good for anything. I just need a clear and concise explanation. Explaining your acronyms is probably a good idea too.

Specific stuff:

Kritiks:

- Enjoy these debates.

- I don't care how long your overview is, but technical line-by-line is preferable and very important.

- More specific the link/analysis, the better.

- Familiar with a litany of theory basis, but when making specific analysis, make sure your explanation starts broadly.

- My evaluation begins with the framework portion of the debate - make sure you have a clear articulation of your model of debate and why it is preferable.

- If you read a kritik against a K aff, I will reward specific engagement by holding affirmative teams to a higher standard for permutation explanation.

Topicality:

- I can be convinced to vote for anything in regards to reasonability/competing interps.

- Impact comparison is pretty important.

- Good counter interp ev is very important and will be rewarded.

Counterplans:

- Smart, creative counterplans are appreciated if executed well.

- I lean neg for most counterplan theory except for consult, condo, solvency advocate.

- I need instruction for judge kick.

Disadvantages:

- Good impact comparison makes me happy.

- DA turns case arguments when executed correctly are strategic and beneficial for negative teams.

Misc. Stuff:

Debate is an unique experience - don't take it/yourself too seriously and make sure to have fun.

Be nice! Debate is rapidly losing participation - don't be the reason debaters quit.

Ramana Kolluri William P. Clements High School

Davey Koo Half Hollow Hills HS East

Kartikeya Kotamraju Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 1:03 PM EDT

UPDATE FOR ‘23-‘24: I have not done any topic research so any arguments that rely on a deep understanding of the topic would most likely not work in front of me. That being said, if you explain the logical syllogism and properly articulate your arguments, I should be able to flow them as you would like. Please slow down as well, I have been out of debate for a couple of years - would go at 70-80% of your full speed. I’ll say clear or slow if those become an issue in round.

Hi my name is Kartik and I debated for McNeil high school in Austin and competed in LD regularly on the TOC circuit from 2016-2020. I have coached individual debaters and taught at TDC.

I would like to be on the email chain: kotamrajukartikeya@gmail.com

I have been coached by Dominic Henderson and Cameron McConway so my opinions will be most similar to theirs.

Conflicted for McNeil HS

Don’t want to use too much space to write something down that should already be obvious but don’t say anything in front of me that would make me immediately think of you as a terrible person because that will not help you in the round. Don’t be racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Have fun in the debate and enjoy the round, make it a pleasant space to be in.

Short Version for Prefs:

K: 2

LARP: 1

Theory/T: 2

Performance: 3

Phil: 3

Tricks: 4

Speed:

Spreading is a strategy and I understand that, do not use it as a weapon against somone who clearly is new to the activity or not experienced enough to listen to you spew 300 WPM. Use it when you need but tone it done when you know your opponent obviously will not be able to keep up. Keep the debate educational and take something away from it.

K debates are great in my opinion, I know there are large pools of peope that would not agree with that statement but those debates are fun to judge. If you’re going for a K aff, I would really appreciate it if there is an actual affirmation of the resolution as opposed to doing the negative’s job for them. If the Aff you’re running is more performance in nature, that is completely fine but I would like to see you relate that performance back to the resolution from the Aff’s lens. If you’re Neg and reading a K, I don’t have anything in specific to say other than make sure that there you’re doing the work of weighing between the ROTB and the framing of the Aff because I promise you I will not do that work for you on the flow. If I cant discern a specific reason as to why the framing of the K is more important than the Aff’s then you will most likely not win unless you have more offense under the dominating framing than your opponent does. I would imagine the debate round I just described would be incredibly messy and would really prefer not being in the back of the room for that debate - please do my job for me and don’t leave it up to me to identify the true meaning of your arguments.

IIf there is a T-debate, I think having an expectation of theoretically justifying your practice is not too high of a bar and I should see you doing that but that does not mean that things like impact turning theory are not going to be evaluated but I think coupled with a proper counter interp, it leads to a more fun debate.

Literature that I am familiar with: Deleuze, Saldanha, Warren, Wilderson, Set Col, Butler, Ableism, Yancy (a bit)

Literature that I am not familiar with: Foucault, Weheliye, Anthro, Bataille, Glissant

Literature that I will have a very hard time evaluating: Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis literature (my former teammate convinced me that psychoanalysis debates get very convoluted in LD debate and has interactions on the top-level rather than creating nuanced debate like it would in policy debate so trying to explain psychoanalysis to me during round will be an uphill battle but I will be open to it)

If what you plan on reading isn't here, then just ask me before round

Even though I am familiar with certain literature bases, err on the side of overexplaining to make sure I get your argument

Theory/T:

I went for 1ar theory a lot as a sophomore and junior and probably collapsed to T in 75% of my 2nrs in those 2 years and went for T/FW quite a few times my senior year. There is a very clear and distinct line between frivolous theory and actual theory, I will obviously be as TAB as possible but I will be more lenient towards minimal responses and will probably err on the side of reasonability if the justifications for it are won.

I am a firm believer in disclosure theory and will vote on it if it is read. There are a multitude of reasons for why disclosure is good. I do expect that the person who is reading disclosure theory discloses to the level that they want the other debater to do as well i.e. if you're reading open-source disclosure then you should be open-sourcing all your docs. If the debater answering disclosure brings up the fact that you don't disclose but has no screenshots, I will look on the wiki.

LARP:

This is the style of debate that I was taught by my policy-oriented coach so things like CPs, DAs, and Plan Affs are things that I am very familiar with and went for in most of my rounds so please feel free and don't hold back with these types of arguments.

Performance:

Please explain the offense that the performance generates for you in round, i.e. why does playing a song matter in the round, is something that should be extrapolated if you are going to go for them as offensive reasons to vote for you. If you are reading a performative aff and I do not vote for you, please don't take it as me not caring about your experiences but rather that in the game of debate, your opponent did the better debating and that's just the reality of the activity.

Phil/Tricks:

Phil is fine, Rawls and Kant are the phil arguments that I'm the most familiar with and will have a better time evaluating. Regardless of what phil argument you go for, always err on the side of overexplaining just so you make the debate more clear and so I can properly understand what your intended articulation of the argument is.

Tricks are a different story completely, I don't think they're the worst but please make sure you're not just speeding through 15 different spikes with absolutely no warrants.

Evidence Ethics:

Things like clipping cards and misrepresenting evidence are things that are problematic and raise questions but these claims would not be a reason for me to stop the round but rather a reason for me to look at them after the round has finished to see if the way in which the cards were structured have a large implication on the round.

Speed is fine, please be clear and slow down on tags and cites

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, drop the debater, and comparative worlds

Guhan Krishnan Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Varinder Kumar The Golden State Academy

Shuba Lall The Golden State Academy None

Eric Lanning Trinity Preparatory School

Rose Larson Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue June 18, 2024 at 2:53 AM CDT

Add me to the chain. My email is roselarsondebate @ gmail . If I'm judging LD, please add lhpsdebate @ gmail as well.

she/her

Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021

Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Lake Highland Prep

Currently College Policy at the University of Kansas

CEDA Octofinalist x1, CEDA Quarterfinalist x1, NDT Double Octofinalist x1

If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to direct you to some resources. ESPECIALLY if you are interested in debating for/attending KU - we have a wonderful program and I'd love to talk to you about it.

I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average debate. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. All things equal, the debates I most enjoy are phil, k, topicality, and traditional debates. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.

An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. I don't care if your opponent didn't answer words you said, they haven't "dropped" anything unless those words were complete arguments. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it. If you can, feel free, and I'd love to vote for you.

I will not arbitrarily treat arguments as "silly" or "not engaging with the aff" because they are not an aff-specific disadvantage. I don't share the attitudes of judges who treat process counterplans, skep/determinism, broad critiques with non-specific links, or impact turns like spark as second-tier arguments because they link to other affirmatives. The more generic an argument is, the easier it may be to beat on specificity, but I am not particularly sympathetic to "this is generic, ignore it."

I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, Kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash.

Topicality should include case lists, preferably both offensive and defensive.

I view counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I can be persuaded otherwise.

Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness. I will evaluate the differences between the aff's model and the negative's model unless someone forwards an alternative model for how I should think about framework debates.

Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty, RVIs, frivolous theory, Mollow

Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress

Arguments I like and want to see more of: circumvention, skepticism and determinism, specific impact turns, normative justifications for utilitarianism > "extinction outweighs", psychoanalysis, the cap K against policy affs, carded TVAs, advantage counterplans

You will lose .1 speaker point every time you ask a flow clarification question outside of CX time, unless I also did not flow what was said, and if that's the case, don't worry about it, because I won't be evaluating it.

My strong preference is that if one debater is a traditional debater that their opponent make an effort to participate in a way that's accessible for that debater. I would much rather judge a full traditional debate than a circuit debater going for shells or kritiks against an opponent who isn't familiar with that style. If you do this, you will be rewarded with higher speaker points. If you don't, I will likely give low point wins to technical victories that exploit the unfamiliarity of traditional debaters to get easy wins.

Note on speaker points:
29.5+ one of the best speakers at the tournament
29.0-29.5 fantastic speaker
28.5-29.0 above average speaker
28.0-28.5 average speaker
27.5-28.0 below average speaker
27-27.5 very bad speaker

I will not give below a 27 unless something seriously wrong happens in the debate.

I have given two 30s in 300+ rounds of judging, congrats if you get one.

Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.

Logan Lathrop Los Alamos High School

Gabrielle Lea All Saints Episcopal School

Clarissa Lei Montville

Jillian LeMaire Texas City High School

Last changed on Fri February 25, 2022 at 7:39 PM EDT

I default policy maker.

Summary: I debated policy for 3 ½ years in highschool and attended a 5A school. I also judged some novice rounds in highschool. I have an associates degree in criminal justice and am currently studying criminal justice and political science at university.

Round Preferences:

Stylistic-

Speed is fine so long as I can understand you. If I am not flowing (holding my pen), it is likely that I cannot understand you. Roadmaps and signposting are preferred. If you cannot read quickly without gasping for air, screaming at me, or rocking back and forth, then you should probably slow down. A moderate amount of eye contact is preferred (you don’t have to look at me the whole time, but you also shouldn’t only look at your evidence).

Open cross-examination is fine on the TFA circuit, but one student should not dominate the cross-x period, especially if it was not theirs to begin with. Do not speak over one another and do not be rude. I do not flow questioning periods.

Theory-

Affirmative can claim “fiat,” under the guise that the plan “should” be done, not that it is being done or will be done. Presented frameworks must be adequately supported; a flimsy explanation of the framework will not suffice.

Generally, theory arguments are fine as long as they apply to the round and are not used to waste time.

Quality vs. Quantity-

I prefer quality of arguments over quantity. It does not matter if you have 15 pieces of evidence against your opponent if they do not flow well and are not well delivered. Additionally, explain why each piece of evidence is important! If you want me to flag evidence, call for it in your rebuttals.

Kritiks-

These are fine as long as they are not generic. I do not consider a rejection of the affirmative plan to be an alternative. That said, if you are going to run a kritik, it MUST be complete! Do NOT run a kritik without links or an alternative.

Topicality-

This is fine as long as it is not used to waste time. If your opponent is reasonably topical, you need not read a topicality shell. If you do not provide standards and voters, I will default on reasonability. If you can provide a list of cases that fall under your definition of topicality, this will provide you with more leverage on T. Make sure you address all parts of the T should your opponent decide to run it.

Counterplan-

This is my favorite negative strategy :-). Counterplans do not have to be topical. Plan inclusive CPs are accepted. Please indicate whether the CP is conditional, unconditional, or dispositional in the 1NC. Net benefits are strongly encouraged.

Disadvantage-

I will vote for the team with better impact calculus. I prefer that you don’t use big stick impacts, but that does not mean I will vote you down for it. Just know, if you read a nuclear war impact, I will be screaming internally. However, I have voted on it before.

Kicking-

Be clear about what arguments you are going to kick. Try not to kick arguments unless it is absolutely necessary. That said, do not run arguments you know you aren’t going to stick with; that wastes time. Remind me which arguments you have kicked in your rebuttals. If I don’t flow it in the rebuttals, it counts as a drop :-).

LD Debate-

As far as value and criterion are concerned, your value must be measurable. While this is not my primary mechanism for deciding the round, it can be a factor depending on how you use it.

Additional Comments-

-It is important to generate clash and imperative that your plan solves!

-Be civil with your opponents! I will dock speaker points if you are disrespectful of your opponent! Snide comments are unacceptable. Debate is supposed to facilitate education and understanding; this cannot be done if your opponents feel uncomfortable or isolated.

-I will not include roadmaps in your speech time, or flashing in your prep time, unless it becomes excessive.

-I will not disclose; don’t ask.

-If there is an email chain, I would like to be included.

-Ask for pronouns before the round starts.

Maya Levine Palo Alto High School

Hannah Li Hamilton High School

Jennifer Li Princeton

Michelle Li Byram Hills High School

Last changed on Sun November 15, 2020 at 9:22 AM EDT

*Updated for Scarsdale 2020*

Hunter '18, NYU '22 - I qualled to the TOC my senior year and went to 2 policy tournaments my freshman year of college.

I taught at VBI for two summers and coached a couple of debaters (with several bids/bid rounds) for two years, but I don't coach now. I have not done any topic research, and I don't care what you do as long as you do it well. I've left my old/more detailed paradigm up below if you have any questions/want to know how to get better speaks/want to know my preferences.

**ONLINE DEBATE:

-PLEASE start a little slower for the first couple of seconds of your speech. Also, in general, please slow down a bit if you're not clear. I'll try to call clear but like... it's online debate lol

-If you're recording speeches please record them separately! Sending a recording that's longer than a few minutes will take 10 years and I will never get to hear your speech

-You can still extemp arguments but including analytics in docs is probably helpful in case of potential internet issues

-I always say I'll try to time speeches but I never actually remember so time yourself+your opponent

*Update 3/9/19: I have now taken the hot Cheetos policy off my paradigm. Rest in peace.*

Tl; dr: feel free to read anything. As long as you have warrants, don’t rely on your lingo, slow down on plan/interp/standard/etc. texts, make your links/abuse stories as specific as possible, weigh, and are not blatantly offensive (sexist/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc.), we should be good. I like unique arguments of all "types." It is ultimately is your round, and you should go for your best/most comfortable arguments. I will take the route of least intervention. If you have any questions, feel free to fb message or email me!!

Email: limichelle0809@gmail.com I’ll only flow along with the speech doc for names of cards, but won’t rely on it so that I don’t miss extempted args. Compiling the speech doc is prep but flashing isn’t (unless it takes you a suspiciously long time to flash).

Things (I say "things" because some of you think these are arguments but they really are not) I will not vote on, and will dock your speaks for:

-Sexual assault doesn't matter/rape good/some other version of that -- I will actually stop listening to part of/the rest of the speech if you say this.

-Any version of "oppression doesn't exist/is good" (this is not the same thing as extinction outweighs)

-Unnecessarily bringing up your opponent's private life as a reason to vote for you -- especially if the implications are homophobic/sexist/etc.

Misc. Defaults (very, very loose, and only apply if no one makes any arguments in round) and other stuff:

-Tech>>>truth. I also think the burden is on the debaters to point out misrepresented/powertagged evidence, so I won't interfere

-Text>spirit

-Ethical confidence

-The more creative you are/entertaining the round is, the better your speaks will be

-I think CX is something that can only help and not hurt you. If you're really funny in CX, your speaks may go up, but it's cool too if you need all of it for clarification questions if you don't understand the other debater's position. I also think it's fine if debaters are somewhat sketchy in CX because you should try to avoid exposing your own case's flaws (note: this does not mean lie or not explain things if you get asked to explain a warrant) but I guess this is an unpopular opinion

-I'm fine with debating evidence ethics issues out in round unless both debaters agree to ending the round

-You can ask questions after the round or send me a fb message/email about my RFD, but if you or your 100 coaches grill me aggressively, I will change your speaks to a 0 and walk out of the room

Specifics:

K’s: I’ve realized that I have a higher threshold and more preferences for K’s than other arguments, so don’t just read one in front of me because I used to read them. I really enjoy judging good K debates. I read everything from identity politics to high theory throughout my career, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to explain your K in simple terms. I also want K debates to be more tech.

-Please know your K lit. If you botch it I will be sad :(, and you will also be sad about your speaks.

-I evaluate the ROB similarly to a normative FW debate. You need to be winning your specific ROB+offense linking back to it for me to grant you the K. This does not mean engage in Oppression Olympics — rather, tell me why combatting colonialism controls the internal link to liberating womxn, why analyzing media is key to the res, etc. Also, please don’t read a performance without justifying why that’s important in the ROB/somewhere in the method because I?? Don’t?? Know?? Why?? You’re?? Reading it?????? And will probably ignore it. If there are 2 competing ROB’s and both debaters pretend that that debate’s a wash, I will be frustrated.

-I think methods debate is low key dying. I’m very willing to pull the trigger on presumption. AFF’s need to do something (this can be as vague as utopian politics or be hyper-specific to the topic — just don’t rant about how the world is horrible for 6 minutes.)

-Please have specific dis-ads to the perms (preferably ones that aren’t just generated off the links), and respond to each perm individually.

-I like brief overviews on the K if you’re running one, especially if your lit is really dense

-I've voted on the Cap K multiple times but think the cap good turn is underrated (but it doesn't work in every scenario depending on what you're running so pls don't impact turn cap just because I said this lol)

-I love nuanced K v K debates and don't think they're done enough!!!

Performance: totally cool with it. I read these and I like unique methods. Again, just warrant why it's important in the ROB. Trigger warnings are good.

Non-T AFF’s: go for them. Please have reasons as to why we should reject the res/interpret it differently. More thoughts on these in the “non-T AFF’s/K’s vs T/theory” section.

Theory: I really couldn’t care less about how frivolous the shell is, just slow down on interps and weigh standards

-I won't default any voters; you should be reading them. If you don't, I probably won't vote on the shell.

-Semantic I meet’s are, of course, cool :) but they don't trigger RVI's

-I tend to think disclosure theory is true, and will like you more if you disclose. That being said, if you win why disclosure is bad, I will vote for you. If you’re running disclosure theory, please have a screenshot in the speech doc/ready if I call for it.

T: I like T, I suppose, especially against non-T AFF's that don't do anything/arbitrarily say fuck the topic.

Non-T AFF’s/K’s vs. Theory/T:

-I don’t have a preference/bias as to which comes first; you should be doing this weighing.

-I really dislike generic fairness bad/theory and T are oppressive dumps. I would much prefer you interact with the standards or articulate why that specific shell is oppressive. That being said, if you do win an impact turn on theory/T, I will vote on it.

-The more specific your interp is to the AFF/K, the happier I will be, and the higher your speaks will be. I would also be much happier if you linked some parts of the shell back as offense under the ROB instead of excluding the entire K.

Tricks:

-I like these! I tend to find these to be pretty funny. (Update: I've noticed a trend of debaters throwing random tricks in there because they think I'll like it but they can't explain it or clearly had no intention of going for it. I really dislike that.)

-I don't care if you're sketchy about them in CX.

-Please number your analytics

-I like creative/trolly a priori’s

-I will not be amused if you read these against a K AFF and go “haha! Oppression doesn’t exist!!!” I will give you a L0 (to clarify, I don’t care if you read these against K AFF’s, just don’t be a dick.)

Phil/FW: I’m familiar with the common LD frameworks, but don’t assume that I know your lingo !

-I’m extremely skeptical of epistemic modesty (and honestly not even sure how it really works ngl)

LARP: please please please weigh!!

-I like unique plans/CP's/PIC's/etc.

-I've realized I'm kind of bad at understanding what CP's do (esp. if it's some other policy), so err on the side of more explanation

-Bonus points if your util fw isn’t just Bostrom/Goodin/Woller/Sunstein/Paterson/Sinnott-Armstrong/Bryant/Coverstone/Sinhababu/Yudkowsky

-I like plan flaw

Rafael Li Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 10:49 AM EDT

I will get to you! I may take a little time to write critiques - I should be done within an hour or two for both debaters. Remember to check at the end of the tourney, any last thoughts will be left there.

Last Updated: 12/16/23

***TLDR***

Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

I am hybrid, trad/prog.

I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc as that's for checking warrants. If you are reading that fast please slow down.

I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional, mostly queer theory for Ks. Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down AT LEAST 25% for theory and quick prewritten analytics. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps.

Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.

Evidence ethics and courtesy please.

***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***

I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.

However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms as I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.

For safety slow down about 20-30%.

***OTHER COMMENTS***

I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!

Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good. Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.

And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.

Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns

Brookfield East '19 | UMBC '23 Computer Science - Cybersecurity

Junior Minotaur Developer - Prescient Edge Corporation

01rafe0li@gmail.com [zeros not o's]

Conflicts: Brookfield East

***ABOUT ME***

I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.

In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.

***GENERAL GUIDELINES***

Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks

a. No racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobia, etc.

b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.

c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.

d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.Don't read if your opponent expresses they cannot hear it, I will auto drop and tank you.

- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad

- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims

- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense

-Roadmaps seem pointless, if you are efficient, organized, and signpost well you shouldn't need to

I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns

**SPEAKS**

- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.

30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.

<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics

27-27.4 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.

27.5-27.9 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.

28-28.4 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.

28.5-28.9 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.

29-29.4 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.

29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.

***ROUND PREFERENCES***

Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory

- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.

* General Strat

- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing

- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"

- Structure well

- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics

Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues

* Speed

- Spreading is fine

- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer

- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.

- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags

- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.

* CX

- Be assertive, not overbearing

- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write

- Flex prep fine

* Flashing

- Flash everything not extemp

- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell

- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for

* Disclosure

- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu

- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much

- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one

* Tech > Truth

- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.

1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications

2. Despise friv theory, don't read

- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense

* General Tech

- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations

- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells

- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy

- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended

- Would prefer explicit kicks

- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should

- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?

- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is

- Severance perms seem bad

* K

- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory

- Be genuine, especially if running performance

- Know what you are running

- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate

- Develop your thesis and link story

- Err on the side of overexplaining

- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations

- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue

- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story

- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison

* K v. Topicality

- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well

- Clear sequencing and defense will save you

** LARP

* Plan

- Text is explicit and specific

- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical

- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency

- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen

- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation

* CP

- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP

- Prove competitiveness

- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them

* DA

- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants

- Functional warrants throughout link chain

- Weigh

* Theory

- CI, DTA, No RVI

- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense

- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it

- Slow down for analytics

- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention

- Independent Voters: same as found in K section

- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters

* Tricks

- Zero experience with this stuff

- Won't vote off of hidden text

- Implicate and justify well

Wei Li Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Jian Lin Westford Academy

Claire Liu Scarsdale High School

Qing Liu Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Nethmin Liyanage Carnegie Vanguard High School

Last changed on Fri June 21, 2024 at 3:49 AM PDT

tldr do what you do best; i'll only vote for complete arguments that make sense; weighing & judge instruction tip the scales in your favor; disclosure is good; i care about argument engagement and i value flexibility; stay hydrated & be a good person.

About me & affiliations:

she/her

policy coach @ damien: spring 2022 - present

ld coach @ harker: fall 2024 - present

previously: ld coach @ loyola

My strongest belief about argumentation is that argument engagement is good - I don't have a strong preference as to what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, but I'd prefer if both teams engaged with their opponents' arguments; I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash (regardless of the style of argument they are reading). I value ideological flexibility in judges and actively try not to be someone who will exclusively vote on only "policy" or only "k" arguments.

I am comfortable evaluating arguments that are commonplace in policy (cx) debate; less comfortable evaluating nonsense trick-blip-phil-paradox-skep-word-soup quirks of lincoln douglas. This means that any CX team that debates in a coherent and well-researched manner (whether policy or k) should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read real arguments should be fine in front of me. LD teams that read "eval after 1ar" should strike me before they strike a parent judge.

General note about reading my paradigm - most things are phrased in terms of policy debate structure & norms (2nr/2ar being 5 minutes, "team" instead of "debater," "planless aff" = "non-t k aff," etc). If I'm judging you in LD and you have questions about how something translates to LD, feel free to ask!

email chains:

ld email chains: loyoladebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

policy email chains: damiendebate47@gmail.com and nethmindebate@gmail.com

if you need to contact me directly about rfd questions, accessibility requests, or anything else, please email nethmindebate@gmail.com (please don't email the teamail for these types of requests)!

flowing: it is good and teams should do it

stolen from alderete - if you show me a decent flow, you can get up to 1 extra speaker point. this can only help you - i won't deduct points for an atrocious flow. this is to encourage teams to actually flow. i recently witnessed a 2ac that answered a whole k that was not read in the 1nc. it nuked my value to life. this is my attempt at remedying it:)

All of my deal-breakers/hard and fast rules/moments of "I won't vote on this" are dependent on four things:

1 - protecting the safety of the participants in the round (no harrassment, no physical violence, etc).

2 - voting for things that meet the minimum standard to be considered an argument (it needs to have warrants & make some amount of logical sense).

3 - rules set forth by the tournament (speech times, one team wins and one team loses, I have to enter my own ballot, etc).

4 - i will only evaluate the debate after the end of the 2ar. this is 0% negotiable. i did not think i would have to say this, but i guess i do.

My voting record is roughly 50-50 on most major debate controversies (yes, even planless affs vs framework). As long as your argument doesn't violate the above four criteria, go for it!

I think that warrants are hard to come by in many debate rounds these days, even ones with “good” teams. Err on the side of a little too much explanation, because if your arg is warrantless, you will be ballotless. Extensions need to include warrants, not just taglines.

Independent voters need warrants and an articulation of why they should be evaluated before everything else. These debates could generally benefit from more judge instruction and weighing. Simply calling something an independent voter doesn’t mean I vote for you if you extend it.

Disclose or lose. Non-new affs should be on the wiki & should be disclosed to the neg team a minimum of 30 min before round. Neg offcase positions that have been read before should be on the wiki. Past 2nrs should be disclosed to the aff team a minimum of 30 min before round. New affs don't need to be disclosed pre-round. I am 1000000% done with teams that don't disclose. I have zero belief that there is any good reason for non-disclosure. If your opponent engages in any disclosure nonsense, read theory and there's a 95+% chance I vote for you, regardless of how good they are at the theory debate. Don't like disclosing? Pref someone who is willing to tolerate your nonsense (not me).

note: i am far more lenient on disclosure with novices/debaters who haven't debated at national-circuit tournaments before. the grumpiness of the above section is directed at people who know how to disclose and purposefully avoid it. you know who you are:)

Some general notes

Accessibility & content warnings: Email me if there is an accessibility request that I can help facilitate - I always want to do my part to make debates more accessible. I prefer not to judge debates that involve procedurals about accessibility and/or content warnings. I think it is more productive to have a pre-round discussion where both teams request any accommodation(s) necessary for them to engage in an equitable debate. I feel increasingly uncomfortable evaluating debates that come down to accessibility/cw procedurals, especially when the issue could have easily been resolved pre-round.

Speed/clarity – I will say clear up to two times per speech before just doing my best to flow you. I can handle a decent amount of speed. Going slower on analytics is a good idea. You should account for pen time/scroll time.

Online debate -- 1] please record your speeches, if there are tech issues, I'll listen to a recording of the speech, but not a re-do. 2] debate's still about communication - please watch for nonverbals, listen for people saying "clear," etc.

I am not comfortable evaluating out-of-round events. The only exception to this is disclosure. I will vote on reasonable and good faith disclosure theory (yeah you should probably disclose on opencaselist, no you probably shouldn't lose for forgetting one round report). I will not vote on arguments about random out-of-round events, things that happened in another round, things that happened on a team's pref sheet, or any other arguments of this nature.

Speaker points:

Speaker points are dependent on strategy, execution, clarity, and overall engagement in the round and are scaled to adapt to the quality/difficulty/prestige of the tournament.

I try to give points as follows:

30: you're a strong contender to win the tournament & this round was genuinely impressive

29.5+: late elims, many moments of good decisionmaking & argumentative understanding, adapted well to in-round pivots

29+: you'll clear for sure, generally good strat & round vision, a few things could've been more refined

28.5+: likely to clear but not guaranteed, there are some key errors that you should fix

28+: even record, probably losing in the 3-2 round

27.5+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, key technical/strategic errors

27+: winning less than 50% of your rounds, multiple notable technical/strategic errors

26+: errors that indicated a fundamental lack of preparation for the rigor/style of this tournament

25-: you did something really bad/offensive/unsafe.

Extra speaks for flowing, being clear, kindness, adaptation, and good disclosure practices.

Minus speaks for discrimination of any sort, bad-faith disclosure practices, rudeness/unkindness, and attempts to avoid engagement/clash.

Opinions on Specific Positions (ctrl+f section):

Case:

I think that negatives that don't engage with the 1ac are putting themselves in a bad position. This is true for both K debates and policy debates.

Extensions should involve warrants, not just tagline extensions - I'm willing to give some amount of leeway for the 1ar/2ar extrapolating a warrant that wasn't the focal point of the 2ac, but I should be able to tell from your extensions what the scenario is, what the internal links are, and why you solve.

Planless affs:

I've been on both sides of the planless aff debate, and my strongest opinion about planless affs is that you need to be able to explain what your aff does/why it's good.

I tend to dislike planless affs where the strategy is to make the aff seem like a word salad until after 2ac cx and then give the aff a bunch of new (and not super well-warranted) implications in the 1ar. I tend to be better for planless aff teams when they have a meaningful relationship to the topic, they are straight-up about what they do/don't defend, they use their aff strategically, engage with neg arguments, and make smart 1ar & 2ar decisions with good ballot analysis.

T/framework vs planless affs:

I'm roughly 50-50 in these debates. I don't have a strong preference for how framework teams engage in these debates other than that you should be respectful when discussing sensitive material.

I think that TVAs can be more helpful than teams realize. While having a TVA isn't always necessary, winning a TVA provides substantial defense on many of the aff's exclusion arguments.

I don't have a preference on whether your chosen 2nr is skills or fairness (or something else). I think that both options have strategic value based on the round you're in. Framework teams almost always get better points in front of me when they are able to contextualize their arguments to their opponents' strategy.

I also don't have a preference between the aff going for impact turns or going for a counterinterp. The strategic value of this is dependent on how topical/non-topical your aff is, in my opinion.

Theory:

The less frivolous your theory argument, the better I am for it.

Please weigh! It's not nearly as intuitive to make a decision in theory debates - I can fill in the gaps for why extinction is more impactful than localized war more easily than I can fill in the gaps for why neg flex matters more/less than research burdens.

default to no rvis <3 medium uphill to change my mind on this one

Topicality (not framework):

I like T debates that have robust and contextualized definitions of the relevant words/phrases/entities in the resolution. Have a clear explanation of what your interpretation is/isn't; examples/caselists are your friend.

Grammar-based topicality arguments: I don't find most of the grammar arguments being made these days to be very intuitive. You should explain/warrant them more than you would in front of a judge who loves those arguments.

Tricks (this is mostly an LD thing):

I used to say that I would never vote on tricks. I've decided it's bad to exclude a style of argumentation just because I don't enjoy it. Here are some things to know if you're reading tricks in front of me:

1 - I won't flow off the doc (I never flow off the doc, but I won't be checking the doc to see if I missed any of your tricks/spikes)

2 - The argument has to have a warrant in the speech it is presented

3 - The reason I've been so opposed to voting on tricks in the past is that I've never heard a trick that met the minimum threshold to be considered an argument

Kritiks (neg):

I tend to like K teams that engage with the aff and have a clear analysis of what's wrong with the aff's model/framing/epistemology/etc. I tend to be a bit annoyed when judging K teams that read word-salad or author-salad Ks, refuse to engage with arguments, expect me to fill in massive gaps for them, don't do adequate weighing/ballot analysis/judge instruction, or are actively hostile toward their opponents. The more of the aforementioned things you do, the more annoyed I'll be. The inverse is also true - the more you actively work to ensure that you don't do these things, the happier I'll be!

Disads:

Zero risk probably doesn't exist, but very-close-to-zero risk probably does. Teams that answer their opponents' warrants instead of reading generic defense tend to fare better in close rounds. Good evidence tends to matter more in these debates - I'd rather judge a round with 2 great cards + debaters explaining their cards than a round with 10 horrible cards + debaters asking me to interpret their dumpster-quality cards for them.

Counterplans:

I don't have strong ideological biases about how many condo advocacies the neg gets or what kinds of counterplans are/aren't cheating. More egregious abuse = easier to persuade me on theory; the issue I usually see in theory debates is a lack of warranting for why the neg's model was uniquely abusive - specific analysis > generic args + no explanation.

Judge kick - you've gotta tell me to do it. I'm not opposed to it, but I won't assume that you want me to unless the 2nr tells me to. No strong opinions for/against judge kick.

currently no strong opinions on things like normal means or counterplan competition on the fiscal redistribution topic. this means you can probably get away with more in front of me as long as you warrant it/read good evidence.

Arguments I will NEVER vote for:

-arguments that are actively discriminatory or make the round unsafe ("misgendering good," "let's make the debate about a minor's personal life," other stuff of that nature).

-any argument that attempts to police what a debater wears or how they present (this includes shoes theory/formal clothes theory).

-any argument that denies the existence/badness of oppression (i don't mean i won't vote for "extinction outweighs." i mean i won't vote for "genocide good.")

if there's anything i didn't mention or you have any questions, feel free to email me! if there's anything i can do to make debate more accessible for you, let me know! i really love debate and i coach because i want to make debate/the community a better place; please don't hesitate to reach out if there's anything you need.

Wesley Loofbourrow Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Tracy Lu Half Hollow Hills HS East

Ritvik Mahendra Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 2:32 AM CDT

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

T.J. Maher Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue October 4, 2022 at 3:44 PM EDT

tjclarksonmaher@gmail.com

CHS 2020/UVA 2024

Experience:

I lone-wolfed for a school called Chantilly in Northern VA. I qualled to TOC my senior year (2020), but did not attend because of COVID. I went to six tournaments total in my career and broke at the four I went to my senior year. I am currently a physics major at the University of Virginia (Wahoowa!)

General Debate Philosophy:

I care about technical execution more than argument content. But part of good technical execution includes providing strong warrants for your arguments. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and ideologically neutral, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for an incoherent, unwarranted, blippy argument just because it was conceded and quickly extended.

That being said, I have no problem voting for things I personally do not think are true so long as they are well-supported in round. Fields like analytic philosophy, formal logic, and pure mathematics have a long history of rigorous justification for strange and counter-intuitive, seemingly paradoxical ideas. I’d say, if you can find an academic literature base for a wacky philosophical idea, go for it. I'm probably a better judge than most for the out-there stuff in debate.

Decision Philosophy:

Debate is a game. It's a game with a lot of potential educational value (depending on how you approach it), but it's a game nonetheless. At the end of the day, I have to submit a ballot and pick a winner. I don't want to do this arbitrarily, so I will vote on the flow and only on the flow unless there is an ethics issue (offensive language, evidence ethics, etc.)

Miscellaneous Stuff:

I obviously don't care if you spread but I do actually need to hear/understand your arguments. I have zero qualms about voting on arguments I don't understand and if I have to keep calling clear I'll eventually just give up. I'll give you a little more leeway for arguments that you're reading and have sent to me (can go a bit faster for 1AC/1NC offs, pre-written analytics, etc.). I also have a minor hearing disability so I'd really appreciate it if you could be louder than your baseline volume.

RFDs are cleanest when one side is winning offense on the highest layer linking to some framing mechanism. Do explicit analysis sequencing, preclusion, weighing, impact calculus, and clear interactions for maximum resolvability. The less of that you do, the more my RFD sounds like me rambling about my own intuitions. I don't like giving those RFDs because they make me feel like a bad judge. Debaters don't like those RFDs because they feel very arbitrary. Please make life easier for everyone by making the debate resolvable.

I'm not super picky but I prefer arguments to be extended by content (as opposed to label, i.e. "sub-point A"). I have a pretty low threshold for extensions if an argument is cold conceded. It can help rhetorically to re-explain a warrant in a dropped argument; if you're using it to take something out in a way that's not blindingly obvious you absolutely need to explain the interaction/implication. If you do not extend an argument I'm ignoring it in future speeches.

I try to default to paradigms implicitly accepted by both debaters because sometimes lack of extensions make debates nonsensical, unless I assume some kind of framing mechanism. For example, if both sides go for theory and no reads or extends their voters, I'm just going to assume its fairness/education or both (depending on the context

Please no new 2NR/2AR arguments. If you read RVIs bad in the 1NC and the 1AR concedes that, then the 2NR does not get to suddenly change strategy and go for RVIs good.

I did debate, and continue to participate in the debate community, because it is fun. It is not fun when people are mean and rude to each other. I really do not want to be dragged into blood feuds, so please try not to read arguments about debaters out-of-round conduct. (Disclosure shells and things like round reports are fine since theory is distinct from casting aspersions on someone's character).

I don't like blippy independent voters that are not linked to some framing mechanism. I actually think Reps Ks/Word PICs can be interesting, the impact just needs to be linked to a coherent framework, preferably of a normative nature. I really don't like voting on arguments that claim that a loss is a punitive measure against someone's behavior: I think

Speaks:

Speaks are arbitrary. Trying really hard to standardize them but I'm a human and fundamentally not programmed to think numerically. Basically I'm shooting for:

30 = no note, perfect; 29.5+ = near flawless; 29-29.4 = very good, going to break for sure; 28.5-28.9 = decent, some errors, may break; 28-28.4 = mediocre, still developing; 27.5-28 = major technical/strategic errors; 27.5 = weird/bizarre things happened that baffled me

(once watched a debate where the 1N ROB was "vote for the debater who does a TikTok dance,” and the aff conceded after the neg did a TikTok dance; that gets something around a 26.5)

Wioletta Majernik William G. Enloe HS

Shailesh Mangal The Golden State Academy

Last changed on Tue February 9, 2021 at 11:36 AM PDT

For the most part, you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. Although I am relatively new and have only been judging for about a year, I would like to see you all put up a worthy fight and have fun while doing so. Don't try to win by pulling dirty tricks but be fair and smart and grab the opportunity when it presents itself.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. My email is shailesh.mangal@gmail.com It will help keep me focused. Using the file share feature on online platforms is also OK. (Let me know that you've sent me your case.)

I prefer medium pace of speech, if you absolutely have to rush fast because thats the pace you have practiced your content with, I can follow.

Make sure your entire face is visible in the camera while you are speaking and you make an eye contact.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Some debaters have asked me for "time signals" (like in extemp?) - this will result in my not taking notes. If you want this, be aware that I won't be taking notes and you'll risk me forgetting the content of your speeches.

Debate:

Arguments that are obviously racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are not OK. (Read: you will lose if you run them.)

I do not prefer theory. I find it unnecessarily complicated and usually designed to make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Similarly, there isn’t much that is “off limits” (other than that which is listed above…pay attention to that). Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you probably be sad at the end of the round. In the end, I want to see your own conviction of the arguments and witty counter arguments.

Brett Martinez Thales Academy - Apex None

Cameron McConway The Woodlands High School

Last changed on Thu October 1, 2020 at 3:55 PM CDT

Update for online tournaments:

Please slow down and make an extra effort to be clear for these rounds online. I will not call clear online since then we miss some of what you are saying.

I did LD for three years at Cy-Fair HS outside of Houston, Texas, qualifying to the TOC and NSDA nationals, and reaching semifinals at TFA state. I worked for McNeil HS in Austin while attending the University of Texas, and I teach at NSD and TDC.

Conflicts: McNeil HS, Cy-Fair HS, Lovejoy KC, Pembroke Pines MC

TL/DR:

I'd rather evaluate your style of debate than have you do things you're not comfortable with because you think it's what I want. My paradigm is here so you get an idea of how you want to pref me and how to debate in front of me, not to dissuade you from any particular type of debate.

Feel free to ask me questions at cameronmcconway@gmail.com.

If I am judging you at 8 am or late after a long day of rounds, please make an extra effort to be clear and organized. I'm tired and I want to make sure I can evaluate the debate as best as possible, so this is in your best interest!

The trend of taking forever to send speech docs (and then wait for everyone to download them) is extremely annoying. I haven't figured out the best way to check this, so for now I'm asking that you come to round with the aff ready to send, and have docs ready to send as soon as prep ends before the NC. If you think you might have wifi trouble or problems with your email, a flash drive would speed this process up.

General:

I will vote on most arguments as long as they aren't morally objectionable or blatantly false. I will do my best to be tab, but I think there is a level of plausibility necessary for me to vote on an argument (for instance, I won't vote on an obviously false I-meet). It will be difficult to convince me to vote on a super blippy apriori or an argument that turned into a voting issue after being one line in the original speech.

I'd like to be on the email chain in case I need to look at a card, but I will flow you not the speech doc.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just slow down on tags/author names and interps/advocacy texts.

T/Theory:

I am comfortable evaluating theory under whichever paradigm you prefer, so long as you justify it. I have found that I enjoy a good theory debate where there is a lot of weighing and internal links.

I am not a fan of disclosure debates, especially when the violation is unverifiable or the wiki was down. That said, there is a difference between a debate about disclosure vs a debate over open source or round reports, and I would much prefer the former.

Ks:

I read both high theory and identity politics. I feel comfortable evaluating most K debates but I strongly prefer debaters err on the side of overexplaining/not relying on jargon rather than assuming that I am familiar with the literature they are reading. These debates tend to either be excellent or my least favorite.

I enjoy K affs, but I do think if you are nontopical you need to a) win that being nontopical is legitimate b) have an evaluative mechanism and c) have offense under that mechanism. I am happy to listen to unique/innovative K affs regardless of their topicality, though I am also happy to listen to T debates against them. I think these can be interesting debates.

Recent observation: I find positions that rely on premises like "performative contradictions good" or "debate itself bad" to be unpersuasive. Not positions that criticize the current iteration of competitive debate (I am fine with that), but rather I think there is inherent value to the act of debating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on high theory authors like Baudrillard, because I will and I have, but I do think your interpretation of these authors should be compatible with your performance.

LARP:

I think that high level LARP debates tend to be more difficult to evaluate because a lot of debaters do not do sufficient weighing or impact calc. I enjoy well done LARP debates, just please do good weighing.

Framework:

I enjoy framework debate more the longer I judge. Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps and err towards overexplaining the dense philosophical warrants, because these things are difficult to flow at your top speed.

Speaks:

I start around a 28.5 and go up or down depending on in-round strategy and skill relative to the tournament. Speaks tend to be over-inflated and relatively arbitrary, so I try to give speaks with influencing who clears in mind. I like speaks as a way to reward well-executed or particularly clever strategies.

Charles Mcevoy Rothesay netherwood school

Last changed on Sun February 14, 2021 at 1:12 PM ADT

Hi, I have been coaching Debate for over 10 years and have been involved with debate, Model UN and Reach for the Top/College Bowl for longer than that. I have judged at the local and national level. Most of my experience has been with Canadian Parliamentary though I do have reasonable experience with LD and Policy Forum. My preference for LD is vigilate et discite (watch and learn).

During Constructive, be respectful. Be simple in delivery. I am not prepared to sit through an avalanche of facts or dozens of contentions designed to overwhelm an opponent. Such an effort is not meaningful dialogue. It is not civil discourse. It is unnecessary and will not score any points with me. A few contentions developed and presented well will score much better than an individual who unleashes a torrent of facts and claims in the hopes that one or two are dropped by an opponent. 'Whataboutism' is not a valid defense.

Speed kills. If I cannot follow because of your pace, you have already lost. I will warn no more than twice with 'pace' or 'speed'.

Simplex sigillum veri

During CX, if you ask a question then you should expect and allow an answer. Needlessly cutting off your opponent is unwarranted. However, aimlessly running on with a response as means to meander through other possible contentions does not bode well with me. Consider any dilatory efforts as penalties.

Avoid fallacious arguments. You win nothing since in such circumstances. Sound logical arguments supported with sound credible evidence is what best supports contentions. Emotional appeals or personal attacks are not the basis for a substantial case.

Lastly, I more concerned about novel approaches to the issues under investigation. Where you merely repeat the talking points of every other speaker, you are not demonstrating sound analytical skill.

Low score can and should win a debate if the situation warrants. I would rather award the weaker speaker with a sound case.

Curran McQuade Holy Ghost Prep

Arik Mendelevitz Hire 8 rounds

Ian Mikkelsen Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 10:52 AM EDT

Experience

Current Director for DFW S&D. I did LD/Policy/PF for HS (primarily Policy and LD) and so have experience with either format. I also competed for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit with some policy here and there as well in college. Short of it is that I have experience with most argument styles and formats so you should be fine with whatever you want to run. I generally judge LD if I judge at all, so I've written this paradigm for that format. If there are any questions due to me not judging you in LD, feel free to email/ask about those prior to the round.

In addition, prior to anything about debate argument preferences, if at any time a competitor feels uncomfortable/unsafe, you are free to contact me via email or other means if you would prefer it to not be voiced in round.

My email for chains is ianmmikkelsen@gmail.com , please include me.

Important Notes

I'm using this section to note a few things that are probably important in terms of general style, more than specifics of arguments.

Speed - I'm generally fine with speed so long as it works for everyone in the round. I should note that between debate for however long and my time in various graduate programs, I now suffer from fairly consistent hand and wrist pain that sometimes flares up to the point that I can't type all of the arguments given at a top speed. To accommodate this, I will generally listen along while reading the speech document, and copy it over to my flow as it happens. If you are adding analysis or giving the rebuttal, I would recommend slowing down to a quick, but not spread, speed if you would like me to make sure to get all of the analysis you give. I have yet to be in a round where analytics are both understandable and not capable of being typed, but if for some reason that occurs, I will say clear/slow.

This all being said, as a personal preference, I do enjoy a single comprehensive strategy that is carried throughout the round more than a spread of options that then get whittled down through conditionality/kicking theory. Not to say that I'll be knocking speaks or actually upset/annoyed by the latter, just a personal preference.

Speech documents - Related to speed, but somewhat different, I have noticed that there are times where individuals will send a speech document that contains most of their analytics, but fails to include a few independent voters. If you maintain a top spreading pace, and simply blaze through a sudden independent voter analytic that was not included in record time, I'm unlikely to grant it to you. If you slow down for its delivery and note that it is not in the document, I will flow it and include it at that time. I generally dislike being forced into these types of judgement calls, but the convergence of tech issues, difficult in having consistent audio quality, as well as just accessibility concerns, means I'm not sure how to adjudicate a round where by the time a concession of these arguments happens it's too late to identify whether it was just missed or something else impacting the round.

Theory/T

I'm generally fine with whatever theory position so long as it is relatively well developed. I generally view it as whether it is a theoretically good as a precedent and not as an instance of this specific round (i.e., you can win potential abuse arguments), but only if the argument is developed to claim that there is a fundamental shift in strategy due to just the presence of arguments (didn't run x really good argument because y theoretically objectionable choice removes it as a viable option). That being said, that is typically only on more stock theory. The more specific the theory is to a condition that only happens under either the specific resolution or within a specific round the more I need the theory to focus on in-round issues.

Kritiks

I'm good with most critical arguments and theorists. I ran too much of Agamben, Cap, Lacan, and other language k's. Identity based frameworks are more what I've gotten into with my actual studies and research post-undergraduate, so I'm familiar with the authors (as well as having had researched them for debate), but generally only ran that literature when the topic for the round made it more related to the political as opposed to the ontological claims of the literature. I will listen to the ontological criticisms that come from it, but generally found that my attempts to contribute to that aspect was less helpful than preferred due to a lack of experience and understanding personally.

Tricks

I'll be honest, I'm not exactly sure what a "trick" is in debate. From what I can tell, it is either a fairly specific and complex bit of theory/logic that is predicated entirely in the game of debate (willing to listen to that) or the term that individuals use for one liners that come without the explanation of what precisely they mean or how to evaluate it. Due to the time differentials of speeches, spikes in the AC which are meant for expansion in the 1AR make sense to me, but if the argument is underdeveloped upfront my general reaction is to either 1) disregard expansion if it isn't explained until the final speeches and doesn't seem immediately obvious from what was said or 2) to give the expansion but also allow an expansion of arguments against it. I've voted based on not understanding or following arguments before and am generally willing to do so, but would vastly prefer being able to have the full argument as that generally makes everyone happier.

Philosophy

I've read most of the "stock" philosophers from traditional LD, gotten deep into Foucault, Hegel, Marx, and other European authors, and have used my time after debate to get into identity frameworks that I didn't focus on as much as I should've. I've noticed that some philosophy aff/neg will sometimes run entire cases that take works from well before the concepts of the resolution were even discussed and attempt to apply them to the recent developments. My general sentiment on this is that it can be done, but that it is probably preferable to spend the time of research on finding what philosophical arguments are based in the literature, and then find the foundational texts afterwards. It is difficult for me to accept an application of books written in the early 20th century (and sometimes prior) to the development of recent technologies, especially when the literature applying those theories to these developments is generally fairly rich itself, over someone who has more topic specific discussions of the literature. But, I can be persuaded otherwise on this.

Michael Miller Montville

parth misra Memorial High School

Graciela Mohamedi Brookline High School

Eshwar Mohan Cardinal Gibbons

Last changed on Sun February 14, 2021 at 2:36 PM EDT

AHS ‘18

UM '22

I did LD and some PF for 4 years at American Heritage School and broke at some national tournaments (Yale, Harvard, Blue Key, etc.), got a couple of bid rounds, and quartered at states, for what it’s worth. I judge at circuit tournaments when time and preference permit.

TL;DR: Read whatever, if it has a warrant I'll vote on it. That being said, below is a ranking of my comfort level in terms of being able to accurately evaluate debates involving certain arguments. For PF, just weigh properly and don't assume I know the topic and you'll be fine.

My email is eswarsmohan@gmail.com

1: FW/Tricks/Theory

2: LARP/Substance

3-4: K/High theory

5-Strike: Performance/ID Pol

This activity isn't mine anymore, so it isn't right for me to restrict what you read; just be nice to each other, don't be problematic, and have fun.

General: I don't care what you read. I would prefer you did what you were best at as opposed to trying something you're not as good at just to adapt. I wasn't amazing at flowing as a debater, so please go slow for things like interp texts, tags, plan texts, other important arguments etc. I will vote on any argument provided it has a warrant that I can understand. I don't believe in embedded clash, so I'm not going to vote off of arguments you didn't actually make. My strength as a debater was in philosophy and theory based positions, so obviously my main knowledge base is in those areas, meaning that although I feel fine voting on your random Badiou K, it will require more explanation because I am most likely not well versed in the literature.

Defaults: These are things I will default to absent an argument made regarding the issue.

- Theory is drop the argument, no RVI, competing interpretations

- Meta-theory > Theory, T and Theory are the same layer

- Truth Testing

- Presumption affirms, Permissibility Negates

- Theory > ROB

Speaks: I think that debaters win the round based off strategy, technical proficiency, and argument generation. I view speaks as a way to reward those skills, as well as a way to reward cool/unique/interesting positions that debaters read in front of me. If you want good speaks from me, do any/all of the things mentioned above.

Notes: Random thoughts I have about debate.

- Clarity and organization are your friends

- I will yell clear as many times as necessary, but if I have to yell slow more than twice then I'll lower your speaks

- For the sake of my sanity please signpost clearly

- Be efficient about flashing/emailing/etc. It's super obvious when people are stealing prep and I'll lower speaks

- I think you should flash/email/etc. pre-written analytics, if you don't I'll lower speaks

- For disclosure violations, make sure all the screenshots have time-stamps and are on one document

- Prep stops when the doc has been compiled, it should be flashed/emailed/etc. shortly after

- If you spread/read disclosure theory/read some egregiously obfuscated K arg against a novice, really just make the round inaccessible and/or alienating to an opponent drastically less experienced than you, I will NUKE your speaks (do not test me on this)

- Same note above goes for any discriminatory comments made in round

Samir Mohsin Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 18, 2022 at 7:02 PM EDT

Carroll High School '19

UT Austin '23

Email: samir.smohsin@gmail.com (add me to the email chain pls)

----- if you are flight 2 pls have the email chain already set up!-----

If the round starts early or on time I'll bump both debater's speaks.

Don't call me judge etc. its awkward, just call me Samir.

-If you want a marked/cut version of a doc that comes out of your prep/CX - just flow

Background: Hey, I'm Samir. I debated for 4 years at Carroll High School and qualified to TFA State and the TOC my senior year. I debated on the national and local circuit so I have no preference between progressive and traditional debate.

General:

- most comfortable with policy args, some theory (as long as its not absurd/concerns what your opponent is wearing or how they dress), and basic phil

-I don't have the greatest understanding of Ks - explain them to me as if I were a 5 year old - same thing goes with more complex/less common phil

-I find myself getting lost or confused often in k aff vs framework debates - don't blitz thru every arg on the lbl and breaking the debate down in later rebuttals will help me be not as confused

-wont vote on args that are blatantly offensive

-s l o w d o w n with online debates, I can't follow super high speed over zoom calls so start off at 60% and work your way up to 80%

-I think reasonability almost always needs a brightline and am not really sure how to evaluate it without one

Other stuff to note:

-I think disclosing at a minimum level is important (first 3, last 3) but for other types of disclosure (full text, open source etc.) I'll just evaluate the arg like a normal theory shell.

-I'll flow along with the doc but don't use it as a crutch to be unclear. If I have to yell clear a couple of times I won't drop speaks but if there's no effort to improve clarity I will.

-please be kind to your opponent, some sass is fine just don't be rude

-compiling the doc is prep but emailing it isn't

-friv theory/tricks are fine and I'll evaluate them like any other argument but I'll have a lower threshold for responses to them

-Super long overviews always mess up my flow bc I'm not sure where to put them; either tell me where to flow them or just make them shorter

-If you've already sent cards in a doc for ur constructive then just send later cards in that same doc

-China authoritarianism good args are kinda iffy for me as a Muslim, feels like they justify the ongoing Uighur oppression and that's not something that sits well with me personally.

How to get better speaks:

-good weighing

-ethos

-having a good understanding of the args ur reading

-good strategy/collapse

-nuanced argument interaction

-being funny

-tasteful adlibs

Updates for 2020:

-I'm a bit new to the format of online debating but here are a few things to keep in mind: 1. Record your speeches locally (on your phone, laptop etc.) in the event the call drops/wifi issues - I think allowing debaters to redo speeches/guess how much time they had left is kinda sketchy. 2. If your mic is unclear, its not your fault. I'll do my best to let you know by saying "clear" and won't penalize you for it.

-Go a bit slower bc online

Keilina Monteiro Do Canto Hire 8 rounds

Brendon Morris Lexington HS

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 2:19 AM EDT

Hey, please add me to the email chain crownmonthly@gmail.com.If you really don't want to read this I'm tech > truth, Warranted Card Extension > Card Spam and really only dislike hearing meme arguments which are not intended to win the round.

PF and LD specific stuff at the bottom. All the argument specific stuff still applies to both activities.

How to win in front of me:
Explain to me why I should vote for you and don't make me do work. I've noticed that I take "the path of least resistance" when voting; this means 9/10 I will make the decision that requires no work from me. You can do this by signposting and roadmapping so that my flow stays as clean as possible. You can also do this by actually flowing the other team and not just their speech doc. Too often debaters will scream for 5 minutes about a dropped perm when the other team answered it with analytics and those were not flown. Please don't be this team.

Online Debate Update

If you know you have connection/tech problems, then please record your speeches so that if you disconnect or experience poor internet the speech does not need to be stopped. Also please go a bit slower than your max speed on analytics because between mic quality and internet quality it can be tough to hear+flow everything if you go the same speed as cards on analytics.

Argumentation...

Theory/Topicality:

By default theory and topicality are voters and come aprior unless there is no offense on the flow. Should be clear what the interpretation, violation, voter, and impact are. I generally love theory debates but like with any judge you have to dedicate the time into it if you would like to win. Lastly you don't need to prove in round abuse to win but it REALLY helps and you probably won't win unless you can do this.

Framework:

I feel framework should be argued in almost any debate as I will not do work for a team. Unless the debate is policy aff v da+cp then you should probably be reading framework. I default to utilitarianism and will view myself as a policy maker unless told otherwise. This is not to say I lean toward these arguments (in fact I think util is weak and policy maker framing is weaker than that) but unless I explicitly hear "interpretation", "role of the judge", or "role of the ballot," I have to default to something. Now here I would like to note that Theory, Topicality, and Framework all interact with each other and you as the debater should see these interactions and use them to win. Please view these flows wholistically.

DA/CP:

I am comfortable voting on these as I believe every judge is but I beg you (unless it's a politics debate) please do not just read more cards but explain why you're authors disprove thier's. Not much else to say here besides impact calc please.

I am a philosophy and political science major graduate so please read whatever you would like as far as literature goes; I have probably read it or debated it at some point so seriously don't be afraid. Now my openness also leaves you with a burden of really understanding the argument you are reading. Please leave the cards and explain the thought process, while I have voted on poorly run K's before those teams never do get high speaker points.

K Affs:

Look above for maybe a bit more, but I will always be open to voting and have voted on K affs of all kinds. I tend to think the neg has a difficult time winning policy framework against K affs for two reasons; first they debate framework/topicality most every round and will be better versed, and second framework/topicality tends to get turned rather heavily and costs teams rounds. With that said I have voted on framework/topicality it just tends to be the only argument the neg goes for in these cases.

Perms:

Perms are a test of competition unless I am told otherwise and 3+ perms is probably abusive but that's for theory.

Judge Intervention:

So I will only intervene if the 2AR makes new arguments I will ignore them as there is no 3NR. Ethics and evidence violations should be handled by tab or tournament procedures.

Speaks:

What gets you good speaks:
- Making it easier for me to flow
- Demonstrate that you are flowing by ear and not off the doc.
- Making things interesting
- Clear spreading
- Productive CX

What hurts your speaks:
- Wasting CX, Speech or Prep Time
- Showing up later than check-in time (I would even vote on a well run theory argument - timeless is important)
- Being really boring
- Being rude

PF Specific

I am much more lenient about dropped arguments than in any other form of debate. Rebuttals should acknowledge each link chain if they want to have answers in the summary. By the end of summary no new arguments should made. 1st and 2nd crossfire are binding speeches, but grand crossfire cannot be used to make new arguments. *these are just my defaults and in round you can argue to have me evaluate differently
If you want me to vote on theory I need a Voting Issue and Impact - also probably best you spend the full of Final Focus on it.
Make clear in final focus which authors have made the arguments you expect me to vote on - not necessary, but will help you win more rounds in front of me.
In out-rounds where you have me and 2 lay judges on the panel I understand you will adapt down. To still be able to judge fairly I will resolve disputes still being had in final focus and assume impacts exist even where there are only internal links if both teams are debating like the impacts exist.
Please share all evidence you plan to read in a speech with me your opponents before you give the speech. I understand it is not the norm in PF, but teams who do this will receive bonus speaker points from me for reading this far and making my life easier.

LD Specific

2AR should extend anything from the 1AR that they want me to vote on. I will try and make decisions using only the content extended into or made in the NR and 2AR.
Don't just read theory because you think I want to hear it. Do read theory because your opponent has done or could do something that triggers in round abuse.
Dropped arguments are true arguments, but my flow dictates what true means for my ballot - say things more than once if you think they could win/lose you the round if they are not flown.

Quick Bio

I did 3 years of policy debate in the RI Urban Debate League. Been judging since 2014. As a debater I typically ran policy affs and went for K's on the neg (Cap and Nietzsche mostly) but I also really enjoyed splitting the block CP/DA for the 2NC and K/Case for the 1NR. Despite all of this I had to have gone for theory in 40% of my rounds, mostly condo bad.

Stacey Motley William G. Enloe HS 8 rounds

Justin Mourguet Newport High School

Last changed on Wed June 16, 2021 at 9:30 AM EDT

*This will likely be somewhat confusing, please make an attempt to read it and I am more than willing to clarify before the round, but will not repeat it verbatim*

Background: Competed in PF, CD, and IX for Wauseon (OH), also debated in college for Heidelberg University. In addition, I competed at the 2018 Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl National Championships. I coached at Wauseon (OH). I am a Ph.D. candidate in applied economics at Western Michigan University. I have judged more extensively than my Tabroom indicates, as I judge every weekend, Ohio just does not use Tabroom. Primarily judge/parli Congress as such you will find my Congress paradigm much longer. Served as the Parliamentarian for the final round of Congress at the 2020 and 2021 OSDA State Tournaments, as well as the semifinal of the 2021 NCFL tournament .

Conflicts: Wauseon (OH)

FAQs

1. What should I call you?

You can refer to me by name. I also use he/him pronouns. Preferably don’t call me “judge”, that’s a bit strange.

2. Are there arguments you won’t vote off of?

If something is clearly false or abusive, I probably won’t vote for it. If you’re being blatantly offensive, I might drop you.

meme cases, do NOT run a meme case.

3. Should I shake your hand?

Please do not do that.

4. Do you disclose?

I will follow the rules of the specific tournament in regards to disclosure and oral feedback. But generally, if the tournament allows I prefer to disclose.

5. In Congress (and other debates) should I wait for a sign of readiness from you?

No, you may assume that I am always ready

Anything else?

Be respectful of your opponent. Ask for their pronouns and use them correctly. Don’t do things that will clearly and unnecessarily make the round unfair to your opponent (ie., don’t spread or run tricks against a novice or something like that. You won't auto lose me but I will be annoyed!) Have fun with it, it is supposed to be fun.

Feel free to ask me questions about anything on here or anything not on here.

General Debate Info

Speed:

I find myself very comfortable with any level of speed presented by debaters. However, do not use speed to be abusive to your opponents.

Argument Styles:

Link your arguments to the resolution. Do not leave me wondering what your case has to do with the resolution, and why you’re reading it. If you are reading something off case make me at least acutely aware as to how it links to the resolution.

Tableau Rasa:

The short answer, yes. If you say something inaccurate I will note it on the ballot, but will not consider it in my decision unless your opponent mentions it. Refer also to FAQ 2.

Evidence:

Yes, you should cite evidence to support your claims. Claims supported by evidence, empirics, and philosophy, along with developed warrants, links, and impacts will go a long way to winning my ballot.

CX:

Run as inventive of a case as you can properly defend in the round, maintaining proper respect for the activity and your opponents.

Give an off-time road map and signpost clearly in all speeches.

LD:

You should have a balance of hard evidence and philosophy within your case.

I will listen to and tolerate most any argument you run in front of me.

A Value and Value criterion are integral.

If you are going to use an uncommon philosopher/ school of philosophy make sure you flesh out the details of it, and do not simply name drop a philosopher.

PF:

Err on the side of more traditional arguments, stick to the resolution. I prefer to not judge a round of Policy with the time constraints of PF.

I like Grand Cross, I know some do not, but I believe it serves a purpose.

I do not enjoy being an interventionist judge in PF or LD.

Congress:

Modeling proper decorum is incredibly important, respect your opponents and the event if you fail to maintain proper decorum during the round you will fail to be high on my ballot. Included in having proper decorum is an understanding of the rules outlined in Parliamentary Procedure.

I tend to rank presiding officers quite well, it can even serve as a tie-breaker between two competitors when I conduct my pref ranking of the chamber. If you preside over an effective chamber it will boost your rank, if not it will drop you pretty far, as an ineffective presiding officer can quickly derail a chamber.

This is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. The sponsor and the first negative speaker should set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework. As the round moves on from these first two speeches, I should see an increasing amount of refutations and original views on the legislation. As we move into the last 1/3rd of the debate cycle there should be an increasing amount of extensions countering the other arguments of the other side of the debate while still maintaining an original point of view and analysis. When arguments for both sides are exhausted or when the debate becomes stale, I should see the crystallization of the debate, and speeches that refute the whole of the opposition not just individual speakers bringing the debate to an effective conclusion.

Effective cross-examination involves attacking your opponent’s arguments and exposing the flaws therein. Do not waste time by asking favorable questions of your opponent, use the time to ask them questions which clash and help to hash out the debate. Ask questions in a succinct manner, there is no reason your question should take half of the questioning block to ask. The same applies to long-winded answers, do not waste the questioning period. Defense in cross x is more straightforward because all I want to see is that you can defend your argument to the point where it is still standing strong after cross x. I prefer calmer cross x over yelling, remember that decorum is integral to successful Congressional debate.

I rank based on the totality of your participation in the chamber this includes decorum, questions, answers, speeches, and general participation(voting, making/seconding motions, etc.). Basically, participate and move the debate further and you will likely end up high on my pref ballot.

you tried

to call the

question

but you

said

"i motion"

not "i move"

-Rupi Kaur

Isabella Nadel BASIS Independent Silicon Valley Independent 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 17, 2021 at 3:50 AM CDT

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

Jacob Nails Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Geeta Namdhari Plano East Sr. High

Ganapathi Natchukuri New Jersey Independent

Javier Navarrete Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Mon April 22, 2024 at 6:38 PM CDT

I feel comfortable judging just about any position/argument, having judged/taught a variety of debate formats over the years. I always prioritize that debaters read what they're most comfortable with, so they can focus on strategy and argument interactions. Other than that, having debated and coached mostly HSLD, I'm looking for good 1AR/2NR interactions and debaters who can draw a strong position by the end of the round just by giving an overview than having to win every single line-by-line.

While I’ve started to prefer "truth > tech", I’m not a fan of grandstanding the 2AR/NR convincing me to make new weighing arguments for you. This isn't football but a Hail Mary can't be both your first and only touchdown in a game you’re already losing by a lot. I just prefer you to have confidence in the integrity of your arguments.

I expect you to be mindful, respect pronouns/boundaries, and not make the space unsafe for anyone involved.

Good advice from Tyler Gamble's paradigm: "My flow is poor. The faster you go the more arguments I will miss. I am truth over tech. I will most likely not vote for a technical interaction that hasn't been heavily explained in the round. If you are grossly misrepresenting technical arguments to another debater, I reserve the right to not vote on those arguments."

Here are some specifics that might give you an idea about my defaults, but they're always subject to change depending on the round:

LD:

Relevant against novices/less-experienced debaters: Don't try to overly surprise your opponent with something intentionally complex unless you're ready to explain it to them. The same goes for any other kind of tricks you'll try to read. As a spectator, I still love tricks, but as a judge I'm more than happy we're past the need for unnecessary apriori's hidden in the 1AC.

Misc: I mostly went for the K/phil in high school, and feel pretty caught up with most literature bases that have translated well from policy. I think NCs with good phil frameworks are underutilized and makes the 2NR even easier than it can already be at times.

Policy:

My threshold for good evidence is always a bit higher for this event. It's December so I'm expecting your caselist to be more than developed now, and I will more than likely reward you in speaker points if a team can impress me with some good evidence that make the debate cut and dry by the end of it. That requires impact weighing so give me good weighing analyses, tell me why your evidence is better, and I'm sure that will get you further with quality over quantity of evidence.

Feel free to read non-T/K's positions, and at the same time, go for framework and just be persuasive in both about what debate means as an activity and what the threshold for arguments should be.

Public Forum:

I need you to weigh, give me good impact analysis, and make sure to boil down the debate with a clear winning strategy by the end. The best teams have always prioritized when to read evidence and when to avoid it. I think defense is really important in PF, and can oftentimes help you get ahead against overtly extensive line-by-line that might not be as substantial or clarifying for the round. I can be more technical about these debates than I am about policy/LD.

I'm aware there's a growing number of "progressive" strategies in PF and I'm more than happy to judge policy positions, and theory, and have teams spread; that said, please be aware that ostracizing your opponents isn't always the best strategy and you should proceed with caution against less experienced debaters.

The only debate advice I ever stood by is that crystallization always goes a long way in any round and you should zero in on arguments you expect me to talk about in the RFD. You want me to spend most of my time looking at the arguments you expect me to care about, or else I will default to the highest impact and potentially evaluate an unclear debate.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

GAYLE NELSON Cottonwood Classical Preparatory School

Kailey Nicholson Hire 8 rounds

Deserea Niemann Lakeville South High School

Sabrina Niyamathullah Milpitas High School

Chloe Noh Hire 8 rounds

Paloma O'Connor Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2021 at 3:09 PM EDT

I did LD for 3 years at Cambridge Rindge and Latin (MA), graduating in 2016. I almost exclusively competed on the national circuit, and qualled to TOC senior year.

HARVARD 2021 UPDATE: I will not be judging probably any prelims, but I will be in the elim pool. I haven't judged on this topic, so please explain any topic-specific references. I also truly cannot flow anymore, so pref accordingly.

I used to have a fair number of preferences & thoughts about this activity, but I'm far enough out that most of those preferences have faded. I will listen to anything that is not horribly messed up and try to intervene as little as possible. Please be nice to each other!

Extraneous things that may/may not be relevant to you:

My flowing ability has significantly regressed over time, which means I'm probably not the judge for a very fast tricks debate (though a slow one is fine). Similarly, you should significantly slow down for theory interps and other important analytics.
I won’t call for cards unless 1) there’s a genuine dispute over what the card says or 2) I fell asleep/experienced a comparable loss of consciousness and missed it
I read a fair number of Ks back in the day, but you should not take that to mean (a) I know what you're talking about or (b) you do not need to explain your arguments
The fastest way to lose my ballot is to concede a bunch of preempts in favor of reading a few cards that "implicitly answer" those preempts. Please just make implicit comparisons explicit, so I don't have to drop you on a silly argument because you didn't pay lip service to it. This is particularly relevant to topicality debates.
I was fairly flex as a debater, and appreciate well-designed neg strategies that capitalize on a variety of styles.
If you say "game over" in your speech, it's "game over" for your speaks! :)

Have fun, be nice to each other, and feel free to ask me any extra questions before round.

Blake Ochoa Lake Travis High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:50 AM CDT

I debated at Lake Travis High School for 4 years (2015-2019). I did mostly LD, but have some experience in PF, Policy, and even Congress. I debated TFA, UIL, NSDA, and TOC circuits. I ran a lot of queer theory, ableism, and LatCrit.

Put me on the email chain blake.a.ochoa@gmail.com

For PF

You can run whatever you want but don't think that because I'm an LD judge I will hack for theory or other progressive arguments. If anything it is a strong uphill battle because you will have so little time to flesh out a shell. If you think genuine abuse occurred you are better off just saying that on case than trying to read a full shell.
I need the summary and final focus to write my ballot for me. Tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs. If you don't do these things then I will have to try to figure it out myself and you are less likely to like my conclusion than if you just tell me how stuff breaks down.
You can go moderately fast but if you are just trying to go fast to scare/keep your opponent from engaging you won't get good speaks.
Refer to the speaker point scale and procedural things below, most of it still applies to PF.

Be nice and have fun!

Short Version

I will vote on anything as long as I get a clear explanation of it, but frivolous theory/tricks will be a steep uphill battle for you. I did mostly K debate, but I am well experienced in LARP, Theory, and traditional stuff as well. I won’t hack for you just because you read a K. Impact everything to a framing mechanism. I like to have a very clear explanation of what argument operates on what layer of the debate. If you go over 350 wpm you run the risk of me missing arguments. I’ll say slow/clear/fast/loud twice before it affects your speaks. I give speaks based on strategy, but being polite is a side constraint. Be nice and have fun!

Speed

I did circuit debate, so I have a decent understanding of speed, that being said slow down on important texts, analytics, and dense T/Theory analysis. If you flash me evidence I don’t care how fast you read the evidence as long as you aren’t clipping. I probably cap out around 350-400 wpm, so I might miss things over that. If you make a winning argument at that speed and I miss it, that’s your fault, not mine.

Note: I’m ok with 1AR K’s, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

This was my favorite kind of argument to read in high school, but for that reason it is wise to ensure you are familiar with any K lit before you read it in front of me. I will judge based on how you articulate the argument, but I might look frustrated when you say incorrect things. I have a MUCH better understanding of identity K’s than high theory stuff, but both need to be clearly explained by the end of the 2N. I feel iffy about PIKs in general, if you want to read a PIK in front of me make it clear why perm doesn’t solve in the NC. To vote on K’s I need a clear link, impact to a framing mechanism, and a thorough explanation of the alt. If you wind up kicking the alt and going for the K as a linear DA, I will hold the link explanation to a higher standard.

T/Theory

Note: I’m ok with 1AR theory, but for convenience I will use neg speech titles

I have a strong understanding of how T/Theory functions, but I didn’t read it much, so if you are going for nuanced/ specific offense make your analysis twice as clear as you normally would. I will definitely vote if I see clear abuse, but frivolous theory will likely get an eye roll and higher expectations of what your analysis has to accomplish. I think in-round abuse outweighs potential abuse. If you go for norm-setting arguments it will be harder or you to win the theory flow (You need to win why you winning this particular round will set a norm). I will always look to paradigm issues before I analyze what happened on the T/Theory flow proper, so don’t waste your time going for a shell if you are gonna concede drop the argument. I DO NOT like a 1AR collapse to RVIs. If this is your best option in a round, go for it but I will be bored and sad.

Tricks

I have a complicated relationship with tricks. I guess I would vote for them if they are conceded, but you won’t get very high speaks because I don’t think that there is much educational value to debates that come down to “They conceded the B subpoint of the second justification of the 5th presumption spike.” That’s gross.

Basically if you want me to vote for tricks that are piffy and serve no purpose other than to confuse your opponent, I’m not down. If you supplement tricks with something more in depth go for it.

The only scenario in which I will drop you for tricks is if your opponent has a disability that is explained and you STILL go for tricks after that explanation is made.

If I am going to vote on a DA with no advocacy associated I need a strong explanation of a solid link and an impact to a framing mechanism with reasons why it outweighs. I don’t think there is much else to say here.

I like interesting counterplan debates, meaning that the more nuanced/fleshed out your CP the better. I think it is important that the CP text itself makes sense and isn’t a paragraph long. PICs are ok but please make them distinct enough from the affirmative to keep the debate interesting (like actor changes are fine but delay/consult Cps make me sad). I need a net benefit, solvency advocate, and an extended CP text to vote on it. A conceded perm is damning so don’t concede perms please.

Phil

My understanding of philosophical frameworks is pretty average. I have a good grasp on Kant, Hobbes, Butler, and other common stuff, but if you are going beyond the normal stuff, that’s fine but PLEASE explain it clearly. Regurgitating buzzwords will make me go “>:( .” As long as I can use your framework as an impact filter, you’re good. I do, however have an ethical problem with tricky framework for the sake of being tricky for the same reason I think Tricks debates aren’t educational. To clarify, if you can’t explain the framework to a fifth grader in the time of cx, it’s too tricky. Also, if your framework justifies morally reprehensible things and you defend those things, I won’t vote for you and your speaks will suffer.

Value/Criterion

Although I did a lot of circuit debate, I still really appreciate a good value/criterion traditional debate. Framework analysis is much more important in traditional debates, but I don’t think reading a counter framework is necessary. However, I want every impact to be contextualized in terms of some criterion/standard. If you don’t articulate why your impact outweighs your opponent, I will have to intervene and then no one will be happy.

Speaks

30-29 Seriously impressed

29-28 Pretty good, you should break

27-28 Some glaring strategy issues

27-25 Your strat was DOA or you said something overtly problematic or mean

25-0 You were so rude/ problematic that it made the debate feel unsafe

If you make me think about the debate space/society in a different/enlightening way I will slightly inflate your speaks

Procedural Things

Here are my defaults, the lower on the list they are the less time it needs to change my mind

Role of the ballot is the highest layer of framework
Case can be cross applied to T/Theory
No RVIs
Reasonability
Drop the argument

I do NOT have a default for layering offs (K before T, etc) so you NEED to do this analysis in front of me

I am generally tech/truth unless you are just lying (like saying that global warming isn’t real)

I will be disappointed/drop speaks if you do this

Not clearly answering cx questions (especially status of advocacies and what layer comes first)
Are occasionally rude (sass is ok, but teasing is not)
Not giving content warnings before possibly triggering arguments are made

I will drop you if you do this

Say or do anything explicitly exclusionary
Act egregiously rude or blatantly mean towards your opponent (if you don’t know if what you do is ‘egregious’ or not it probably is)

Michael Omole Hire 8 rounds

Spencer Orlowski American Heritage Broward HS

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 7:11 AM EDT

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Isaiah Osazuwa II Hire 8 rounds

Jacob Palmer Durham Academy

Last changed on Thu May 23, 2024 at 10:38 AM EDT

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I did 4 years of policy at Emory. I also did 4 years of LD at Durham and have coached at Durham since I graduated. I mostly judge LD but occasionally find myself in a PF or Policy pool, so most of this paradigm is targeted at LDers. Regardless of the event I am judging though, I will do my best to adapt to you and evaluate the round solely off the flow. TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. If you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate you will do well. I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity.

Specifics

Policy – Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. The 2nr in LD is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or sandbagging cards that should've been in the 1nc, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr should just be in the 1nc.

T – Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be very sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. You need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than some other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find most TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Cap and other kritiks can also be good. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love phil debates. I think these debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

Sai Pamula Montville

Kedar Pandya Hire

Last changed on Wed December 29, 2021 at 7:42 PM CDT

kedarpandya459@gmail.com

I debated for Elkins High School in Policy and LD. I primarily worked with the K and IR Policy, and that is what I most like to judge.

CX/LD:

TLDR: Tech>Truth. High threshold on T arguments against K affs. Fave debates are K aff v K, or Big Stick v Big Stick.

K and K aff: (top of the pref) -

Know your K. I'm not going to hold small semantic mistakes against you, but if they start adding up it'll make it much harder for me to vote. I'd like to think I know most kritiks and the arguments of their authors, but I'm always open to new ideas.

I need specific arguments about the assumptions/structures you critique, and how they relate to the affirmative. That goes for everything, but generalities tend to pop up in link, K solves case, and A2 Perm arguments.

I also like multi-layer interaction. I default to the idea that debate is kids learning things by arguing about them in a room, not a vacuum. That means real issues that you critique outside of debate exist in debate. K debaters rarely take the jump from critiquing a problem that exists in the world to finding its implications for the round. "What's the point of argumentation skills if they just end up being marketized to serve the constant expansion of global capital," is something I really like to hear an argument about.

More creative/out there the K, more speaks you get. Especially if I feel the need to google the author.

DA, CP, Policy Aff: (top of the pref for IR) (#2 or #3 for anything else)

I give some leniency towards the conclusiveness of a card vs. the purported conclusiveness of a tag. Well-researched is always better than randomly cobbled.

T/Theory: (near the bottom of the pref is this is usually your 2nr)

High threshold against K affs, Default to Reasonability and have to be convinced otherwise, I need actual explanations of terminal impacts beyond the 1nc shell.

Phil: (in the middle of the pref)

I didn't read much of this, but I don't have any predispositions about it.

Speaks: Dune and well-done Star Wars references will get you a 30. Being egregiously mean, or engaging in any phobic/rac/sex-ist behavior will get you a 25. Creative IR and K arguments, especially if I've never heard the scenario or author, will get you a 30.

PF - Be as fast and progressive as you want.

Rodrigo Paramo Greenhill School

Last changed on Tue April 16, 2024 at 3:07 PM CDT

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.
i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.
Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.
please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.
i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page
IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.
Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature
affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

Prashant Patil BASIS Peoria

Amber Payne Hire 8 rounds

Tathiana Pierre Jericho Unaffiliated

Megha Prasad Walt Whitman

Last changed on Wed February 9, 2022 at 10:49 AM EDT

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

Tracy Pridgen Stuyvesant High School 8 rounds

Fiorella Esther Pulido Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 10:58 AM EDT

(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....

Affirmative :

1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.

4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.

NEGATIVE :

1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .

2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !

3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *

Samita Rahaman The Bronx High School Of Science

Last changed on Fri October 15, 2021 at 3:52 PM EDT

Hi! I debated in LD for 4 years at Bronx Science and graduated in 2018; I occasionally judge for them despite being extremely out of the loop with this activity.

Add me on the email chain: rahamas1@bxscience.edu

2021 Edit: I am behind the times when it comes to this activity and the last thing I want to be is an obstacle between debaters and the ballot. I would like to believe that I'm more competent than parent/lay judges but I am definitely not someone who knows everything about debate + my memory is horrendous to the point where I've probably forgotten about 90% of things debate related. Take everything you read after this with a large grain of salt. Rather than completely deleting chunks of my old paradigm I decided to blatantly strike through them and write edits next to them just for you to get an idea of how much my judging ability has deteriorated, so you can be the judge of how you want to pref me.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a judge, your quality of arguments and your strategy matters the most to me. Quality of the argument refers to whether you have a claim, warrant, and impact. Once you've both presented your arguments to me, the rest of the time is spent watching what you decide to do with this jumbled situation to prove to me that you are the better debater and that I should write the ballot in your favor.

That being said, I don't particularly care about what you want to run but that doesn't mean I understand everything. I want you to be able to run whatever you're most comfortable with but it becomes your responsibility to articulate your arguments clearly to me (this is especially important if you're running any heavy lit/high theory) 2021 edit: do not run any of that because my brain is too small to get it now sorry! I know for a fact there are things that I never encountered in my own rounds as a debater, but that doesn't mean I'll turn away from them now. No, if I don't really understand whatever it is you're running, I have no reason to vote on it unless you can give me a really good one. I think this all roughly translates to "I'm trying my best to be a tab reasonable, fair judge here."

Simultaneously, I do not want to hinder you due to my limited knowledge. I would advise you to pref me lower if you like tricks/theory a lot because you are better off with a judge that can actually provide you with constructive feedback on how you can improve your skills within this genre. I want you all to become successful debaters but if I can't give you the feedback you're looking for, that becomes a problem. While I want to be a non-interventionist judge, at the end of the day if I don't understand something I simply will not vote for it. Other than that though, I'm fine with handling some shells in your round and whatnot.

I'm fine with evaluating everything else (phil, larp, Ks, or traditional) but err on over-explaining heavy phil. I'm not going to go on a tangent about the importance of clear overviews, extensions, weighing, etc. because those are things you should already find to be essential in addition to being respectful to each other.

COVID Edit: It's a lot more difficult to maintain integrity when rounds aren't in person anymore.

- Please time both yourself and your opponent in the event that one party gets disconnected the other can pause time then and we'll work from there once reconnected.

- I have terrible hearing and everything being virtual doesn't help with that. Please start off slowly (much slower than you would in person) and gradually speed up from there. Slow down on taglines especially. I actually won't tell you to slow down or clear regardless of how your speech sounds because I've found that it's a pretty big interruption to your speech (I'm sure you all know what two people talking over each other in Zoom sounds like) so be careful - if you're being unclear I simply won't flow. I'm pretty expressive with my face so you could probably guess when that starts happening.

- If you're taking an obnoxiously long time to set your doc up or whatever I'm taking points off

Venky Ramasubramanian Riverside HS

Anupriya Ramraj Granite Bay High School

Alexis Rangel Ardsley High School

Last changed on Fri February 12, 2021 at 1:32 PM CDT

Conflicts: Keller High School

**UPDATED 2/9 FOR HARVARD**

UT Austin '24 - International Relations, Government and French

I want to be on the email chain, alexis.rangel@utexas.edu

Basic overview:

I have been out of debate for a minute and have not been judging long. If you explain things well and are clear about what your argument says/what it solves/why I should vote for it things will probably be okay. However, I am giving a fair warning that I do not have much experience with extremely dense K lit, Phil, and tricks/friv theory. If you want to run those arguments regardless of my inexperience, I expect a very clear explanation and good analytics.

Don't expect me to fill in the blanks for any arguments. I'm going to vote for the debater that makes me do less work lol. It is your job as the debater to explain your argument well.

Slow down quite a bit more than you would for an in-person debate. I'm fine with speed but this online format sucks for that, and I don't want to miss important args. Sending analytics will make me a very happy judge and I will be very generous with speaker points if you do that.

Write the ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Weigh and crystallize and collapse. Extend throughout the round, and keep my flow clean. IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND AN ARGUMENT BY THE END OF THE ROUND I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT, no matter how many reasons why you *think* you won. If you cannot/do not explain your arguments to me like a child and make sure it is understood I have no problem not voting for it.

I'm nice with speaker points I suppose. Unless you're super unclear (whether that be enunciation or not explaining your argument well), you very obviously disregarded my paradigm, or just are generally rude during the round, I'll probably give you pretty speaks :)

The more absurd the argument, the lower my threshold is for responses. This is true across all types of debate, but especially theory.

I love (!!!!!!) a good CX. Be sassy and witty, don't be rude, but if you're entertaining/strategic during CX I'll be extra nice for speaker points.

Jada Bourne heavily influenced my judging preferences. Large parts of my own paradigm are copied and pasted from hers. You can look at her paradigm here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=86097

Argument by Argument yay

Tricks/Friv Theory- If your go-to strategy is to run tricks or friv theory strike me or run a different argument. Not that I have a vendetta against those types of arguments/debaters, but I never dealt with those arguments much as a debater so the round will likely end with me confused and you upset with my RFD, and nobody needs that.

Ks - I have a basic understanding of the most popular K lit (antiblackness, fem, cap, setcol, etc) but it is certainly not my specialty. If you want to run these arguments, do so with caution, understand what you are reading, and explain it to me as if I am a 5-year-old. If I don't understand what the K is saying by the end of the round I won't vote for it. Also, if you don't have the agency to read it, expect an L 26.

LARP - I can understand and evaluate basic LARP fairly well, it's the debate I had the most experience with in high school. If you rely heavily on tech just do some good crystallization for me at the end of speeches and keep the flow clean. GOOD WEIGHING IN THESE DEBATES IS IMPORTANT. I find myself really unconvinced by TJFs and I often don't know why they even matter

Phil - Uncomfortable with Phil for the most part if its in any form except traditional LD. I can follow along and figure it out, but you have to take it slow and over-explain things

Theory - I definitely can understand a theory debate if it happens, but complex, East Coast theory is not what you want to go for in front of me. If theory is your go-to strat, I'm probably a 4 for you. If theory is strat you go for when there is actual abuse, you can pref me however. If this flow gets even remotely messy I'm just not going to evaluate it. I default no RVIs and competing interps

Sangeeta Rao Carrollwood Day School

KUMUTHINI RATNASINGHAM The King's Academy 8 rounds

Toby Raybould Brookline High School 8 rounds

Vidya Reddy North Allegheny

Last changed on Sat February 13, 2021 at 8:10 AM EDT

Hi, my name is Vidya Reddy and I am a LD Parent judge for North Allegheny High School.

NOTE : My 2012 - 2016 Judging is not listed as we were not digital then.

I feel a great joy and take pride in volunteering my time as Parent Judge, as I learn so much just sitting and listening the student’s perspective about all the current Topics. Seeing these kids decked out in suits ready to harness the great power of communication inspires me. It takes just one debate round to realize that the skills learned in speech and debate will ultimately reform the world for the better.

I have been judging LD ,in the year 2012-2016 for 4 yrs when my Daughter was in debate team and I resumed my Parental Judging Role 2019 – Present for my younger child. Both are LD Debaters.

I basically judged the LD & PF and couple of times judged the Prose/Poetry

LD- I am more experienced in LD, my both kids have taught me well in flowing the debates and to give the constructive Feedback. I Have better understanding of LD Debate Mechanics. Most important for me to win my vote is to uphold and support the Value & Value Criteria with proper Crystallization. I will Judge based on following Framework

Burden of proof/Value structure/Argumentation/Resolution/Clash/Delivery

I like to hear a well-organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation.

a. Burden of proof - Which debater has proven his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle by the end of the round? No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution.

b. Value structure – Which debater better established a clear and cohesive relationship between the argumentation and the value structure?

c. Argumentation – Which debater better presented his/her arguments with logical reasoning using appropriate support? Which debater best utilized cross-examination to clarify, challenge, or advance arguments?

d. Resolution –Which debater best addressed the central questions of the resolution?

e. Clash – Which debater best showed the ability to both attack his/her opponent’s case and to defend his/her own?

f. Delivery – Which debater communicated in a more persuasive, clear, and professional manner?

SPEECH :

The speech should be either to inform or persuade. Showcasing the voice, passion for the topic and confidence in delivery.

OI - Different types of literature into one cohesive performance, clear motivated blocking, living in the character.

Extemporaneous - Looking for 3 good points and sources to back it up.

Declamation - Language elevated, inspirational, elegant. Speaking with confidence and authority.

Interpretation (HI, DI and Duo) - Entertaining, humorous, bringing characters to life, confidence and delivery.

Peyton Bryan Reeves Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 21, 2024 at 3:18 PM CDT

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Lawrence Reilly Molloy HS

Zachary Reshovsky Mercer Island High School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM EDT

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing ð˜¾ð™¡ð™šð™–ð™§ weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

Carly Rieger West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Sat November 7, 2020 at 10:09 AM CDT

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.

I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

epistemic confidence
competing interps, no rvis
theory > k > substance
pragmatics > semantics
truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
I am fine with flex prep.
I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

Tara Roberts Westlake

Tibor Rohacs Princeton

Annika Ruda Hire 8 rounds

Mireya Cosima Sanchez-Maes Hire 8 rounds

Aashir Sanjrani Scripps Ranch High School

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 4:18 AM CDT

Aashir Sanjrani:

----For Prefs-----

Ks - 1-2

Policy/Larp - 2-3

Theory 3-4

Phil - 4-6

Tricks 4-6

History: Hebron HS '20, UT '24, qual to the TOC in policy (2N), debated for one year in college

email chain- Aashir.debate@gmail.com

*If there are any residual questions about how I would evaluate an argument more specifically feel free to ask

**PLEASE READ- I always preferred judges to be honest so here's my attempt to do so:

1. I was really only successful in policy. This means I can flow, but I may not be familiar with LD's meta or LD lingo being thrown around- if you have any doubts feel free to ask me before round

2. please take your time to clearly articulate arguments and most importantly make clear implications- I feel judge instruction is severely underutilized by a majority of debaters- rather than being confused about why I viewed an argument a certain way, tell me how to view it and what it means for my decision making.

3. I will try my best to get every argument I hear- but remember, everyone, makes mistakes- it never hurts to repeat something you think is important- doing so only increases the chances that it makes it to your judge's flow and subsequently into my decision

**EDIT for 2023/2024 Season

1. Topic- keep in mind I haven't done any topic research- I'm confident you're familiar with the topic literature so please explain it thoroughly

2. Speed/Spreading- SLOW DOWN for analytics pls- I've noticed some debaters spread analytics, and to be honest I don't flow fast enough to keep up with that- for me specifically I would say analytics should at around 50% your top speed. if you want it on my flow I advise you to articulate it clearly

3. Interps- for your sake and mine, please slow down on the interp at the very least- It doesn't have to be a conversational speed, but should not be spreading either- I've noticed I'm usually annoyed by casual transitions that are difficult to follow- what I mean is for example if your reading condo bad on the cp flow- make it very clear where you're transitioning to theory- this is easily solved by slowing down and giving clear articulation- if possible I would even a pause at the start of the transition or change your tone so it's easier for me to identify a switch is occurring.

Paradigm:

"If you want my ballot, this is a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it, and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

Most of my debate experience was with Ks, however, I will try to evaluate each argument to my best ability.

------For LD-------

Phil and Tricks- I never really debated these, but it's not like I won't vote for it- I will, however, require more explanation than a judge more familiar with the argument.

Defaults- all of these can be persuaded differently you just need to give me a reason why:

1. No RVI on Theory- IE theory is no risk (Same for T)

2. Competing Interps > Reasonability

3. Default Framing = Util

4. Tech > truth (in all instances except for things like racism good, sexism good, etc)

Speed:

a) "are you okay with speed/spreading?" - yeah just try to be clear

b) please, do not spread analytics at 100%. I doubt I type faster than you speak

Please don't forget judge Instruction- beyond just telling me what you're winning (and why you're winning it) give me the implication of the argument (IE what that means for my decision)- doing so makes my judging experience much easier and subsequently makes your routes to the ballot a lot more clear

Oksana Savransky Bergen County Debate Club

Jennifer Schraeder Archbishop McCarthy High School

Stephen Scopa American Heritage Broward HS

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 5:15 AM EDT

I coach at American Heritage and have been coaching privately for 6 years now. My email for speech docs is: Stevescopa23@gmail.com .

Conflicts for TOC external to my school: Cary Academy, David Huang

Shortcut:

Philosophy - 1

Theory - 1

Non-Identity Ks - 1/2

T - 2

Identity K's - 2-4 depending how you read them

Policy - 5/Strike

General: I'm tech > truth, read whatever you want. I have a low threshold for extensions of conceded arguments but they need to be extended in each speech. Also, if I don't think an argument has a warrant I won't vote on it. Speaks are inflated by good strategy and execution and capped by how bad i think your arguments are. If you're reading a bunch of unserious nonsense you might win but most likely won't get good speaks.

- I default to truth testing if no other RoB is read.

- I don’t evaluate embedded clash unless there is an argument as to why I should or the round is irresolvable without it.

- I do not believe you get new 2n responses to AC arguments unless an argument is made for why you get those arguments in the NC.

- I will vote on disclosure theory. Just don’t read it against novices or people who clearly don’t know what it is. I also won’t evaluate it if it becomes clear/verifiable the debater’s team won’t allow it or other similar circumstances.

- Don’t need to flash analytics to your opponent but I would like them

- Even if something is labeled an independent voter, if there is no warrant for why it is one, I won’t evaluate it as such. I also don’t really think “x author is sexist/racist/etc so you should lose” makes much sense. I’ll vote on it if you win it but it’s an uphill battle.

Theory: Go for it - this is probably one of the easier things for me to judge, and I really enjoy judging nuanced theory debates. Slow down on the interpretation a bit if it’s something more nuanced. I don’t “gut check” frivolous shells but obviously if you are winning reasonability then I will evaluate through whatever your brightline is. Also, for counter interps “converse of the interp” is not sufficient, if your opponent says “idk what the converse is so I can’t be held to the norm” I will buy that argument, just actually come up with a counter interp.

I really like RVIs and think they are underutilized so if you successfully go for one I will be happy.

T: T debates weren’t nearly as nuanced when I debated so you may have to explain some of the particulars more than you may be used to. I am also a sucker for semantics.

T “framework”: To be honest I am agnostic on whether affs should be T. I probably lean yes, but I also find non-T affs pretty interesting and fun to judge at times. I don’t consider an aff that doesn’t defend fiat but does defend the principle of the resolution non-T, and I am less persuaded by T in that sense.

Tricks: Sure, but speaks might suffer depending how they're executed and how dumb I think they are.

Ks: I really enjoy a good K debate. Especially psycho, baudrillard, nietzsche, and cap. The more specific the links the better. In a relatively equal debate i dont think i've ever voted for deleuze.

Larp: Probably the worst for this but will listen to it, just need to explain things a little more than you normally would. It is probably an uphill battle to win util vs other phil or Ks but possible if that's your thing.

Framework: This is my favorite type of debate and really want it to make a comeback. Great speaks if you can execute this well and/or read something that interests me.

Speaks: I average probably a 28.5. I assign them based on mostly strategy/execution with a little bit of content, but content can only improve your speaks not make them worse really (with the exception of disclosure probably). I like unique and clever arguments and well executed strategy - I would not advise you to go for a tricks aff if you are a larp debater just because I am judging you, do what you do well to get good speaks. I am also somewhat expressive when I think about how arguments interact so be mindful of that i guess. Also, if I can tell your 1ar/2n/2ar is pre-written your speaks will probably suffer.

How do I get a 30?

I won’t guarantee a 30 based on these strategies but it will definitely increase your chances of getting one if you can successfully pull off any of the following:

1) Going NC, AC really well with a phil NC

2) A good analytic PIC

3) Any unique fwk/K/RoB that I haven’t heard before or think is really interesting

4) A true theory shell or one I haven’t heard before

5) Execute a Skep trigger/contingent standard well

6) Successfully going for an RVI

Lay debates: If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time - win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes.

Maya Sekhar Brookline High School None

Jenni Shaw Brookline High School 8 rounds None

Aashrill Shazar Northern Valley HS Independent

Jharick Shields Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 5:07 AM CDT

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

Brinda Sinha Broad Run High School

Hena Sinha Syosset High School

Michelle Sleiman Riverside HS

Dr. Nicky Smith James Logan High School

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 10:07 AM PDT

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.com if you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Nick Smith Apple Valley High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:29 AM CDT

Updated 4/11/23 -I haven't judged circuit debates in a hot minute, don’t go your top speed and develop your arguments more thoroughly than you normally would.

Email for speech docs: smitnich91@gmail.com. Make sure there’s parity in document access during the round.

My background: I did LD for 3 years. I was the director of debate at Hopkins for 4 years, coached at St. Thomas Academy & Visitation for 2 years, and have been the head coach at Apple Valley since 2017. I’ve worked at VBI since 2012 and I’m currently the director of instructional design and curriculum.

· Good debate involves well developed arguments and genuine interaction/clash with the other debater’s arguments.
I’m not going to be able to flow twenty back-to-back 1-sentence arguments at 400 WPM. If I didn’t initially catch the argument, then I’m not going to evaluate it.

· Quality >>>>>> quantity of arguments.

· I’m going to be skeptical of arguments that start out as 7 seconds of content but suddenly become multiple minutes of a final rebuttal. If the argument isn’t adequately developed in the speech that you initially make it then I’m likely not going to give you credit.

· Generally open to most arguments, but don’t forget that this competitive activity is also an educational activity. I understand progressive argument mechanics, but don’t assume I’m up to date on recent developments in the meta.

· Strategies designed to avoid meaningful engagement probably isn’t given me evidence you are doing the better debating.

Speed

Nope |---------------------X--------------| Heck ya

Stock/Traditional

Nope |----------------------------------X-| Heck ya

Policy

Nope |-----------------------X------------| Heck ya

· I think Nebel T is correct but am totally game for y’all to have a throwdown on this.

· There’s this odd trend to stray far from the core of the topic literature for some far-fetched x-risk scenario. Not a huge fan of this trend.

· You have to establish a baseline of credibility for me to care about your scenario. @ folks reading extinction impacts on the standardized tests topic.

Philosophy

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· Cases should be built around the topic literature, not just the author/theory you want to read. If your contention is just analytics and/or cards written in a wildly different context than what the topic is about then it probably isn’t a very strong case.

· I think phil has mainly become a vehicle for tricks, which makes me sad.

Kritiks

Nope |-------------------X----------------| Heck ya

· I used to be a giant K hack because I love critical theory. Unfortunately, K debates have become increasingly convoluted and clashphobic.

· I think the aff should probably defend the topic. That doesn’t mean there’s only one way to interpret a topic. I’ll listen to non-t affs, but framework debates will be an uphill battle for you. Just reading a contestable 1NC link card isn't a very persuasive argument for you not having to defend the topic.

Theory/T

Nope |------------X-----------------------| Heck ya

· Theory/T obviously has a place in debate since debaters are true artisans at inventing & discovering arguments & strategies that skew the playing field or rob the round of any educational value.

· That being said, theory/T debates happen way more frequently than they should.

· Theory/T needs to be sufficiently developed in the first speech that the argument is made.

· If the violation is absurd or silly it isn’t going to pass my sniff test. But once the sniff test has been passed, I’ll evaluate the theory/T debate as tab as I can. Default competing interps. Neutral on RVIs.

· You need to actually show that the crime fits the proposed punishment. I think offering an alternative punishment to solve the violation is a criminally neglected response to theory/T.

Tricks

Nope |---X--------------------------------| Heck ya

· Winning through tricks is rarely evidence that a debater is doing the better debating. When a hyper-focus on strategy comes at the expense of having an enriching experience in the round then I get sad.

· I almost never vote on presumption/permissibility/skepticism since there’s usually a risk of offense.

· I default to comparative worlds and need some convincing to adopt truth testing.

MISC

An important note for progressive debaters: if you’re debating someone that is a traditional debater or significantly less experienced than you then you should adjust what you do so that there can be an actual debate. Don’t read a non-topical Baudrillard AC at 450 wpm against a new novice. Don’t have your 1NC be skep and a PIC against a traditional debater who hasn't had the opportunity to learn about the mechanics of such arguments. Slow down and/or read arguments that your opponent can actually understand. Use your best judgement. If I think that you knowingly made choices that functionally preclude your opponent from engaging then I may murder your speaker points and/or drop you.

I care deeply about inclusion and accessibility within debate. I’m more than happy to vote against debaters who engage in practices that promote exclusion or inaccessibility, even if they’re winning on the flow. I’ll be a tab judge until you give me a good reason not to be.

I will yell clear or slow once or twice; after that it is up to you to pick up on non-verbal cues. I expect you to make serious alterations to your delivery if I’m forced to yell. I won’t vote on an argument, even if it is in the speech doc, if I didn’t flow it or understand when it was initially read in the round. I’m a trashcan judge to have in the back of the room when the rebuttals are filled with hundreds of 1 sentence arguments (especially for T/Theory debates) without real clash, impact analysis, and framing.

Speaker Points: The factors I focus on for determining speaker points are: strategic choices, execution, and how persuasive I found your argumentation. My normal range is 25-30, with 20-24.9 being reserved for super rough or problematic debating. My speaker points are relative to the strength of the pool: 30 for champion level performance, ~28.5 for a performance worth making it to elims, and I aim for ~27.5 as an average performance.

Andy Snyder Kugnus ACTS

Abishek Stanley Dwight-Englewood School

Last changed on Thu November 18, 2021 at 12:52 PM EDT

camera update: 9/3/2021- I live in an apartment complex with spotty internet. So I will be defaulting to keeping my camera off during the speeches. If the speeches sound clear after the first two constructive lsu I’ll try turning my camera on. Also no need to ask me if I’m ready, just default that I’m ready, and if I’m not I’ll unmute myself and let you know.

TLDR: Not super in touch with recent trends in debate, and very heavily prefer policy. Speed is no problem for me, just start slower and slowly work up to about 80% Max speed. Please note if you’re reading Non T or Phil, please do a good job explaining it to me. Oftentimes in these rounds I’m not getting enough info about why I should be voting one way or the other. I do not disclose unless the decision was extremely easy. Otherwise I prefer to give detailed info on my ballot and am open for questions using the email chain that you sent me your case in.

1: LARP/ Substance

2: Kritik

3-4: Theory

5-Strike: Performance, High Phil

Add me to the email chain: abbusp@gmail.com (REMEMBER send me cards before your speech that you'll be reading. If you're spreading analytics send me that as well. If analytics will not be spread I don't need them in the doc)

1. Speed: Here's my take. I've been debating for a while so I can keep up with speed. HOWEVER, with everything being online clarity has become a HUGE issue. Please go much much slower than you normally would. You don't have to go at a lay pace, but just remember I only say clear twice, before I put my pen down. What I miss will be held against you.

2. Theory: Remember fairness and education come first. Debate is an activity about fairness, and theory is meant to address that. IT IS NOT meant to let you opt out of substantive arguments. For this reason, I don't really enjoy theory and RVI debates. Keep everything on the resolution. Theory just serves the purpose that the debater running the shell, lets me know the violation and why it should warrant dropping the other debater. The debater going against the shell, just defend yourself and move on, don't drop everything and go for winning off the RVI because it won't hold any weight for me.

3. Stylistic: I'm very lenient with speaker points and usually give extremely high speaks. Please give me concise voters in your final speeches. They will have the most magnitude for me because it allows me to determine what the main issues you are going for are. Please impact everything, don't just read random cards and move on. Also don't just card dump, I want to see you construct meaningful arguments.

4. VERY IMPORTANT: Please Read. Before your speeches I want the cards you will be reading. Too many competitors send the cards after their speech, at which point there is not enough time to evaluate the cards because the next speech has started. I want to be able to follow along as you read your cards. Please note that this means sign posting will be VERY important. If you're going 600 WPM, and not sign posting anything you've already lost me. SLOW DOWN On tags and authors. Let me hear those clearly before you ratchet up your speed. Any analytics or non cards not in the case doc need to be at a reasonable speed. You can spread what's on the doc.

Colin Stokes Brookline High School

James Stuckert Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Mon June 3, 2024 at 9:10 AM CDT

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Favian Sun Dulles High School

Last changed on Fri September 17, 2021 at 6:39 AM CDT

Hey, my name is Favian and I debated for Dulles High School for 4 Years. I got a bid round, but that's pretty much it. I'm willing to vote on functionally anything ranging from tricks to non-t Affs to policy arguments. I don't have any argumentative preferences and if you weigh/make smart arguments you will probably get the result you want. If an argument is conceded my threshold for extending it is pretty low. If I have 2 conceded contesting claims, I'll probably default to what was read first.

sun.skybird@gmail.com for email chain.

Quick Prefs

1 - LARP/Phil

2 - T/Theory

2 - Tricks

3/4 - Ks

Speed is fine. A little slower on analytics and anything not in a doc would be appreciated.

Policy Debates (Plans, CP's, DA's)

1] These can be fun to judge at a high level. I'd appreciate explicit impact weighing and evidence comparison

2] I'll boost your speaks if its a hyper specific plan that I haven't seen before late into the topic

3] I have a low threshold for extending the advantage in the 1AR especially with conceded warrants

K debate(General)

1] I'm most familiar with straight cap, but if you can explain coherently explain your theory of power, I'll vote on it. I should be able to understand what the alt does and why it solves after the 1n or cx at latest.

2] Alt solves case is massively underused and should be used more

3] I most likely do not know your lit, so err on the side of overexplaining

Phil debate

I can judge this. Basically, my A-Strat was Kant. I've also read/am pretty familiar with agonism, pragmatism, hobbes, virtue ethics, and more. That being said you can probably read whatever you are most comfortable for. Just err on the side of over-explanation in these debates if its extremely dense.

I love permissibility/presumption triggers :). I'm more used to seeing an actual coherent framework and triggers of permissibility or presumption if your opponents framework answers trigger them. I've been more receptive recently to straight up skep. Please read skep for fun debates.

Trix

These are fine too. Please read and extend warrants. I'm not going to vote on something I don't understand. Also, I'm prob gonna end up flowing the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR straight down in these types of debates because things get messy very quickly and flipping through flows becomes difficult, so there's a higher chance you get a decision you don't agree with if you make the debate messy (prob applies to every type of arg).

Theory

I enjoy these debates a lot, but they can get really messy really fast.

1] I don't really understand the distinction between what constitutes a shell being frivolous and what doesn't. I think that if an interp is truly frivolous or stupid then you should be able to respond to it easily. I will vote on any shell if it's won.

2] Weighing is what makes these debates resolvable. Please weigh

3] I am down to listen to aff/neg flex arguments. If you clearly implicate the affirming/negating is harder debate then that would make it easier for me to resolve the debate. A lot of the time tho, debaters will just go for affirming/negating is harder without implicating it which leaves me with an argument that I have to do implicit work which I don't want to do.

4] If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them. Please don't concede paradigm issues, they are a huge part of what makes a good theory debater good.

5] I'm inclined to accept 2ar weighing in 1ar/2nr shells.

Evidence Ethics

If you stake the round and you lose L25. If you stake the round and you win W30.

I think the violation should have to be pretty egregious for me to intervene. Egregious violations can include miscutting or taking parts of the middle of the card out, misciting stuff, clipping,etc. This shouldn't discourage you from staking rounds on Evidence Ethics by any means just be sure the violation is legit yk.

Speaks

Speaks are generally quite arbitrary. Feel free to ask for higher speaks in a speech and I'll probably give you good speaks.

If you win the debate while ending a speech with 1+ minutes left, I'll give you 30 speaks. I'm not taking time, so remind me.

Oliver Sussman Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 15, 2021 at 12:11 PM EDT

Hi! I debated for Cambridge Rindge and Latin in Massachusetts and graduated in 2017. Please add me to the email chain: ollieqs@gmail.com. I have fewer thoughts now that I'm not super involved, so here are just a couple important things:

I don't flow off speech docs, yet also have relatively poor spreading comprehension -- please slow down a little bit overall, and slow down significantly below that for analytics
I'll vote on anything with a warrant except for [awful thing] good; I was fairly "flex" as a debater
Defaults: presume neg, fairness is a voter, competing interps, drop the arg, perms are a test of competition (btw, in my view this means they don't need net benefits)
Prep ends when you're done assembling your speech doc, and I'll probably think you're cheating if you take more than my arbitrary standard for a reasonable amount of time to email/flash
I am not (consciously) biased against K's or K affs - I just don't think I'm very good at evaluating them. If you run them, please explain using clear, concise sentences with small words, and be very explicit about framework, weighing, and how the alt/advocacy functions
Affs should have a framework. If you don't read one, I'd be pretty receptive to a 1NC that reads any framework + args that you don't get to read a new framework in the 1AR
I'm ok with tricks that are "tricky" in virtue of having clever justifications/implications; I do not like tricks that are tricky because they are hidden and short. Also, I will not vote on tricks that genuinely make no sense (as in I truly couldn't explain the warrant in an RFD), even if dropped. Bear in mind: the more blippy it is, the less likely it is to make sense.

Random notes: I don't understand the need to distinguish permissibility from presumption. Permissibility is a subset of presumption. Also, I dislike truth testing vs. comparative worlds debates. Comparative worlds is just truth testing minus NIBs, so the real debate is just NIBs good/bad.

Things that are a waste of your speech time: prewritten overviews, extending the text of interpretations/voters/paradigm issues, self-evident theory internal links, "here's how the round breaks down"'s that are really just repetitions of every argument in the debate
Speaks bonuses: tech, being completely comprehensible, being friendly and having fun, giving me a debate I haven't heard before, having the smart answers to arguments rather than the obvious ones, sitting down early when you know you can
Speaks penalties: ASKING FOR A 30 (-1 speaks), yelling, general hubris, being rude, not disclosing, inefficiency, not understanding/actively misunderstanding your own arguments, being exclusionary to novices
Random things I dislike: waving your arms around in disbelief during your opponent's speech (I probably did this though don't @ me), using "we," referring to me by name during your speech

If you have questions about anything else, don't hesitate to ask!

Jeffrey-David Swift Holy Cross School

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 7:35 AM CDT

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Jim Sydnor Ramsay High School

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 7:43 PM UTC

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included. Tabroom file share and other mutually agreed upon platforms are greatas well!

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I judge a lot of LD and PF because of my local area, but entirely influenced by policy background. This paradigm is written with this in mind. I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I am convinced is a path to the ballot.

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" misses the point. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not time effective. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Riley Talamantes Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 4:53 AM PDT

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

Chur Tam BASIS Ahwatukee

Last changed on Sun February 14, 2021 at 5:39 AM MST

I was an LD debater for all 4 years of high school in Arizona, but I haven't been to a round in a bit of a while now. My judging style is therefore halfway between a lay judge and an experienced, progressive judge.

Just a few basic things:

-I don't prefer spreading, but I'm ok with it. Just make sure to include me and your opponent in the email chain (churtam7@gmail.com). If you're going too fast for my liking, I'll yell clear for you.

-I like debates that lean more towards the traditional side. That doesn't mean progressive arguments are off the table though. I enjoy both, but sometimes progressive formats go over my head, especially since it's been a while since I've debated. If you're gonna run anything progressive, make sure to explain it to me fully and clearly.

--on this note, please please please talk with your opponent prior to the round and ask for their comfort level in debate. If you run a 5-off case against a first year debater or disclosure theory against someone who obviously doesn't know what it is, I'm not gonna be happy and your speaks will definitely reflect that. I like good debates, not just good debaters.

-You have to tell me how I should vote, so build a strong ROB and framework. I really like philosophical framework debate, especially if you firmly establish how you're case fulfills the framework/ROB. However, winning the framework debate does not necessarily mean you win the debate overall. IMO, the most important portion of your last speech should be focused on weighing, key voters, and impact calc (if you guys are weighing impacts). I literally need you guys to tell me how to vote; I don't want to have the freedom of choosing which arguments I like more and voting off of them. Boo judge intervention

-Flex prep: I'm cool with it

-Theory: I'm ok with you running theory if you really have no other choice and your opponent is genuinely being abusive. There are some arguments I'm more inclined to vote for than others (ex. I hate PICs and believe they unfairly shut out the aff in a majority of cases. If you run PICs bad, I'm more inclined to vote for you than for a debater running disclosure theory).

-Speaker Points: basic 25-30, 25 being a very unconfident, stumbly speaker with a lot of grammar and clarity issues, 30 being one of my favorite speakers who can clearly and confidently relay his case to me and possibly my ancestors. If you present anything offensive or are generally rude in round, it's an auto 23 for me.

-I didn't think I had to say this, but if you have no warrant to your claim, regardless of the amount of evidence you have, I'm not gonna want to vote on it. You could have 50 cards saying that inflation doesn't increase despite wage increases, but if none of those cards tell me why or if you can't explain the economics to me, those claims aren't gonna matter to me. Give me rationale.

I'm definitely missing a lot of things. My apologies, it's been a while. If you have any questions prior to the round, feel free to ask me anything and I'll be happy to answer.

Eric Tang Lexington HS

Annie Thomas Frank Black Middle School

Conal Thomas-McGinnis West Des Moines Valley High School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 12:57 PM EDT

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I ~~of course~~ won't ~~on face not~~ vote on them~~, but please reconsider reading them~~.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Patrick Tolan Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 5, 2023 at 7:36 AM CDT

New Trier '19, Vanderbilt '23, former coach for New Trier. patrick@tolan3.com.

Rules/Broad Issues:

1. My strongest-held ideological bias is against arguments that either a. are read to avoid research or b. attempt to hide from clash. As such, LD shenanigans (tricks, bad theory, RVIs, philosophy arguments not supported by evidence, etc.) are rarely successful in front of me.

2. Argument comparison and judge instruction are more important than anything else. Most times you disagree with the decision, it's because the way you explained your arguments was not how you wanted me to understand them. Remedying this requires argument comparison, weighing, and framing how you think I should evaluate the debate.

3. Evidence is important to me and I read it frequently. I prioritize explanation over evidence, but when the content of cards is disputed/relevant or in incredibly close or murky debates, I use the text of the evidence to resolve an issue. This is the best way to reward both technical debating and high-quality research.

4. Clipping, misrepresenting evidence, soliciting outside help, intentionally not disclosing = L; no inserting rehighlighting; save bathroom/water breaks for the other team's prep time; flow clarification is cx or prep.

5. If you argue that death is good, oppression is good, or debate is bad, you will lose.

6. While I used to judge more often and coached frequently, I am no longer involved in argument preparation and am less familiar with the topic than I have been in the past. However, I can commit to giving you my full attention, taking additional care when writing my ballot, and providing good feedback.

Argumentative preferences:

I most enjoy technical policy strategies and judge very few K debates. I've listed some of my thoughts below.

Kritiks: How good I am for the K depends on how responsive it is to the aff. The link debate is crucial: I need a coherent reason why the plan is a bad idea, otherwise, thesis claims mean little to me because you have not answered the aff. Affs should answer the specific links the neg reads and leverage the case against them and the neg should answer the case and do impact calculus. I dislike "role of the ballot" arguments because they tend to absurdly stack the deck or assert an arbitrary role for my ballot.

Planless affs: I have and will continue to vote for them despite my belief that debate is a game and fairness is an intrinsic good that necessitates predictable limits for the topic. Affs often win when they have a counter-interpretation of the topic that solves for some predictable limits offense and delineates a role for the negative and lose when they cannot explain why the process of debating topics is bad. Negs often win when they avoid generalization and answer the case and lose when they are behind on line-by-line or over-generalize.

Policy arguments: Vast majority of debates I judge. It's most interesting to me and useful to you to develop solvency/link answers instead of impact defense. Zero risk is a tough sell. Great for nuanced case debate, specific advantage counterplans, and well-researched topic disadvantages. Less of a fan of (but frequently vote for) counterplans that compete on certainty/immediacy and politics disadvantages. Above average for impact turns like dedev, heg good/bad, warming good. Bad for first strike and spark.

Theory: Not exciting, but if it becomes the easiest path to the ballot, it should be the 2AR. Some thoughts:

a. Very neg leaning on 2 or less condo, pics; neg leaning on agent, consult, "process", delay, states, 3+ condo.

b. Conditionality is the only reason to reject the team, everything else is a reason to reject the argument. Yes judge kick; hard default to reasonability and to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments/weighing.

c. Most neg theory arguments (spec, new affs bad, etc.) are non-starters unless conceded.

Topicality: It's a voter, never a reverse voter, and likely a question of competing interpretations. I prefer these debates center around limits v. aff ground/predictability/overlimiting. Grammar can be a standard but needs to be explained like one and weighed against other impacts without asserting it's a prior question.

Neville Tom Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 10:14 AM CDT

Contact Info:

Email: nevilletom1@gmail.com

Facebook: Neville Tom

Basic Info:

Hi! My name’s Neville. I debated for four years at Strake Jesuit (got a few bid rounds during my career if that makes any difference), and I’m currently a freshman at UH. I’m still kinda working out the whole judging thing, so there’ll probably be some edits to this as time goes on. As such, please feel free to ask me any questions prior to round if you need any clarification about my judging style or my paradigm.

How to Win (the TL;DR version):

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

- Weigh: Do it. A lot. As much as you POSSIBLY can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate.

- Crystallize: Don't go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take time to provide me a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as we're winning this/these argument(s), we should win the round."

- Use Overviews: I find that debaters who use overviews effectively tend to win more rounds. It will definitely help me evaluate if you start off your rebuttal speeches with an overview, so... *shrug*. A good overview will have these three components: (1) explain which issues matter most in the debate, (2) explain why those issues matter most (why I should care about them most), (3) why you're winning those issues. After that, feel free to go to the line-by-line to do the grunt work. This will help clarify the round and will help me to focus on the issues that matter.

- Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you.

- Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any disambiguities that might affect my decision.

- Creatively Interpret Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit on first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. For example, if you win a Hobbesian framework and claim that the sovereign should settle ethical dilemmas, then feel free to make the implication that theory is illegitimate because it is not a rule that the sovereign has proposed.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Losing & Lower Speaks (Borrowed from Chris Castillo's paradigm):
1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too).
2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand, so don't just read some dense phil or K and expect me to understand it.
3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip. If I get conclusive evidence that you are purposely clipping, then I will down you.

Speed:

I’m fine with it – make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. Tags

5. Author Names

6. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

7. Analytics (in rebuttals)

**NOTE: I'm not asking to talk at a snail's pace when making analytical responses to arguments. However, if you blitz out ten 1-sentence analytics in the space of 5 seconds, I will not be able to catch all of them, so it would be to your betterment to slow down a bit. Additionally, it would help me flow analytics if you provide a verbal short 2-word tag prior to making your argument. For example, "A-point, no warrant: (insert argument here). B-point, missing internal link: (insert argument here). C-point, turn: (insert argument here). D-point, turn (insert argument) here." etc., etc. Feel free to be creative with your tags.

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategical decisions in round, but sounding pretty doesn’t hurt. I’ll start at a 28 and go up or down based on how you do.

Explicit Argument Preferences:

- LARP:

Read what you want. I'm cool with plans, CPs, DAs, PICs etc, as I tended to run them quite a lot as a debater. Just run them well.

Things that I would like to see in LARP rounds:

1. Rigorous Evidence Comparison. In my opinion, this skill is the key to being a good LARPer. It is much more compelling to me if you read one card about climate change being false and winning why your evidence is better than your opponents compared to your opponent spreading 18 cards on climate change being real.

2. Weigh. Do it as often as possible and make sure to do comparative weighing between your arguments and your opponent's. Prove to me why your arguments matter more than your opponent's. The earlier this debate starts, the better.

3. Advocacy Texts/CP Texts. I need to know what I'm endorsing.

4. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Case Debate is Amazing. People don’t do it enough. A 1N that isolates every internal link to solvency on the aff and line by lines the warrants + reads weighing and comparison for their turns vs aff solvency links / 2NR that collapses to the case debate and just gives a really good ballot story and explains all the interaction will really impress me. Similarly, a 1AR that deals with a heavy 1N press well and explains/weighs their own ballot story will impress me.

5. Small Plan Affs/PICs. These really interest me. Don't lose on the case debate as (a) if your aff/PIC is really a small one, they really shouldn't have any good answers to the aff/PIC and (b) it will indicate to me that you weren't all that prepared to defend your position to begin with, which will not be good for your speaks. Also, be sure to be prepared for the theory debate as I tend to err towards the abuse story of the interp, especially if they provide round-specific abuse stories.

- Kritiks

Again, read what you want. While I was definitely fascinated by critical literature and knew how to read and go for one, I admittedly didn't read Ks all too often, and so may not know/be aware of all the nuances of this style of debate. I have a decent understanding of some critical literature, including (but not limited to): Wilderson, Deleuze & Guattari, Edelman, Puar, Lacan, Agamben, Baudrillard, Tuck and Yang, etc.

I tend to view debates as an issue of testing the truth and falsity of the res (but this can easily be changed). Unless convinced otherwise, I view Ks similar to frameworks: to me, Ks filter what offense matters. As such, I view ROBs and FWs to function on the same level (you can convince me to think otherwise in round, but that's my view).

Things that I would like to see in K Rounds:

1. A Clear Link. I need to know explicitly what the K is criticizing. It doesn't matter whether it is the method, the reps, the discourse, or whatever. Just make clear to me that the aff has done something wrong and what exactly that is.

2. A Cohesive and Comprehensive Explanation of the Alt. Make sure to spend a decent chunk of time in the 2N explaining the alt. Explain to me (1) what the world of the alt looks like, (2) why this is net preferable to the aff, (3) why the alt solves the impact, and (4) why the alt is mutually exclusive. If you can explain all of these very clearly to me, I will be much more inclined to vote for you and will definitely boost your speaks.

3. Normatively Justify your ROBs. While not ABSOLUTELY necessary, I find completely impact-justified ROB somewhat uncompelling. Providing a conclusive ethical theory (this doesn't necessarily have to be justified by analytic phil - it can be justified by your critical author of choice) that provides a framework for your ROB will provide more nuanced discussion and will definitely give you a leg up in justifying your ROB as the framing mechanism. If done well, I'll give you speaks a big boost.

4. Make your K Accessible. Show me that you understand your K. Explain it to me (especially in the 2N) in easy-to-understand language. Also, even if you're using generic literature, use your K to provide a very close, nuanced analysis of the aff and paint a very detailed picture of the world of the aff vs that of the alt. This will help me to learn and understand more about the K and garner you good speaks.

5. Provide an Explicit and Unambiguous ROB Text. Give me an explicit metric through which I should view the round and adjudicate. If I can not make heads or tails of how to weigh using your ROB, I will use an alternate weighing mechanism. If the ROB is ambiguous and doesn't provide a clear way to weigh arguments, I will be much more compelled by a Colt Peacemaker-type shell that has a contextual story to the round, should it be read.

6. Notes for Non-T Affs. I have no problem with them. If that's your style, then go for it; just do it well and tell me why I should vote for you. However, if T-FWK/T-Defend the Topic becomes an issue, then be sure to: (a) provide good justifications for why you could not have been topical as I tend to be compelled by nuanced TVAs, (b) provide ample well-justified reasons for why the aff/your voters come prior to fairness and any impacts to it, (c) depict a clear picture of what your model of debate looks like and why it's net preferable to that of the interp, and (d) (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm), generate impact turns based on your aff, not just random impact turn cards like Delgado. I’ll vote on these external criticisms, but it’s much much less compelling and persuasive than your specific arguments about the aff.

7. Notes for Aff v.s. K. (a) PERM THE ALT. I will listen (and evaluate) any type of perm that you come up with, even "silly" ones like judge choice or method severance. (b) Go for "Case Outweighs", ESPECIALLY if the alt is very vague: I have not heard many great responses to this argument. (c) If your opponent's alt is vague, point this out: if I think you're correct in your assessment, I will be much more lenient in your responses to the K as a whole.

8. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Performances are fine, but it ends after your speech. If you try to play music during your opponent’s speech, for example, I will drop you. Believe it or not, I need to hear your opponent’s 1NC to evaluate the debate.

9. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm): Personal attacks in a debate round are unacceptable. I will not vote on an argument requiring someone lose for something that happened out of the round or out of their control, such as an attack on someone for their school/coach/affiliations. This is not limited to the K debate, but it is where I have seen it happen most.

- Phil/FW

As a debater, I loved the framework debate as I found the literature super engaging and the style super strategic. Unfortunately, the style seems to be falling out of fashion (#bringbackfwdebate), and so I am definitely down to judge this kind of debate. I'm decently well-versed with a lot of philosophies, such as: Util (duh), Kant (and Neo-Kantianism), Hobbes, Deleuze, Innoperative Community, Agamben, Particularism, Virtue Ethics, Derrida, Existentialism, Testimony, Levinas, Butler, etc.

Things that I would like to see in FW-heavy rounds:

1. Have a Meta-Ethic. Not only is this super strategic in excluding other frameworks (and thus, offense), but it also provides a great starting point to any framework.

2. Provide a Syllogistic-Framework. Explain why each premise (following your starting point) is necessarily the only possible derivation from the former proposition. This will make your framework (a) a lot harder to attack, (b) a lot easier to understand, and (c) a lot easier to defend, which is a definite win-win. It's a lot more compelling than random blips about "preclusion" or impact-justified frameworks. Also (especially if you're aff), draw out implications from your premises so that you can apply it to different scenarios. For example, if you've justified that there is an intent-foresight distinction (i.e. all that matters in judging the morality of an action is the intention behind it), feel free to draw out the implication that this means that you should not lose on theory because you did not intend to violate the shell. If you do this, I will definitely give your speaks a boost.

3. Use Skep. Do not be afraid to justify why skepticism is true as long as you justify why your framework resolves the problem. Use it to justify why your theory is better than others. If necessary, feel free to trigger skep in round for your strategic necessity - I feel that this is a legitimate strategy and that the onus is on your opponent to prove why it is not, should they have a problem with it.

4. Provide a Explicit Framing Mechanism. Be able to explain in simple terms (a) what your normative starting point is, (b) why your framework is the only one that can be drawn from this point, and (c) what actions your framework cares about. In other words, be clear about your view of what ethics is. Be sure that you provide a clear weighing mechanism that explains how I should evaluate arguments.

5. Don't be Sketchy. Make it clear to everyone what offense links and doesn't link. if in CX you do not provide a clear answer to your opponent about the offense that links to your framework, chances are that I won't know how to use your framework. As such, I will be very lenient to new reinterpretations of your opponent's arguments and will be much more like persuaded by a theory argument about vague weighing mechanisms.

6. TJFs/AFC are great. Read them if that's what you want. I will definitely be impressed if you manage to have decent nuanced theoretical reasons to prefer frameworks that aren't Util as I feel that this is an area that is (as of yet) unexplored by the debate community.

7. (Borrowed from Matthew Chen's paradigm) Framework hijacks are super strategic. Well explained and executed strats based around hijacks will get you high speaks. If you are able to provide good clash in defending your framework against a hijack, that will also garner you high speaks.

- Theory/T

This style of argumentation was one that I initially struggled a lot with. Later in my career though, I grew to love and implement it in a lot of my round strategies. If you are able to run theory and debate it well, I believe you will definitely go far in your debate career as it definitely improved my winrate and my capacity to generate arguments quickly as well as my critical thinking skills.

Things that I would like to see in Theory Rounds:

1. WEIGH and CRYSTALLIZE. Theory has a bad rep of being super blippy and unaccessible and I can't say I blame the people that feel this way. The theory debate tends to collapse down to who blitzed out the shortest analytic responses which tends to result in very, very messy and hard to adjudicate debates. Doing this can make you a "good" theory debater. However, in order to really get to a higher level in this style of debate, you have to master the essential skills of weighing and crystallizing, which are generally seen in the later speeches. These speeches on the theory debate should be less and less blippy and focused on the essential issues of that debate. In front of me, you should (a) provide an overview where you isolate how I should evaluate the theory debate and what offense matters under this framing, (b) explain your offense really well, (c) prove that your offense comes prior to your opponent's, and (d) clearly indicate why this offense links back to a voter. If you do this successfully, I will definitely give you high speaks.

2. Do Comparative Analysis between the World of the Interp and the World of the Counter-Interp. Use this framework to explain what the net benefit is in terms of the interp/counter-interp. Don't be afraid to explicitly say, "Under the world of the interp, there is (some net benefit). The counter-interp can't resolve this issue, and as such, you should reject it."

3. Default Theory Paradigms. I do not like to default to any specific issue in this style of debate, as I believe that it is your job to justify them. However, if there comes a situation in which I need to default, then here they are:

(a) Theory > K/ROB

(b) Fairness > Education/Other Voters

**NOTE: I will only default to these if these voters are read. If you do not read voters on your shell, then I will not evaluate the shell - the onus is on you to provide a framework through which I should evaluate the debate.

**NOTE: if you're going for reasonability, PLEASE provide an actual brightline that tells me conclusively what counts or doesn't count as reasonable. If you tell me to gutcheck the shell or something along the lines of "you know this shell is silly", I will simply evaluate the line-by-line of the theory debate to determine the winner.)

(d) No RVIs > RVIs

(e) Meta-Theory > T/Theory

(f) T > Theory

(g) Semantics > Pragmatics

(h) Text of the Interp > Spirit of the Interp

**NOTE: If you go for spirit of the interp, provide some sort of metric through which I can understand the "spirit" of the shell, as (a) I dislike gutchecking as it can lead to arbitrary decisions and (b) I'm rather compelled by the argument that the text is the only objective metric as I cannot truly know what the spirit of the interp is.

(i) Drop the Argument (DTA) v.s. Drop the Debater (DTD): I do not have a default on the implication of the shell. The onus is on you to read them.

**NOTE: Conceded paradigm issues do not need to be extended. For example, if Competing Interps and No RVIs are conceded, you do not need to extend them again. If you need to refer to them again for whatever reason, feel free.

4. Be Creative. This style of debate really rewards those who like to go off-script and try new things. As such, I encourage you to try new ideas with theory in front of me. For example, use creative independent voters and argue why said voter comes prior to other voters.Just be sure to explain how to evaluate the argument and why it means that you are winning.

5. Be Nuanced. Make your shells as contextual as possible to the specific round. Feel free to extemp your shell (just be sure to provide either a written or digital copy of the actual interp before your speech so that I have something to hold you to). This will not only boost your speaks, but is also much more strategic as it becomes more difficult to respond to.

6. Policy on Frivolous Theory: To be perfectly honest, I've never quite understood what frivolous theory is. If you can provide a definition that conclusively defines what differentiates frivolous theory from a "normal" theory shell and why it's bad, then I won't evaluate the shell. In other words, use theory however you want.

- Tricks

I got introduced to this style of debate late in my career, but I really developed a liking to it as I found justifying and running meme-y arguments very entertaining. If done well, it can be a really fun round to both watch and adjudicate; if not, though, it can be near-impossible to judge.

Things that I would like to see in Tricks Rounds:

1. Be Upfront. I like debaters being tricky by reading tricky arguments (like NIBs or burdens). However, this does not give you free license to be shifty. In other words, be open with the implication of your tricks and how they function. That being said, I am okay with you providing slightly ambiguous answers. However, I heavily discourage you from providing responses like "I'm not sure, it COULD be a trick," or "I have no idea what you're talking about," or "What's an a priori/spike/NIB?", or just blatantly lying and later doing a complete 180. I will dock your speaks heavily if you do this, will significantly lower the burden of rejoinder for your opponent, and will want to vote for a theory argument indicting your practice, should it be read..

2. I'm not a huge fan of a prioris. I will vote on them provided you do a good job both (a) warranting why they should be my foremost concern under a truth-testing paradigm (if necessary, win that truth-testing is true and should be the framing mechanism first) and (b) provide a well-warranted reason why the a priori tautologically proves the resolution true/false. I will hold you to a higher threshold on proving these issues. If you do this well, then I will not dock your speaks and will likely pick you up if I deem that you won the argument. If you do not do it well, then I will likely dock your speaks and adjudicate the rest of the debate. Other than a prioris, I'm perfectly fine with every other trick, including, but not limited to: NIBs, Burden Structures, Triggers (i.e. Skep, Trivialism, etc.), Contingent Standards, Theory Spikes, etc.

3. Be Creative with your Tricks. Try not to default to recycled tricks like the Action Theory NC or a recycled Distinctions Aff from yesteryear with a slightly changed up burden. Creative tricks will be rewarded with higher speaks.

4. Weigh. Win why your winning of the trick is a prior question to adjudicating the rest of the debate. This can be done via making some claim towards fairness or education, for example. Admittedly, this can be tricky in a trick v.s. trick debate. In this case, attempt to provide unique reasons for why your trick is more true/comes first, and also have an additional out if that debate becomes too messy.

Random Notes:

- Tech > Truth: Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

- Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts. In order to avoid any mishaps, please provide a trigger warning prior to reading any (possibly) sensitive issue. If you are doubtful on whether you should give a trigger warning, then provide one anyway to be safe.

- Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste, however; there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong".

- Disclosure is probably good: I find myself compelled by the argument. This does not mean that I will auto-hack for Disclosure Good or any of its variants - I believe that it is a legitimate debate to be had and if you conclusively win that disclosure is bad, then I will vote for you. That being said, do NOT run it on someone that is clearly novice level/just started circuit debate. If you win the argument, I will vote for you, but I will not be giving you higher speaks.

- Strength of link is a great weighing argument. Use it.

- People I Share Similar Judge Philosophies With: Chris Castillo, Matthew Chen, Tom Evnen, Erik Legried, Etc.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Edit - Here’s my wikis from senior year so that you can get an idea of the type of debater that I was:

Aff: Senior Year Aff Wiki

Neg: Senior Year Neg Wiki

Andrew Torrez Catonsville High School

Last changed on Tue April 19, 2022 at 8:45 AM EDT

Contact
Email is andrew.torrez@gmail.com for the email chain.

NEW for TOCs (4/19/2022)

I did not judge much during 2021-22; I have 10 rounds on the Jan/Feb topic and three are from outrounds. In those rounds, I voted Aff 5 times (50%), and in out-rounds I voted Aff once (33%). I sat once (Octos @ Golden Desert). I've been through this paradigm recently and it reflects my current judging preferences.

2020-2021 Summary

I judged 60 rounds at last year at 13 different TOC bid-distributing tournaments. In prelims, I voted Aff 24 of 53 rounds (45.2%). In out-rounds I voted Aff 1/7 (14%) (Oof.) I did not sit out on a panel last year (Stanford, Emory, Big Lex, College Prep, Glenbrooks, Grapevine outrounds).

How To Pref Me:

LARP 1 - I'm a LARP hack. I want good, specific topic lit. Longer cards >>>>> more cards.

Ks - 2/3 - treat me like a college policy judge on these; I want a thorough explanation of what the world of the neg looks like in the 1N. You're solid running Cap, Fem, Set Col, Securitization, most post-fiat stuff. Specific links to the 1AC are key. Update: If you want me to vote pre-fiat, the K needs an alt; I will buy a floating PIK as essentially a DA but I'm highly likely to allow new 2AR weighing.

Theory - 2/3 - My threshold for voting is genuine abuse, and I'd prefer to see that in terms of models of debate. I will listen to even frivolous theory arguments but my threshold for answers is very, very low. I vote on RVIs more than most judges. I will vote on Nebel T.

Phil - 2/3 - Happy to evaluate your NCs. The status of most LD phil debate right now is not great - it tends to be a lot of blippy spikes, and I'm definitely on team "give me new 2AR responses on anything extended into the 2N," see tricks below.

Performance/Non-T Affs: 3 - I'm open, and I've enjoyed some of these cases but you probably don't want to pref me high if this is your jam. If you run T/Framework on the neg, I'm likely a very good judge for you.

Lay - 4 - I really love lay debate and can appreciate when it's done well, but I'm tab enough that you're almost certainly better off taking some random parent judge. Note: if you're a circuit debater hitting a lay debater and you adapt to them (i.e., no spreading, no theory args, just run your larp case) and win, I will reward you with a 30. Note: if you're an insecure circuit debater worried you're going to lose to a lay debater and you don't adapt to them, I'll just judge the round normally. If you're the lay debater, be smart in the round.

Tricks - 5 - The most I can say is that I will listen. I voted for Nate Krueger all the time, but he was kind of amazing at trix. My threshold for answers here is very, very low.

Stuff I don't like

Tricks and blippy one-line extensions that foreclose on your opponent's offense.

I'm sticking with 2020's "don't be squirrelly." That means: don't pretend you don't know what an a priori is in CX, don't hide spikes, don't lie about stuff you didn't extend, don't "explain" your crazy-ass Baudrilliard K with 3 minutes of nonsense in CX and then all of a sudden tell a straightforward story in the 2N, don't lie about your super-vague "I'm whole rez!" methods to exclude all clash in the 1AR, etc. Don't be squirrelly!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Longer stuff if you've got time:

Speed

UPDATED - Particularly online, I can no longer handle your top, top speed; it just becomes a kind of hazy whine in my headphones. Call me a 6 or 7 out of 10. Slow WAY down for tags and analyticals, particularly in rebuttals and especially if it's not on your speech doc. If you're spreading prewritten analyticals, send those with your speech doc to me and to your opponent. I'll clear you if I have to.

Evidence

Like I said, long cards >>>> more cards. Don't power-tag. I love love love when debaters re-cut their opponent's evidence in the next speech to show that it was power/mistagged - that has to be read, not inserted.

Nebel T

I think Nebel is correct, but this winds up being a lot more nuanced in the context of an LD round. Yes, semantics outweigh pragmatics on interpretation, but pragmatics control when we're talking voters/remedy. Here's a real-world example of how that played out. So, I agree with Nebel in the abstract that it's kind of silly that on a topic like "RT: States ought to ban their nuclear arsenals," the most common 1AC was Indo-Pak because that's literally not at all what the topic committee wanted you to debate. That being said, I don't think I ever voted for T on the nukes topic against spec affs because the 1AR answer of "come on, there are only 7 nuclear nations, if you're not prepared for Indo-Pak, you haven't done enough research" was probably sufficient. On the other hand, if your plan was to ban landmines in Myanmar as a spec for "states ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," then yes I voted for Nebel T every time. The Niemi "indict" is crap and we all know it.

On Embedded Clash

I find that I'm evaluating a lot of embedded clash, especially in late outrounds. Here are my thoughts on that: (a) the best thing you can do is give me a real OV that explains the layers; (b) in the absence of strong ink on the flow, I'm open to applying arguments from one sheet to another, even if the overall sheet is a kick; (c) I'm not likely to credit a single-line blip extension as decisive when there are 130 lines on my flow; (d) you can weigh new in the 2N, but don't make new substantive arguments; and (e) I'm strongly disinclined against 1AR theory that basically forces new 2N/2AR responses unless you have a very strong abuse story.

1AR Theory

I'm open, but from a practical perspective, I think you really need to be winning your abuse story since 1AR theory pretty much requires judge intervention since the 2N CIs will be new and the 2AR will be asking me subjectively to evaluate whether they're "good enough." IOW, my threshold for 2N answers is pretty low.

In terms of my familiarity and preferences: give me post-fiat, topic-specific Ks like cap and set col over incomprehensible generics like Weheliye, Baudrilliard, D&G, etc.. That being said, you do you -- for example, I think the fem killjoy K is 100% true.

Also: chances are virtually 100% that I'm not at all familiar with your literature, and it seems (to me, anyway) that a lot of judges are giving K debaters waaaaaay too much credit for warrants in the underlying lit that are not read/explained in round. I'm not going to do that. This means that if you're exclusively a K-debater, you probably want to pref me lower, to be honest. Be explicit about whether your K is pre- or post-fiat. K vs. K rounds need to be clear about uplayering and internal links if on the same layer.

Disclosure Theory

Update - particularly at TOCs, I think it is important to have good disclosure practices; you all are the debaters that the rest of the community is trying to emulate. Open-sourcing with highlighted cards is the minimum of what I consider "good." I am not a fan of running friv disclo theory against a debater whose practices are, at minimum, "good." I will happily pull the trigger on an RVI on disclo if you've run something appallingly stupid like "must disclose the precise tournament name" against a debater with "good" disclosure practices.

"Don't be shady" applies here, too - don't misdisclose, don't waste your opponent's time before the round and then drop a doc 4 minutes before the round begins, etc.

I will listen to "new 1ACs bad" theory.

Defaults

I will never use a default if an argument is made on the issue, but in the absence of argumentation:

T > K
T and Theory are on the same layer; Metatheory uplayers
Reasonability over competing interps if not specified
No RVIs (my threshold for warranting this is low, 'I get RVIs' suffices)
Drop the arg on theory, drop the debater on topicality
Presume NEG
Affirming is harder because duh, 1AR
Neg gets 1 Condo advocacy
PICs must be uncondo
Weigh case against K

Speaks

I default to a 28.7-ish. I give 30s whenever the debater a) doesn't make any obvious technical or analytical mistakes and b) does at least one really cool/clever analytical thing, so, you know, reasonably often. Oh, I also give 30s when a tech-heavy debater adapts out of courtesy to a lay opponent. The only thing that will get me to tank your speaks is if you're bullying/obnoxious/abusive in the round.

IF YOU STILL DON'T KNOW, ASK! I'm happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before the round. I love LD, and I try to make it so that debaters enjoy debating in front of me.

Sherise Tracey Ft Lauderdale High School

Ashish Tripathi King High School

Zaid Umar Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:58 AM PDT

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

Ravi Upadhya Summit HS

Aadhiti Vallatharasu Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Andrew Van Der Laan Little Rock Central

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 10:08 AM CDT

Updated 10/20/23

(If you have any questions about anything below, please feel free to ask me before the round).

Please note that I have not judged a lot of rounds on the fiscal redistribution topic. So please be thoughtful about your use of acronyms or technical terms without definitions. Thanks!

Please add me to the email chain - andrew dot vanderlaan @ gmail dot com - or provide me with the code for the SpeechDrop room.

I debated for four years on the national circuit in high school, and more recently I’ve been judging a handful of round every year on and off since 2012.

As much as possible, I try to be a tabula rasa judge; my goal is to be as open-minded as possible, and maximize ground for the debaters. I am open to on case arguments and off case positions including disads, T, counterplans, and kritiks, and I have cast ballots based on each of those arguments. Debaters are also welcome to argue what my judging philosophy should be - stock issue, policymaker, game player, etc.

Having said that, we all have biases. Here are mine:

1. Clash is the MOST important aspect of a policy debate round. The hardest rounds to judge (and the most boring!) are those in which one team dumps a block of cards, and the other team groups them and reads a response block. I much prefer debates about evidence quality and relevance, close textual analysis of a key card, and smart framing of how the cards interact and how I should weigh them.

2. I can flow, and it is unusual (though not impossible) for me to be spread out of a round. I will not yell clear, but I will put my pen down and stop flowing. Speed over clarity is not effective communication.

3. Theory is a really interesting part of debate, and I’d like to hear your arguments. Please don’t blip through your T standards, K framework and theory, and CP perms; give these arguments the time they deserve. I am 20+ years removed from my high school debate career, and I'm not on the cutting edge of the latest debate arguments. If your argument is new and fancy, please take the time to explain it. I didn't debate K's myself, so that's probably where I need the most guidance on particularly esoteric arguments. And you should always assume I don't know the literature underlying your K.

5. The crucial parts of any disad debate are the link and uniqueness, focusing your efforts here will pay off (true for either team).

6. If you don’t argue to shift my paradigm, I’ll default to a policymaker and weigh advantages vs. disadvantages of the arguments in the round.

7. I rarely read evidence before casting my ballot; evidence really matters, but I need you to be able to make good arguments with your cards. I can recall asking for a card only once, when the entire round collapsed to one crucial card and each team offered a radically different interpretation of what the evidence said. (And if you ask me to read a card, I will.)

8. Passion and competitiveness are important, and so are civility and respect. Please treat the other team well, there's no faster way to lose speaks and possibly even the round.

Thanks for reading, and have fun!

Camila Vasquez Hire 8 rounds

Vishnu Vennelakanti Appleton North High School

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 3:40 AM PDT

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

Pranav Vijayan McNeil High School

Last changed on Fri January 14, 2022 at 3:49 PM CDT

I am a parent judge with no children. Pref accordingly.

Just kidding - I debated LD for 4 years at McNeil High School.

Contact Info -

Email - p.vijayan@utexas.edu

Issues:

Speed - I don't mind. Please be articulate. Please don't use speed as a tool against people who don't want it.

Framework - I think it's a fun debate and I'm very comfortable judging it. I prefer it used to weigh impacts in the round, rather than the only thing being discussed.

Theory - Please don't read intentionally frivolous arguments to take away from substantive debate. It's difficult to get my vote if the interpretation is unreasonable or lacks a significant abuse story - for instance, this applies to interpretations which force debaters to specify minutia, such as "brackets for clarity". Please go slower on your interpretations and standards, especially when weighing - I don't want to miss anything important. I (personally) don't like disclosure theory but I will vote on it. I will not vote on absent some egregious violation however. I tend to discount actions taken outside of the round if the abuse story is reliant on that kind of evidence. I am partial to violations which marginalize/constrain debaters' capacity to respond to a substantive argument made in the round.

T - same views as theory. I default to no RVIs, but I'm sure you can convince me.

Policy Debate - I am comfortable judging this form of debate. I enjoy hearing articulate weighing debates about real-world issues.

Critiques - I am not particularly familiar with identity-based philosophy. Please articulate your positions clearly and weigh critiques against the 1ac/1nc properly.

I will reward debaters who demonstrate an understanding of the literature in its intended (academic) context, as opposed to a surface-level utilization of critical literature for debate purposes. I will penalize debaters who did not do their due diligence before constructing their argument or twist the intended meaning of the text for a cheap win.

Tricks - I will judge them, but do not expect me to be exceptionally liberal with speaker points.

I usually give good speaks. My range is 28-30 with comparatively more 30s than 27s.

Andy Wang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 20, 2023 at 7:27 AM EDT

I'm currently a senior at Harvard debating with a decent amount of APDA and British Parliamentary experience. I did not do PF in high school – keep that in mind when you use technical jargon / speak faster.

Judging Philosophy: I flow. I'm tab, but I think that no judge is truly tabula rasa. Though not written for American HS formats, this article is very insightful and very close to how I think about judging.

I — and most judges, I hope — have an innate disposition towards liberal principles (not like Democratic, but like free speech, democracy, equal rights, alleviate unnecessary suffering, etc). This doesn't mean that I will always vote this way, but the more extreme your position is from this starting point, the harder it is (and the more work you must do) to convince me.

Some of my other thoughts are listed below:

TLDR, in image form:

TLDR, in written form: PF is an event designed for the public — please don't make me think too hard. Focus on weighing and warranting. Frontline in 2R. Don't be a dick. Debate, don't argue.

Paradigm:

1) Warrants: I like warrants. I weigh well-explained mechs much more heavily than evidence. Cards capture a specific instance of a phenomenon — tell me why that phenomenon has happened beyond pure luck. I don't find card disputes very persuasive; instead, debate on the warrant level. Make your internal links as detailed as possible.

2) Weighing: I like weighing.Do it more. I will always pick up a weighed argument over an unweighed argument, even if its warranting is not fully fleshed out. If neither side weighs, I will evaluate the arguments based on my own intuitions. My intuitions are bad. Don't let my intuition cost you the round. Barring any other explicit weighing, I evaluate strength of warrant as implicit probabilistic weighing.

3) Evidence: I don't really care about evidence. I will probably never call for a card unless I think someone has dramatically lied / misquoted / badly paraphrased it. See point 1. Add me to the chain if you must: azwang@college.harvard.edu.

4) Impacts: I have a significant presumption against high-magnitude, low-probability impacts (extinction, nuclear war, etc). I will listen to them, but I generally believe that you are better off spending time on plausible and interesting arguments.

5) Speed: Don't spread. If you're double breathing, I'm not fully flowing.

6) Theory: I don't know how to evaluate theory. I'm willing to evaluate it, but your burden of explanation is much higher in order to combat my strong bias of arguments about the topic. Err on the side of over-over-over-explanation.

7) General Vibes: Don't be a dick. Don't be any of the -ists. I will probably drop you if you affect anyone's ability to participate in this educational activity.

Thanks for reading this far. Here's a haiku to remember my paradigm:

mechs mechs mechs mechs mechs

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

weigh your arguments.

Annie Wang Scarsdale High School

Last changed on Tue March 28, 2023 at 10:36 AM EDT

Note: Made some edits to my paradigm since I'm a 3rd year out now...

Hi! I debated LD for Bronx Science (NY) for 4 years, qualled to TOC senior year. I'm studying Philosophy right now at Johns Hopkins.

Email chain: anniewang9422@gmail.com

Quick Prefs

Pomo or High Theory Ks/Performance Ks/Phil: 1/2

FW/T: 3

Tricks/Theory: 4

Policy/LARP: 5

IR/Security Ks: 6/STRIKE

Overview

You can read whatever you want and I'll do my best to adapt. I would rather there be a good round than you trying to adapt by reading something you've never done before.
I really, really, like phil or k substantive debate (does not have to be topical but one-off NC then AC top-down strats would make me happy). Will boost speaks for a good clash.
Don't be mean in CX, especially if someone you're debating is clearly a novice/someone less experienced than you.

I read a lot of pomo Ks my senior year, the ones I'm most familiar with are Deleuze, Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard, Warren, Nietzsche, Marx, Edelman, and Wilderson. I don't think this list matters though I'm sure there are many books/articles written by these authors I haven't read.
I tend to err truth>tech in rep K situations where the card is miscut/misrepresented.
I don't really understand IR or Security Ks... Please over-explain.
Default Tech>>>>>>Truth unless you make arguments for otherwise.

T/Theory

I'm more familiar with T than Theory, but I guess they are structurally similar.
Case-specific standards are really cool.

Phil

Familiar with a lot of philosophy, please explain things regardless.
Slow down (please) on fully analytic phil cases. Examples are cool.

Tricks

I'm not amazing at flowing, especially blippy exempted 10 point underviews so if I miss something rip
Technicality and flowing aside. I find induction/deduction/skep debates interesting if done properly.

Policy/LARP

I'll try my best :(

Miscellaneous

1. Will yell 'clear' as many times as needed, and will probably not dock speaks but if I miss an arg it's on you. My face is pretty expressive, maybe explain more if I look confused...

2. Compiling doc is prep, sending is not, pls don't steal prep.

3. +.2 speaks if you show me your wiki BEFORE I submit the decision (osource, first 3 last 3 in the textbox, and round reports - you can attach a screenshot when sending out the speech doc)

4. Don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc... and don't plagiarize from people's wiki without giving credit

5. Not sure how judge kick works, be clear if that's something you are going for.

Calvin Wang Sammamish Independent

Cindy Wang Hire 8 rounds

Harry Wang Syosset High School

Xiaoju Wang San Marino High School

Tate Weston Westlake

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:55 PM CDT

James Bowie 19

Tulane 23

email: theduke144@gmail.com

I debated on the Texas circuit for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year.

I'm teaching (or have taught at) NSD Flagship/Texas, TDC, and Flex Debate.

TLDR- I like most arguments. I read mostly critical positions but would prefer you to just read whatever you are best at- persuasion is important to me because i don't want to be bored.

Speaks-

They start at 28.5. I will evaluate speaks based on strategy but also ethos and knowledge of your position. I'll also index to the quality of the pool and if you keep me interested the entire debate I will reward +++. I'm not going to disclose them-- chill you infomaniacs.

K affs and T FW-

I like them but I'd prefer them to be grounded in the topic. I don't care if you are sketchy initially but please make the 1ar overview or something clear. Judging vs T FW-- I have no biases here, but would prefer substantive engagement with a c/i or something in addition to impact turns. Also, impact turns need to be fleshed out and specific. If you're reading T fw im more persuaded by fairness arguments and a TVA.

Policy args--

These are fine, I never really read these. But I can prob judge them fine, just don't assume I understand the intricacies of the topic. Also please weigh. I believe in 0% risk. I don't like dumb perms. Please collapse.

K's--

Read what you like. I am familiar with a lot of the lit but will just go along with whatever your spin/interpretation is. the 1NC needs to answer in some capacity prempts in the 1AC. Good debates here are what will get the highest speaks.

KvK--

I have found myself judging a lot of these debates so I added this section. I like big-picture overviews that are clear. These dont need to be very long but i want to clearly be able to identify the tension point of the debate. I also want synthesis in the 2nr- this means i want you to not just extend particular parts of your critique but explain them in context with 1ar args-- implicit clash will only go so far.

Theory--

default - DD, CI, no rvi. Weigh in the 2NR/ar. I was never in love with theory debate and am probably not the best judge for multiple shell debates. I will evaluate k first args but default to theory first.

Phil and tricks--

will judge these styles of debate but will not promise to judge them well. NOTE-- for me to vote on dumb arguments i require you to have a high amount of ethos ie if i am not feeling like your argument is persuasive in this context i will not be inclined to vote for it. I also wont feel bad randomly deciding im not voting for your argument if it is akin to must [insert random thing] theory.

Extra-

-If you are debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower and be nice to them-- these debates were always awkward for me.

- fine with speed, sit where you want, flex prep is fine.

- I will give you a 28.9+ if you sit down early and win-- tell me if your sitting down early bc i wont be timing- i dont want to hear you ramble.

- 2NR/2AR overviews are v persuasive to me - don't expect me to piece together a ballot story - collapse and tell me in 10secs at the beginning of your speech what my RFD should be

Influential Judges: Kris Wright, Sam Azbel, Momo Khattak, and Saeshin Joe

Ashley Wilkens Sunnyslope High School

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 11:21 AM MST

My name is Ashley Wilkens.

I have been judging Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, and IE events for the past four years (~25 tournaments)

Congress

- I am most familiar with judging congress compared to other events.

Open to any arguments made in round as long as they successfully impact the round (no-rehashing), and are presented well and relevant to the overall topic
please be aware of your precedence/recency later in the session to create speeches that contribute well at the time they are given
I like an organized chamber that flows well and works together, this is both on the chamber and the presiding officer to make sure docket order and AFF/NEG splits are figured out efficiently
Very intolerant to disrespect in the chamber; including interrupting, disregarding time limits, disrespecting opponents (clash is great, but please still stay respectful to others arguments)
Presiding Officer- I am familiar with parliamentary rules and will rank you according to those. Please keep an organized chamber and be proactive in making an enjoyable AND efficient chamber, and you will be ranked accordingly.

Debate

You may spread your case if you desire, I look for enunciation and well thought-out presentations. I will only call "SPEED" once if I cannot follow your case, after that I will simply follow what I can. I cannot judge you if I am trying to decipher what you are saying or lose track of your case
Keep things structured and ensure a clean flow.
Flow your case for me, tell me your points. I do my flows on paper. I do as best as I can to blank slate myself, meaning I cannot finish your case for you if you don't hit all of your points and tell me what to consider and vote for in the round.

Progressive: I will consider anything, I find it very enjoyable IF you can tie it into a clear cut point to support your case and adequately rebut your opponent. I am familiar with kritiks and progressive frameworks. Theory I am not familiar with, but if explained well and competitor is clear regarding how I need to incorporate it into my ballot I will hear it out.

Above all, have fun!! These are skills you will carry with you your entire life :-)

Day Woodruff BASIS Chandler High School

Xiaojing Wu Westford Academy

Qian Xia Princeton

Robert Yang Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 8, 2021 at 6:25 AM CDT

Competed for Dulles HS for 4 years. Mostly policy background but also a year or two of LD. I'm willing to vote on anything as long as it is explained. I don't have any argumentative preferences and if you weigh/make smart arguments you will not go wrong. If an argument is conceded my threshold for extending it is pretty low. Absolutely value clarity over speed (what I can't flow I can't judge) I'll say clear twice before I dock speaks. Oh and please weigh.

yangjunhao312@gmail.com for email chain.

Quick Prefs

1 - LARP

2 - K's

3 - T/Theory

4 - Phil, Tricks

Please go a little slower on analytics and anything not in a doc.

Policy (Plans, CP's, DA's)

1. This is what I was most comfortable debating. I'd appreciate explicit impact weighing and evidence comparison

2. I'll boost your speaks if its a hyper specific plan that I haven't seen before late into the topic

3. I have a low threshold for extending the advantage in the 1AR especially with conceded warrants

1. I debated a lot of K. Cap, SetCol, Antiblackness, Model Minority, etc. However, I have a high threshold of explanation. If you can coherently explain your theory of power, I'll vote on it. Try to have specific links to the mechanism or scholarship of the aff. It'll be a lot harder to vote on a K if the links are really shoddy. I should be able to understand what the alt does and why it solves after the 1N or CX at least.

2. Alt solves case is massively underused and should be used more

3. K debate evolves a lot based on new literature, so err on the side of overexplaining

Phil

I barely ever went for phil during my career. I know the basics but please overexplain, especially in a phil v phil debate.

Tricks

These are fine too. Just over-explain. I'm not going to vote on something I don't understand. I have a high threshold for what counts as an actual warranted spike in the 1ac. I will evaluate 1 line blips but please don't collapse the whole round to a single one. Also, please make the flow as clean as possible or else I'm going to just flow straight down.

Theory

I enjoy these debates a lot. This shouldn't be an excuse to spam shells but I think these can be fun to judge when executed well.

1. I don't really understand the distinction between what constitutes a shell being frivolous and what doesn't. I think that if an interp is truly frivolous or stupid then you should be able to respond to it easily. I will vote on any shell if it's won.

2. Weighing is what makes these debates resolvable. Please weigh

3. If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them. Please don't concede paradigm issues, they are a huge part of what makes a good theory debater good.

Evidence Ethics

If you stake the round and you lose L25. If you stake the round and you win W30.

I think the violation should have to be pretty egregious for me to intervene. Egregious violations can include miscutting or taking parts of the middle of the card out, misciting stuff, clipping, etc. This shouldn't discourage you from staking rounds on Evidence Ethics by any means just be sure the violation is legit yk.

Speaks

My default is 28.7. Lower speaks if your spreading is super unclear, higher speaks if I felt like you were very strategic or if you made me enjoy judging the round.

Oh and please weigh.

Racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry will absolutely not be tolerated.

David Yi DTHS

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 8:31 AM EDT

****Last Updated: Greenhill 2021****

Background

· I’m a fourth year pre-med student at Purdue University. I aspire to attend medical school in a couple years. I competed in LD for duPont Manual High School (Louisville, Kentucky) from 2014-2018. I cleared at almost every bid tournament I attended and reached bid rounds at Emory and UPenn. I mostly LARPed, but I enjoyed reading Ks and T/Theory too during my time on the circuit.

TL;DR

· Add me to the email chain: dsyi12400@gmail.com

· I’ll vote on any argument that meets the minimum requirements of having a claim, warrant, and impact. The more arcane aspects of debate don’t matter to me (for example, I don’t have an opinion on whether PICs are bad or 3 condo CPs are good) because it’s the debaters’ responsibilities to generate arguments and defend their positions. I’ll evaluate the flow as technically as I can because I care more about the debating than the ultimate truth of your arguments, so tech > truth. I do, however, believe that debate is designed to be a competitive research game.

· Maintain a local recording of each of your speeches. If there’s a disconnect, finish your speech and promptly send out the recording.

· Feel free to ask me questions about my preferences before the round via email or Facebook. Good luck and don’t forget to have fun!

Specific Preferences

Procedurals

· Speed is good, but do NOT use your top speed in online debates. If you have analytics typed out in the doc, I’ll have a higher threshold for “too fast,” but over the course of my judging history (all which has been online) I’ve come to realize that my worst decisions have come from debates where the debaters are going too fast. Efficient and well enunciated speeches will seriously trump fast and unclear speeches: I CANNOT vote on arguments I didn’t hear. I’ll yell clear as much as I need to. Please pop tags and author names.

· Prep ends when the doc is compiled. Sending the doc isn’t prep, but don’t steal prep.

· I’ll disclose speaks if you ask and if both debaters are ok with it. Speaks are adjusted according to the tournament’s difficulty. They reflect how well I expect you to do.

· If you make a Star Wars reference I’ll add +0.1 to whatever your speaks were supposed to be. I’ll add +0.2 if it's a Darth Vader or Yoda quote. Don’t be afraid to “do it.” Add it to the speech doc and make it stand out, so I don’t miss it!

Likes

· weighing that is contextualized to your opponent’s arguments

· good overviews

· collapsing

· fast and efficient tech skills

· good case debate—I appreciate negs that actually read carded arguments and analytics against the aff and I am impressed by affs that are very techy when responding to case dumps

· numbered arguments

· good evidence comparison

· impact turns—bonus speaks if you can end the debate with these

· being funny (making me laugh will get you bonus speaks)

Dislikes

· saying your opponent conceded something even though it wasn’t conceded

· saying the word “extend” a ton or trying to extend every author name—just make the argument and tell me its warrant and impact in the round

· jumping around different parts of the flow

· power tagging

· going for everything in your last speech (although this is justified sometimes)

LARP

· Extinction scenarios are very entertaining—these positions were my favorite strategies in debate. I find these debates easier to adjudicate when debaters have high quality evidence.

· Impact calc and comparative weighing are imperative.

· Evidence comparison could be make it or break it. This includes reading cards: I like it when 1ARs and 2NRs strategically read cards to extend their scenarios, but they better be relevant and well-explained!

· Extensions need to have warrants—even in the 1AR/2AR. All I need is an overview of the advantage, but your extension of the aff should match the degree to which its warrants have been contested. You don’t need to say every card name. Just tell me what the aff does, what it solves, and how it does so.

· I think CPs are some of the best neg args. All types of CPs are cool, but don't blame me if your opponent reads theory.

· CPs should avoid a DA or turn to the aff, so just saying “CP solves better” isn’t a DA to the perm.

· DAs are great. The best DAs have a “DA turns case” component. 2NR impact calc is critical: probability and magnitude are important, but strength of link and evidence specificity need to be articulated as well.

Phil

· Some of my favorite debates to witness have been phil debates. In fact, some of the best speaks I’ve given have been a result of good phil debate (and the frameworks weren’t util—surprise!).

· Err on the side of overexplaining. I’m good on most framework authors.

· DON’T extend every card and go for every justification—give an overview of your framework’s thesis and go from there.

· The best phil debaters are able to contextualize real world examples that illustrate their ethical theory.

· You have to contextualize why the justification you go for matters in the context of your opponent’s framework. Too many phil debates end up being two ships sailing past each other in the middle of the night.

T/Theory

· I enjoy judging T/Theory debates. They demonstrate whether debaters have good tech skills and whether they know how to defend their personal convictions about debate as an activity. If you’re willing to be persuasive and you’re serious about defending your interp, then go for it.

· I “default” to the norms of the activity, which seem to be drop the debater, no RVIs, and competing interps (unless justified by debaters that I should do otherwise).

· Not all theory arguments need to be in a shell format.

· I adjudicate on a strength of link style on various layers of the theory debate (i.e. if you have a ton of offense to education, and they have a tiny amount to fairness, the fact that fairness slightly outweighs is probably not sufficient to vote for their shell).

· I’ll probably have a basic understanding of whatever K you read, but I will not vote for you unless YOU explain your theory.

· SHORTER TAGS ARE EASIER TO FLOW. PLEASE.

· Aff specific links paired with generic links are preferable to solely relying on generic links: negs should use lines directly from the aff to make the links more robust.

· I don’t believe there is a significant distinction between “post-fiat” and “pre-fiat.” The most important facet of the debate is that you defend your arguments and prove why the aff or neg is good/bad/correct/incorrect/etc. It is a fact that nothing truly happens after the round—the only thing we take away from the round is the knowledge derived from the arguments that were made by the debaters. You should stray away from using the terms “post-fiat” and “pre-fiat.”

· I expect detailed explanations for the interaction between the K and the aff. Use the appropriate K tricks and explain why the K outweighs/turns the case/perm fails/is a prior question/solves the aff/etc.

· Your aff doesn’t need to be topical, but I expect good 1AR and 2AR explanations of your offense. Buzzwords will only get you so far.

Tricks

· Honestly, I’d rather listen to a beautiful 2NR that goes for a K that is meaningful to the debater or a strategic 2AR that goes for an advantage and does amazing impact calc. I empathize with debaters who have committed hours and hours to research/prep about the topic or literature of choice because I believe in hard work. This is what I did back in the day, so I want to reward students who are going through the same thing; however, strategy and winning ballots is important, so I’ll listen to and vote on your arguments. Just be prepared to receive the appropriate speaks.

Final Thoughts

· In high school I had a great time with debate. I was fortunate to never have any serious drama or traumatic experiences during my time in the activity and I think that everyone should be able to say the same. I hold my peers to a high standard, and I hope you all help each other to do that as well. As someone who is now out of the activity, I cherish the years that I debated. It was a major part of my life and I learned a lot from the activity and the people around me. You all should make the most of every moment and do your best so that you don’t have any regrets.

· An atrocious AP Physics teacher I had in high school once told me that you can only be unhappy about an outcome if you’ve truly put in every ounce of effort and you still don’t reach your goal.

· Disclaimer: Parts of this paradigm were borrowed from Kieran Cavanagh, Alan George, and Adam Tomasi. Shout out to them for letting me borrow their content.

· May the force be with you!

Jane Yuan William P. Clements High School

Michele Zanini Brookline High School 8 rounds

Peter Zhang The Bronx High School Of Science

angela yufei zhong Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 6, 2023 at 1:15 PM CDT

intro:

ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!

please time yourself

worlds:

ask me anything before round!

ld:

i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: angelayufei@gmail.com

shortcuts:

1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory

2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!

3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.

speaks:

- have the doc ready to send ahead of time

- i enjoy a good cx

- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.

- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.

- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad

miscellaneous:

- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.

- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)

- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky

- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.

- send any relevant screenshot for violations

i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:

- comparative worlds

- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption

- epistemic confidence

- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis

- no judge kick

Ying Zhou William P. Clements High School

Colin Zhu Cary Academy

Edna Zuhric McClintock High School

Login to Tabroom

47th Annual Harvard National Forensics Tournament

2021 — Cambridge, MA/US

LD Paradigm List

Judges