Salutations, my name is Lara, here's a little about me. My preferred pronouns are she/her, and I've partaken in NYCUDL tournaments for about 6 years now. I have 4 years of experience in debating in the varsity open policy division, and I've been a judge for about three years now.

As a judge, during the debate round, I expect debaters to remain courteous and comply with the tournament's rules regarding attitude and rhetoric. I do not have a preference on spreading during the constructive, however I highly anticipate more concise and emphasized rebuttals.

The way my thinking methodology works regarding deciding who wins is through a 3D model, I will consider each side's impacts (using impact calc that I expect to be stated by teams during the rebuttals), as well as outstanding arguments. I will be keeping track of what cases (on or off) are dropped or carried throughout.

Also, please clash-- that's what makes debate fun as well as educational!

Happy debating!

Debaters should speak clearly, especially the tag lines, if you want me to write it down on my flow.

If I cannot understand the debaters, nothing you say will be written down on my flow.

I like when debaters respect each other, and will take away speaker points if they are rude.

By the end of the round, be sure to tell me why you win and include impact calculus.

There is no reason for cursing or vulgar language in the debate space. If there is, speaker points will be taken away.

To begin with: please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. This is of paramount importance. While we understand that this is a competition and situations, especially during cross examination, can reach high levels of intensity, that is no excuse for showing disrespect to any party involved.

ANY reference to an opponent with the use of a derogatory or racist term (even under the guise of a performance piece or simulation in the debate space) will NOT be tolerated.

As a general note, I greatly prefer topicality in the debate round. If you are running an AFF that is far away from the topic of the year (i.e. performance pieces, poetry, voluntary silence), you will have to work very hard in the round to show relation to the resolution. If either team is running a KRITIK, you will have a high threshold for proving that the topic as given by the NSDA is not worthy of being debated.

As for Topicality arguments, I believe that they usually do not hold up over the long haul of a round. After a certain point, they just become, for lack of a better term, a time waste. As long as the AFF team can prove that they are topical if the NEG team calls it into question, it will leave my flow sheet after the 2AC.

Speed reading DOES NOT impress me. If anything, I find it to be distracting from the debate. If you want me to have a clean flow, make sure that I can understand that information that you are trying to relay. I much prefer being "explained to" vs. "read at". There is a difference. If I can't make sense of your arguments, it will be hard to pick a side.

During the final two speeches (2NR & 2AR) I will be listening for you to tell me why YOU should win the round.

For the most part, we are all here as a learning experience, and to enjoy the clash of policy debate.
During your speeches, I will greatly appreciate clarity and slow-speaking, especially when reciting taglines and making important points. This will make it easier for me to analyze and flow what you are saying instead of struggling to keep up with what you are saying.

Please include me on all e-mail chain: adeluca@longbranch.k12.nj.us

Mamaroneck High School 2020

Boston University 2024

anna26844@gmail.com - feel free to email me with any questions you have pre-round or post-round.

I am okay with almost anything in debate: Ks, DAs, CPs, Theory, K affs, T, Policy affs etc, go for it. Just don't be rude or condescending to your opponents, I will dock your speaker points.

My own experience has been predominantly running policy affirmatives and mixed k + policy neg strategies. That being said, my opinions DON'T MATTER. I will vote for the debaters who best support their arguments and prove why they should win.

Spreading is cool, but not if you're unclear. Do line-by-line and be clear about evidence comparison.

My judging is based meticulously on whether or not the Negative team has proven without doubt that the Affirmative's plan either:

1) Cannot work as intended

2) Will cause more harm than good

3) Is not the most optimal solution (and the Negative team's solution is said optimal option)

4) Is harmful to the debate space's ability to be a place of learning

5) Some combination of the prior

To that end, I look at what is plainly outlined on each of my flows and will not be making arguments or conclusions for either side. If an Off-Case flow does not provide me with any of the prior once the 2nr is complete, it is very likely going to be thrown out.

I don't care for frivolous or pedantic arguments on either side. Debate flourishes when both sides are pushed to think, running a dozen impacts with high magnitude off of shoddy links or any other argument for the sake of a time skew is neither productive nor engaging.

I'm also willing to evaluate non-topical affirmatives, provided the Affirmative is able to defend why doing so does not put their opponents at a disadvantage.

Beyond that, there is no preference for any kind of argument one way or another, just that all arguments are made succinctly.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

I am a tech over truth judge.

T: Not my favorite argument, but if you are winning on it, I will vote on it.

Ks: Most familiar with Cap Ks but have read other Ks as well. If you run a good K and can prove to me why the alt is better, I will vote on it.

DAs: Will vote on it, just like any other argument, if it is winning. Needs to have a clear link and impact that outweighs.

CP: Will vote on it if I believe that the CP is better than the plan, but the neg would need to prove that to me.

FW: Very important to have framework.

Email: erickovarsky@gmail.com

Hello Debaters!

Good for you at checking paradigms.... I judge several different types of debate:

As a communicator, you should be able to adapt to your audience...ie Judge.

Have fun! Debate is a wonderful activity where you can be smart, have fun, and learn at the same time.

Some items I think you should be aware of that I think weakens your presentation:

Being rude, forgetting to tag your cards, not having cards formatted correctly, and not making some kind of eye contact with judge during cross.

DO NOT say please vote for Aff/NEG...your argumentation and evidence should demonstrate your side should win.

Things to help your presentation: Smile, being polite, and organizing your arguments with internal signposting...sharing cards and evidence before using them.

Public Forum- DO NOT PROVIDE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP- I do not need it.***NO VERBAL PROMPTING**

Please have started the email chain and flipped as soon as you can.

include me in the email chain macleodm@friscoisd.org

Or use a speech drop

General Ideas

There is not enough time in PF for effective theory/K to run. I will not vote for you if tricks or theory are your only arguments. I expect the resolution to be debated and there needs to be clash.

I think you should be frontlining offense (turns and disads) in rebuttal. Straight up defense does not need to be frontlined, but I do think it's strategic. Summary to final focus extensions should be consistent for the most part. Overall, the rule of thumb is that the earlier you establish an argument and the more you repeat it, the more likely I will be to vote for it, i.e., it's strategic to weigh in rebuttal too, but it's not a dealbreaker for me if you don't.

To me warrants matter more than impacts. You need both, but please please extend and explain warrants in each speech. Even if it's dropped, I'll be pretty hesitant to vote on an argument if it's not explained in the second half of the round. Also, I have a relatively high standard for what a case extension should look like, so err on the side of caution and just hit me with a full re-explanation of the argument or I probably won't want to vote for you.

The most important thing in debate is comparing your arguments to theirs. This doesn't mean say weighing words like magnitude and poverty and then just extending your impacts, make it actually comparative please.

Technical Debate

I can flow most of the speed in PF, but you shouldn't be sacrificing explanation or clarity for speed.

I will try my best to be "tech over truth", but I am a just a mom of two seven year olds and I do have my own thoughts in my head. To that end, my threshold for responses goes down the more extravagant an argument is.

If you want me to call for a piece of evidence, tell me to in final focus please.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before the round.

Policy ***NO VERBAL PROMPTING**I am a stock issues judge when adjudicating Policy. I am fine with speed/spreading with signposting and roadmaps.

I can't stand the K. Please don't run one. Debate the resolution or run a T argument but very rarely will I vote off case arguments.

Parli/World Schools- Need to see fully developed warrants, impacts and confidence. I love stories and learning new TRUE stuff...

LD- I love debates about Criterion and no neg cases are great if ran with logic, links, and detailed examples. Tell stories. I will buy it if presented professionally and with logic. I need weighing of worlds and chrystalization.

Congress- Please make sure to reference previous representatives speeches and show me you have been flowing and are responding to what has been said in round.

Showing decorum and being polite- like thanking the previous representative always a good thing :)

PLEASE DO NOT ask if I am ready- I am always ready or I will say to please wait.

World Schools- I love the decorum/Parli element and terminology usage. Attacking the premise of arguments, call out logical fallacies, and weigh the worlds please....Make sure to give examples that are not just made up- I know Harvard studies everything, but please refrain from making stuff up.

I do appreciate puns/tasteful humor and use those POI requests and answers strategically.

Daniel Montalvo - Ronald Reagan HS head coach

AFF/NEG split - 2/12

Quick Facts:

• Speed is fine, just be clear and enunciate (I’ll only allot 2 “clears” before I stop flowing)

• No such thing as a tabs judge, you know this, but I will keep it close

• Do what you do best. I’ll vote on anything just tell me why (impact calc, analysis, what outweighs what, etc.)

• Most of my background is in policy until recently. Fairly newer to LD but still pretty progressive and can appreciate a clash heavy and meaningful debate

Long Version

Background: I debated policy for Ronald Reagan all four years at the city/state/national level. Currently studying hospitality + revenue management at Cornell and head coach for Ronald Reagan HS. I’ve seen all sorts of arguments and am pretty well-versed with policy strats and arguments all around.

P O L I C Y

Case: “What is left on both sides? Is there enough to move on to off case positions if the case is held?” is usually my line of thinking.

DA’s: Go for it. Not a fan of base/politics disads but I’ll vote on them.

CP’s: Make sure they are competitive. Don’t be abusive. Consult CP’s are not my favorite...

Topicality: I like T. Author debates, counter-interps, reasonability, K-T, and framing all play their roles and can make great argumentation if executed well. Ensure there is in-round abuse and do the work to get me to vote on it. If you aren't going 5 minutes of T in the 2nr that means it was probably a time suck and not well developed enough for the ballot.

K’s: My personal favorite, go for it. I’m well versed in cap, abolition, and race/identity K’s, but I will not do the work for you. I love the idea of epistemological dangers the aff may overlook or perpetuate. Don't assume I know what you're talking about, though. I will be as objective as possible and still expect decent analysis and contextualization of your arguments.

K Affs/Performance: K affs/performance have been dying down on the Wisconsin circuits but I have seen them at nat circuit tournaments. Not my area of expertise so do enough work on the aff and display why your advocacy, performance, and/or negation of the resolution effectively challenges the implications you argue for.

Theory: Blow it up. If the other team does something inherently damaging or abusive in the round, you have every right to point it out for the ballot. I can handle high level theory, though these debates can get muddy in their development so please keep them as organized as possible. I won’t vote your way just because you shout “that was abusive!”

L D

** most of my judging philosophies from policy apply to LD. some key things to note:

FWK/VC: I understand a ton of framework shells get reused as topics change but there can be dozens of the same ideology/epistemology shells with key nuances that differentiate between sides and can make for a very intricate flow. Always evaluate these differences before collapsing into your opponent's framework to maintain clash on the flow.

M I S C

• Keep the round clean and organized. Poor/sloppy structure that impacts my flow will be reflected on your speaker points

• Loud/gaspy spreading gets really annoying, especially in smaller classrooms and through computer audio so be cautious before you do it

• Any -isms or -phobias “good” arguments and I’ll drop you

• You know the drill -- have fun and don’t stop learning!

• Also, put me on the email chain and feel free to contact me if you have any questions montalvodaniel51@gmail.com

sammrich@umich.edu

Hello!

I debated on the policy team for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years and now I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan (not on the debate team here though).

For policy: I read a solid mix of everything in high school so I am probably familiar with whatever type of argument you want to run, that being said I have only judged a few rounds on the water topic so make sure to explain whatever you're reading well, especially DA scenarios and things like that (obviously explaining your arguments applies to everything you read but it will be especially important in that context). All I ask is that you properly compare impacts/evidence and tell me how to weigh your arguments—when I go to write my ballot I want to already know how to prioritize different arguments and what I should be voting on.

For PF: Though my background is in policy, I've judged a fair amount of PF rounds and feel comfortable doing so. However, I may not be familiar with the intricacies of the topic so keep that in mind.

Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round about my own debate history, other specific preferences, etc. Good luck!

add me to the email chain: ridatasnim@gmail.com

- spreading is fine, as long as you read the tags slowly.

- i'm okay with open cross !!

- if you're neg: PLEASE LINK TO CASE !! i know this is a given, but unfortunately, many teams fail to do this.

- not the biggest fan of theory. i wont penalize you for it, but i prefer more content-heavy arguments.

- first framework given is the one i'll accept unless its refuted.

- kritks are sexy.

- please refrain from being rude or cocky. im big on respect, so be respectful or it might reflect on your speaker points.

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. Hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

Former HS / College Debater

I am open to all arguments and try and remain as neutral as possible. It is your job to ensure I know your argument without studying it myself. I am okay with speed, and I flow, but if you are gasping for air, chances are I am not flowing. If it is not on my flow, I will not consider it. Tell me where you are on the flow and go line by line. Tag your arguments; do not expect me to flow based on author cards. I appreciate a direct yet respectful clash and want to hear definitive links. I am a timekeeper and expect you to stay within the time allotted. You should track your prep time, although I do on my end.

Make it straightforward for me on what and why you win.

Do not read blocks, read analytics that actually respond. It is obvious if you are just reading out pre-typed material and your speaks will go down.

Be polite to one another.

Do not steal prep.

claim - warrant - impact; a clear story is necessary to win the debate since a story has arguments. It might be a lofty burden but explanations are critical in order to win my ballot.

Tabula rasa.

I'm fine with most types of arguments and will try to evaluate the round as fairly as I can with no predispositions. I have some of my preferences for certain arguments listed down below, but please don't be scared to run what you're comfortable with. No matter what the argument is, if you debate it better than your opponents, I will vote for you.

- T/Theory: I’m not really a fan (I like more content-heavy debates), but if you run it, slow down so I can flow.

- K: I’m familiar with Cap K and Abolition K. If you’re running something else, spend some time on it and make sure I understand.

- DA: no link = no argument. Your impacts should outweigh theirs.

- CP: has to be competitive. I’m not really a fan of PICs or Agent CPs.

general advice

- spreading is fine, but slow down for the tags.

- don't steal prep.

- do line-by-lines!

- have a clear roadmap and signpost everything (tell me what paper to flow on!).

- 2ar/2nr needs to tell me what to vote on (you should be writing my ballot for me).

- be assertive! the best part of debate is the clash :)

add me to the email chain --- farihashoily100@gmail.com

· Varsity Judge with over 8 years of debating and judging experience.

· Clean slate judge, my opinions and feelings towards a subject will never affect the debate round.

· A judge who believes that the Aff plan should fulfill their expectation and the negative should prove that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues.

· Need a clear, straight forward presentation of issues throughout the entire round.

· Tell me why you should win the round with all evidence to back up the case.

EKSUEN@GMAIL.COM

School affiliation: Leon M. Goldstein HS

1) Hard work pays off and debate is about hard work. Debate well and be nice.

2)

T: Show violation and standards; will for topicality against non topical apps

DA: Show uniqueness(UQ), link(L), and impact

CP: show net benefit and prove how they solve the aff. Type of CP.

K: Show link, impact and alt.

FW: any kind is fine to me.

3) If you have extra prep time left, I will award you higher speaker points.

4) Do not be blatantly racist, homophobic, sexist or are in any other way discriminatory in the debate space.

Good luck to all.

I have no objections to any arguments, as long as they can be reasonably explained. Some things that you guys should consider though:

-I won't consider a Kritik if there is no framework properly established

-I will count against your speaker points if you speak out loud to your partner during someone else's speech, if you steal prep, or if you make arguments during cross examination

-If you do not read card titles/card authors, I will not consider them as valid evidence

-Don't be cocky or disrespectful
-If you're neg, please remember to link to case

-If you cut cards without telling me, I won't count that as evidence either

-Sub to my yt :P

Hi everyone.

I debated before so I'm familiar with the debate terminology. Debate however you're comfortable with but add a roadmap or signpost before your speeches. Feel free to add me to the email chain- mz04250425@gmail.com

Have fun debating!