I spent thirteen seasons solely working in policy. I have spent the last five seasons working in public forum. In addition to coaching and judging, I served as the Tournament Director for the NYCUDL, the Vice President for Policy Debate for the BQCFL, part of tab staff for NYSFLs, NYSDCAs, the New York City Invitational, and the Westchester Invitational, and in the residence halls for DDI.

What this means for PF debaters is that I am very flow-centric and expect good sign posts. If you give me a road map, I expect you to follow it. While I understand that you will not read evidence in-round, I do expect you to clearly cite your evidence and will listen to (and reward) good analysis of evidence throughout the round.

What this means for policy debaters is that I typically spend more time running tournaments than judging in them. My flowing skills are not what they used to be. You need to SLOW DOWN for your tags and authors or else they will not make my flow. You should also SLOW DOWN for the actual claims on any theory or analytic arguments (Treat them like cards!). My flow is sacred to me, if you want me to vote for you, your flow should look like mine. Lay it out for me like I am a three year-old.

As for arguments, I consider myself a stock-issues judge. Those are what I coach my novices, and I still feel they are the best arguments in policy debate. That said, I have voted on all types of arguments and performance styles in debate. If you want me to vote on something that is not a stock issue, you better explain it to me like I am a three year-old. Even if you want me to vote on a stock issue, you should explain it to me like I am a three year-old.

I do not typically ask for (or want to) examine evidence after the round. It is your job to explain it to me. There is no need to add me to an email chain. That said, if there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says, you should make a point of that in your speeches.

As for paperless debate in general, I like my rounds to start on time and end on time. If your technical issues are hindering that, I will start running prep. I will do my best to accommodate debaters, but you need to know your tech at least as well as you know your arguments.

Add me to the chain jess.berenson@gmail.com

Logistics/Background:

I am a former debater from Georgetown Day School and attended the TOC my senior year. I currently coach for the Washington Urban Debate League. This will be my fourth year as coach. Last year I judged between 40-45 rounds at local, regional and national tournaments. I'm fine with speed.

If you have a question please ask.

I think the debate round is a sacred and safe space. I work hard to protect the safety, the education and to minimize the stress level in a round. I get it-- everyone wants to win and some situations are stressful (whether you are going to break, get a TOC bid or maybe its the beginning of the season or the end of the year or maybe its just a bad day). I am a human being and its not been so long since my time at the TOC that I've forgotten what its like. I try to understand.

My focus on a safe space means that I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism or otherwise bullying or harassing behavior.

I strongly believe that the debaters should choose the arguments not the judges. So if you have an argument that you think is worth running then you should run it. I will vote for the team that argues the arguments in the round the best. I work hard not to have bias FOR/OR against different frameworks, theory, kritiks, conditional counterplans etc. Its all about convincing me that your argument is the best which I think you do through a strong line by line debate. Don't rely on me to read a bunch of cards at the end of the round. I like to vote off my flow. The debaters who get the best speaker points from me (and often the ballot) are the one's who rigorously answer the line by line debate and develop arguments as they go.

Debate seems to ebb and flow with long overviews especially on the K debate. I have no problem with long overviews, however, when they come at the expense of the line by line debate I think you do yourself a disservice.

I have spent a lot of time listening to, thinking about and voting both ways on performance affirmatives. I am not biased for one side or the other. That being said, I believe the best performance affirmatives that I have seen and am more likely to vote for are the ones that don't just expect me to compare apples and oranges but will provide a paradigm/framework for me to consider their case that rejects what the negative will be telling me the affirmative "has" to run. I especially like it when the affirmative frames that in the 1AC so I know what I'm listening to. All that said--I'll vote either way depending on how the round plays out, this is just my preference.

On the policy side of things-- my preference for a strong line by line continues. I think debating topicality and answering topicality is a lost art, as are things like counter plan theory. Slow down (on either side) and explain your arguments. Please don't just read blocks with two word answers. I don't know what to do with them and I rarely vote for them.

I will do my best to give a comprehensive RFD at the end of the round. However, sometimes time gets tricky and we get cut short. I keep my flows so please feel free to email me with other questions.

I am honored to judge you. Being a debater was an important time in my life and I'm happy to give back to the community by judging.

I have been coaching and judging with the Washington Urban Debate League since 2016.

I see debate as an exchange of intellectual discourse, and i look for logical arguments, reasoning, and warrants, and then fairness.

I don't mind speed, as long as clarity is not compromised.

Clash and intensity are exciting, but keep everything civilized. It's an intellectual discourse; not a brawl. Keep an open mind, learn from each other, and be friends after the debate.

**Email for evidence chain**: barbara.gao@saschools.org

Many moons ago, I was a 9th grader who had joined my high school's Speech and Debate team (founded by a couple of sophomores, sponsored by a biology teacher with zero background in speech and debate), because my parents wouldn't let me join theater (apparently "not good for college") so I outmaneuvered them when I heard there was "competitive acting," aka Speech.

Thus, I became the sole member, and the founding member, of the Speech division of our Speech and Debate team.

Years went by. Eventually, I was named Speech Captain (gotta be lookin' out for your college application, amirite) and slowly, but surely I recruited a few drama kids/underclassmen to the team to keep me company.

By the end of high school, I consistently broke at tournaments in Impromptu and Prose, but alas, given that both events are consolation events, I never got to go to TOC. But my journey in joining a tiny club, sticking with it, and growing it, out of love for the game was a formative experience.

If you're still with me, then it should be apparent that I have zero background in the Debate side of the house. Please know that this is my first tournament as a judge, and that it has been nearly 15 years since I last helped my teammates lug their Rubbermate tubs around.

-- I do not know the lingo. Well, I sort of do after reading all those resources, but for your purposes, assume that I do not.

-- Please, please, please do not speak at the speed of light.

-- Please keep your own time. I will also keep time. Time is, after all, a precious commodity; let's all keep time for one another.

-- I would strongly urge that we not go down the rabbit hole of Foucault.

I cannot say enough that this is my first tournament as a judge, and I have no prior experience in Policy. Listen, I read all the resources and attended the orientation that the good people organizing sent my way, but this is my first tournament as a judge, and I have no prior experience in Policy.

My husband, who is looking over my shoulder while I write this manifesto, suggested that I award extra points for "sick burns." Reader, I will not. Please exhibit common decency and humanity towards the other team, your partner, and frankly, everyone you interact with in and outside of the debate world. I will not hesitate to wield my power as judge to dock speaker points from teams who behave egregiously.

I know that you have put in a great deal of work to compete today, and I will try to match you in spirit, if not verifiable researched knowledge. I am very honored to judge you, and proud to see the next generation of Speech and Debate!

(Also, I have heard rumor that Corona del Sol High School out in Arizona is still a contender in Speech and Debate, and for that, I am incredibly proud.)

Debated for Nashua HS South and DebateDrills, graduated 2022 (fyo). Did policy my freshman year and LD the subsequent 3 years. 2x bid to the TOC my senior year. I ran primarily policy arguments when I debated.

Warning: I have been out of debate for a while. I haven't touched debate since I graduated, and I went to 2 tournaments total my senior year. I know nothing about this topic. I also forget a lot of the specific jargon specific to LD so you're gonna have to explain that to me if you're going for some esoteric Nebel standard.

General

Put me on the email chain: enyagu8@gmail.com

Pleaaaase slow down. If you're unclear or blippy it's gonna make it really hard for me to judge. Honestly you should probably go at 60% speed, 70% max. If I miss something it's only gonna hurt you! I will say clear and slow to try and help you gauge this, but try and be a little aware.

Important: Do NOT be mean in cross. You should know what this means. I will tank your speaks with 0 hesitation.

The following are things I haven't thought about in a while but probably still agree with:

Debate is probably a game

Arguments start at 0% truth, not 100%

If the 2NR is just T, the 2AR does not need to extend case (why does this happen in LD? why do judges want you to extend case? mindboggling)

Default Comparative Worlds >>>>> Truth Testing

Default fairness and education are voters

Time yourselves

Please weigh

Yes I am okay with open cross

If a question was asked before cross ended you can still answer it

My thoughts on disclosure? It's good, it's very good. You should be disclosing with best practices. Does it warrant reading a theory shell on? Depends on what kind. I'll be much more lenient for novices (and this obviously doesn't apply if you're reading from the novice policy packet)

+0.1 speaks if you say "the jig is up" in your last speech

Policy Arguments

I enjoy these debates the most! I love thorough policy debates. Weighing saves rounds, as does specific evidence comparison. Love IR debates, politics can be pretty funny

Theory

I seriously haven't thought about debate for a while so I think I'm average at best when evaluating these debates. I did go for theory a few times as a debater though, so I should be able to adjudicate a standard condo good/bad debate fairly well. I think condo 1 is very most likely good though. For frivolous theory, check the tricks section.

T

I'm okay with Nebel but I swear there is a winnable 2AR vs it every time. Standard T debates are fine

Ks

Act like I don't know your lit (which will probably be likely). Make sure I understand the thesis of your K, or else I can't vote on it.

Floating PIKs are probably bad.

I have very very little tolerance for bad K debate. If you can't explain your literature to a 5 year old (me), then don't run Ks in front of me. Long, incoherent overviews that just sound like you're reading the tags of your cards again are not gonna cut it. If this is in novice/JV, this doubly applies: don't run a K just because you think your opponents won't know how to answer it.

K affs (without a plan)

Defend something. I will negate on presumption if I don't know what your offense is.

T-FW

I'm probably better at resolving T-FW debates than K v K ones. I like fairness as an impact (probably more than education or research or something similar in these debates). These were some of my favorite debates to watch when executed well.

Phil

I don't like phil, sorry! I really like util...I'm gonna lean probably pretty hard towards it. Run phil at your own risk...

Tricks

No. I won't flow them. If you run them in front of me (???) and are sketchy about it in cross, L and really low speaks, like 26 or below.

Trad

I'm gonna be honest with you I don't know what a value/value criterion even is, so...

Novices

Signpost please, it'll make my life (and yours!) so much easier!

PF

The evidence standards in this event are very poor...I would be happy if there's an email chain. Please weigh.

I debated for UniversityHS in PF for 3 years a while back.

I have judged mostly PF over the past couple of years and only recently started judging mostly Policy and LD sporadically.

So I'm not really debate term savvy. You may need to explain topic specific abbreviations, acronyms, etc. a little more than you normally would. You may also need to go slower than normal, especially for the first 30 sec of each speech so keep I can adjust.

Not a fan of spreading but if you must please be loud and clear, very clear.

I vote up for creativity.

But please make sense of what you're trying to portray.

I vote down for wasted time.

I rarely give feedback depending on how rounds go.

Email chain: Alaiyahharris21@gmail.com

REMEMBER: be passionate and have fun!

Check Matthew Berhe's paradigm for my judging philosophy

Add kunalmay25@gmail.com to the chain

If you take no prep and win I'll give you a 30

If both teams have a policy debate I will boost speaks and be thankful

Updated for states '23:

I'm Anna, she/her, freshman @ uchicago

Add me to the chain: annakozlova@uchicago.edu

Respect your opponents' pronouns (ask)

Let me know if you are having some kind of tech issues (wifi, microphone) before the round.

Background:

I debated policy for 4 years at LHS (in mass), alternating 2n/2a. Tech>truth***, I will put aside personal biases to evaluate your arguments fairly. Especially after judging a lot of LD/PF in the last year, as well as teaching PF over the summer, i've gotten more experienced with evaluating specific arguments, although I still think there is a fairly universal way to judge them, which are all outlined below.

The main TL/DR for me is the core of debate -- say what you will about tricks and silly arguments, what matters is being able to win on substance, and although I'd prefer that substance be legitimate, I just want to be able to weigh either side at the end of the round. If there is a genuine ethics issue, we can pause the round, but I don't like watching tricks debate all too much. I'm familiar with the topic for this session, and you can assume I have a good amount of background -- I'm also a history and polisci major, so make it interesting. I like K's, good case debate, interesting DAs (if you can spin them in any way as plausible), etc -- not a fan of nitpicky T or tricks debate. Clarity in your argument is critical -- you can be fast, just be clear in both speech and logic. GFW. (Also I'm a big fan of impact calc, that should be in your speech, c'mon).

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc -- your speaks will plummet.

*********

novpol:

tl;dr - i'm good with any argument you want to run as long as you explain it fully (especially this year, seeing as i have less experience with the topic than in previous years), i have no pref for aff or neg, i've been both a 2n and 2a at this point so i respect the hustle on both sides.

impact calc is also super important to me!

please please PLEASE tell me why your impact should be prioritized, or why your aff is more important.

use analytics - don't just rely on cards.

extend your arguments throughout the round. line by line - respond to your opponents specific arguments.

extend your arguments - keep them, your cards, etc, in the round after you read them once!

stay organized. use your time efficiently, split the block well (ask if you're not sure what this means), be polite in CX, and don't trash-talk.

i'm a more policy-leaning person in general, but i'm down for a good K or theory debate, again if you explain it fully.

GFW!

jvpol:

tl;dr - a lot of the things in this paradigm about how i evaluate arguments will still apply to you, even if you've been debating for a little while. however, if it your second or third year debating, i have higher expectations about the way you explain your off case or your aff, the way you behave during CX and before/after/during the round, and the nuance you give to all of your (and your opponents) arguments.

long:

general: be organized! since it's your first year, all that matters is for you to have fun in the round and learn a lot! good and well-setup flows not only make it easier for me as a judge to evaluate your arguments, but it also makes it easier for you to extend these arguments or respond to your opponent's arguments. also, i'm down for open CX when both partners can respond to and ask questions, but if i can clearly see one of you is talking over and controlling the other, i will not like that and will dock the more aggressive person's speaks. speaking of which, i will not tolerate partners interrupting one another during their respective speeches; i find it rude and toxic for the environment, so please be kind to one another!!! that is one of the most important things!

one of the biggest issues i see novices struggling with, especially during the packet debates, is the lack of analytics until the 2N/ARs. i think it's normal to be worried that the arguments you make off the top of your head aren't going to work, but honestly, if you're just reading cards in all of your speeches that have nothing to do with your opponents' arguments, it doesn't help you during the round. make analytics, point out if your opponent dropped an argument, tell me why you win in your own words, and explain your arguments also in your own words. super duper important for everyone, but specifically addressed to the novpol packet debates.

speaking: i'm fine with spreading, as long as you're clear. be as fast as you want, but if i stop understanding you, i will say clear, and if you don't acknowledge that through slowing down or emphasizing your words more, i will take off speaker points.

CX: i always pay attention to cross ex - you can poke a lot of holes in your opponents' arguments here, and it's just as important to stay persuasive.

case: i enjoy a good case debate; as long as the arguments all interact with one another and you're not just reading random blocks that have nothing to do with the 1AC, we'll be all good! weigh your impacts, defend your 1AC, and extend your authors from the 1AC! they do not disappear when you go into your 2AC and 1AR, so use them!!!

especially with the packet, i find that novices avoid analytics, any arguments that don't have cards, and extending their cards into the 2AC and the rest of their speeches. it feels like a waste of reading cards, for one thing, it's less persuasive, it makes your life harder, it's less educational... overall just extend your cards and arguments! make analytics! take risks! i cannot emphasize this enough (and yes, it's in my paradigm twice, that's how important i find this).

also, your arguments need to be there throughout the round if you genuinely want me to evaluate them - if you say something in your 1AC/2AC but do not bring it up back up until the 2AR (or 1NC and 2NR), i can't vote on it.

do impact calculus! it's great practice and it's super helpful to me to evaluating your case.

disads - i like disads as an argument, although i might not be able to buy politics DAs like elections or senate after the election, but other than that, i'm down for a good story. make sure that the link chain to the affirmative is clearly outlined in the 1NC, and that the impact calculus is there. weigh! your! impacts! explain to me why your impact is larger, more probable, or more imminent, and why it's more important! this is crucial in winning the DA - otherwise, i can't evaluate why your disad should be prioritized.

counterplans - i'm a big fan of counterplans (if they're competitive, but that's up for debate :)). speaking of competition, i come in with no bias about any types of counterplans. aff, if you want to convince me the counterplan text isn't competitive, convince me. neg, if you want to win the counterplan, give me a clear story of how it works, why it solves better than the affirmative, the internal/external net benefits, otherwise i can't vote on it. i don't have much to say about the more policy-leaning arguments, mostly because i'm more experienced with them, and want to let you have free rein with them!

kritiks - i've been mainly policy for my high school years, meaning i'm not well versed in most k literature (except for more policy ones, like the capitalism kritik). however, like i mentioned above, i'm down for any argument, as long as you're able to explain it well. i want to make sure you can clearly articulate links and your alternative, as well as your framework, etc. if i can tell you're just reading blocked out k's from varsity members, i'm less inclined to vote for you. as well as that, interact! with! the! 1AC! even though you're running a k that basically just says "aff bad for x complicated reason", you need to do case debate! running an argument parallel to the aff doesn't produce anything within the round. LINK DEBATE: i also really prefer specific links over generic links, although if you can spin the generic link nicely, i will like that as well. ON THE ALT DEBATE: pleeeease explain your alt to me very clearly. alts are often extremely questionable (to put it nicely), so if you're advocating for it and you go for it, make sure we all understand it. thank you!

k-affs: like i mentioned, i'm not super educated in k literature, and especially k-affs. i absolutely will not pretend that i fully understand your aff from just the 1AC, so please! explain it to me like i'm a parent judge or someone who has never interacted with a k aff, even though i have. i'm also not the biggest fan of them, but if you can somehow convince me my ballot can do something outside of the round, then i may vote on it. i personally do not believe that my ballot has any role other than determining who wins/loses the round simply because of the nature of debate (and how many times you've read the k aff before my round - what makes me unique?). if there is a performance/song/whatever in your 1AC, use that throughout the round if you can, although i'm not exactly sure how it works (again - k aff dumdum, so if your aff is a k-aff, i will be reasonably lenient in your arguments). if you run a tva/fw, explain it to me, be very clear, etc. same as with all arguments, make sure you understand it beforehand, and aren't reading straight down whatever file the varsity folks gave you.

framework - framework! i enjoy framework on the neg, i think it's an important part of debate, and i love a good framework debate with interacting arguments on both sides. explain your interp to me, standards, etc. for the neg - when you're running a K, make sure you explain to me why your framework ISN'T self serving, because often times, i find that it is. other than that, go crazy, i'll happily judge whatever you put in front of me! again, this is super important: understand your arguments! as first years, you gotta know what you're doing so you can learn from the round.

theory/t - this is another argument i'm not the most familiar with, but just like the K, explain it very well. i think fairness is an internal link to education, not that it's an impact, but try to convince me otherwise. i like a good t debate, give me your interp and a case list (underrated!), or a counterinterp, reasons to prefer, etc. i don't really hold a bias about precision vs specificity, so feel free to convince me. i will buy any argument as long as you explain and understand it!

overall, i just want you guys to have fun and learn a lot. as first/second year debaters, all that really matters is that you get educational experience in a respectful and fun way, especially in debate, which is such a challenging yet rewarding activity. i was one of you once, so i will be extremely nice within the round, whether that be if you have a question for me, or are having technical difficulties. no prep time will be taken from you if your wifi glitches out, or your document crashes, because i completely understand! GFW!

nLD/nPF:

i don't debate in these events, but i'm very familiar with the topic for this month as well as general arguments so i can still judge well. i have plenty of experience with judging and teaching PF, but LD is where i lack a little bit (so if you have any arguments that aren't linear, like some forms of tricks, flesh out really well). since i debate in policy, please make sure to lay out the story of your aff/neg or pro/con position very clearly - i value impact weighing a LOT, especially in PF and LD. explain to me why your impacts are more important, whether that be due to your framing, your "solvency", or otherwise. you also need to be able to flesh out, or really thoroughly explain, the chain of events that you're defending. however, i may not understand all of the nuances of a debate like LD if you read tricky arguments, which is something to take into account. i will be able to give an educational rfd (my style is speech-by-speech), because i've seen a lot of these rounds and i've been involved in debate for years, so the round will be productive for you. and good luck have fun! p.s. if any of the policy args apply to you, and i'm assuming they do, take that info!

so...you've read to the end of my paradigm. very impressive!! here's my speak increase/decrease chart:

note: i will not significantly change your speaker points from what i think you deserve - if i think you got a 28 (including some of these things, because some of these you do implicitly and i think they ought to contribute to your final speaker points), i cannot boost you up to a 28.5 or 28.7, but i can give you up to a 28.2 of additional points when you make purposeful changes to how you debate based on my boosters.

28.5 is what i am adjusting from throughout the round.

+0.1 if you post my email without asking me on the email chain - this lets me know you read my paradigm, or at least am aware that i have one, which is a good practice to encourage.

+0.1 if you make a funny new england joke

+0.1-0.3 if you talk to me about any of the things i listed i enjoy - it's nice to know you're human and not just a face on NSDA campus :) (this depends on how entertaining i find your comments)

+0.1 if you show me your neat flows after the round! like i said, organization during a round is super important, and i think encouraging organized flows is crucial in furthering your debate career.

+0.2 if you're nice to your opponents before, during, and after the round - good sportsmanship is so crucial, especially in these crazy times, so be respectful people! don't interrupt a lot in cross ex, don't talk over one another, no personal attacks, no post rounding, no angry facial expressions, etc.

+0.2-4 if you ask me thoughtful questions about the round, ask about how you could have run an argument better, ask about the details about my decision, etc. it's important that you improve, and getting detailed feedback other than just the RFD is incredibly useful! i'll love you taking initiative.

-0.7 at least if you're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, before, during, or after your round - i will tolerate absolutely none of this, and while this might not influence my decision by a lot, it will drastically affect your speaker points.

-0.2 if you bash your previous opponents in the round, are rude within the round, scream at your opponents, etc - show proper etiquette and sportsmanship in debate, this is just as important as any arguments you make.

-0.3 if you read arguments such as "trigger warnings bad" or are insensitive to your opponents' triggers - i have been in a similar situation where i had a panic attack due to an aff not putting any tw at the top and could barely debate for the rest of the round. it's a personal issue for me, so please, be understanding.

-0.1 for each time you purposefully misgender your opponents - it's plain rude.

***tech>truth: this is a difficult call to make, because making horrible arguments and banking on them just because your opponent didn't answer it doesn't win you a round. however, regardless of whether or not your opponent makes those kinds of arguments, you still need to respond to them - even though i value the truth of an argument (like space lasers or aliens? no thank you), i'm still going to weigh it even if it's really out there, and if the other team manages to convince me that there is a unique and important reason that they should win the round because you didn't sufficiently answer their albeit obscure argument, it'll be even more important. this is specifically true in policy debate, and occasionally in LD, but in all kinds of debate, i honestly believe that using racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc within a round should cost you the ballot, even if your opponents didn't say more than "this is racist and that's bad, here's why". so all in all, i value tech and truth very similarly, but depending on the round, one will take priority over the other. so just answer all your opponent's arguments, don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc, and be thorough with your arguments!

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. These are just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow. I do not coach often anymore, so assume that I have no topic knowledge.

I debated at Mamaroneck for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I did grad school at Georgetown and work for the debate team.

People who have influenced how I judge and view debate: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Rayeed Rahman, Jack Hightower, Cole Weese, Tess Lepelstat, Zach Zinober, David Trigaux, Brandon Kelley, Gabe Lewis

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email subject should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2023 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

Please open source all your evidence after the debate.

Be respectful. Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

I adjust speaker points based on the tournament, division, and quality of competition. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will also result in L 1 or lowest possible points. Don't test me on this.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and your evidence is better without comparing warrants.

I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout (gross) or warming good (I work in environmental law). I will be annoyed if you run these arguments, but will still try to evaluate the round fairly. Obviously no racism good or similar arguments.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I used to like topicality debates, but I realized that they become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (this argument is kinda dumb). Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. I will vote for condo it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, but you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I love real and true arguments.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to have a specific solvency mechanism and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually based on framework or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

Hi! My name is Tanisha Saxena (she/her) and I'm a 4th-year 2N varsity policy debater and a senior at Lexington High School.

Add me on the email chain: tanisha.saxena@gmail.com

(If you are really pressed for time, read the bold parts)

General:

- I'm okay with any reasonable argument (nothing oppressive, hurtful, etc.)

- My evaluation is based solely on what is said in the round, I will believe any claim (even ones that seem incorrect) unless someone says otherwise, I don't impose my own knowledge into the round decision

- Speaker points are based on how well you formulate arguments, and how courteous you are in round

- Tech issues are bound to happen in the virtual world. I won’t dock your speaks or prep for it unless the tournament forces me to

Preferences:

- Please be clear about your arguments, I will follow along with evidence but if you aren't clear when formulating the meaning and link chain of your arguments in cross ex and for extensions, I won't evaluate it as much

- If you read a K be very concise with the explanation of definitions, using buzzwords to confuse your opponent just makes for a weaker round and makes it harder for me to figure out what exactly I would be voting on

- Avoid new evidence in the 1AR, if possible. I can allow new evidence to be read but make it minimal. Try not to bring in new arguments, just strengthen your past ones.

- Write your ballot in the 2NR/2AR, make a laundry list of arguments I should vote for your team on and why. For anyone who hasn't done this before: look at all the off case and on case arguments made and say which flows you are winning on and why. Then, explain why I should value you over the other team. This usually takes like 30 secs at the end of the speech and gives you much more ethos

- Value clarity over speed when speaking. If nothing else then slow down on tags and make sure the tags explain the card well. The most important thing for a debate is that both parties actually understand what the other is saying. I won't stop you if you aren't clear but be aware that it forces me to either miss arguments or rely on what I /can/ hear in the meat of the card to figure out what you are trying to say, meaning your arguments won't be as solid in my mind

- Say which arguments you are answering in line-by-line. This makes it easier to flow and way easier for me to directly compare the clashing arguments

- If you're a novice, I get that you won't have much evidence of a lot of new arguments. In that case, I value reasonability and examples. If you are making a claim, use historical facts you know as proof or explain the possible warrants to best show that I should believe you.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: aubrey.semple@successacademies.org

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (Present)

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-2019)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director - New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - July 2020)

Director of Debate - Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (August 2020 - Present)

Debater Background
New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
Paul Robeson High School (New York Urban Debate League) (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Policy Short Version:

** 12/1/21 - 2021 NY FALL FACE OFF UPDATE**

This will be my first tournament on the water protections topic and my first time judging remote in a while so I ask that you prioritize clarity over speed as I will be flowing on paper and if I can't catch your arguments because I can't hear you then those arguments will not be evaluated in my decision.

I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I grow older in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due to these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot fails to explain what your argument is and not tell me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex Kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that make no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well-thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the ongoing mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the ones you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

Stjsuben@gmail.com

Mamaroneck '20

Binghamton '24

assistant coach @ Berkeley Prep

As of fall 2021, I no longer actively debate. This was not by my own choice, but rather the result of partner scarcity/other people quitting at a small program, and is something I am sort of sad about. It does however, mean a few things:

1. My engagement with the activity entirely takes place through coaching/judging, thus, I will be especially committed to making these debates as good as possible in whatever ways I can.

2. Many of the views and/or biases (particularly concerning k debate) stated in this paradigm are far more weakly held than they were even a few months ago. You probably get away with anything if you do it well.

In high school I was flex but went for the K very often. I would typically go for topicality against critical affs. I have predispositions towards both sides of the clash of civs depending on issue. My closest mentors in the activity were/are "policy-leaning" and my brief college career was largely k-oriented. Do with all that what you will.

I read a great deal in my spare time and as part of my academic career. This mostly focuses on putatively "critical" bases of literature like world-systems analysis, Russian Studies, Marxism, and development economics. I strive to be neutral but I believe that judges who are highly engaged with scholarship outside of the activity should not try to pretend that it doesn't influence how they think about debates.

Basic predispositions:

+0.3 speaks if you opensource after the debate and tell me

tech determines the direction of truth

protecting the 2nr = yes

not your baudrillard

I will not evaluate arguments made outside of speech times and thus will stop flowing if you continue after the timer

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc

an expressive judge, but tend to express my feelings about extremely irrelevant things and make difficult to discern expressions

horrible with eye contact

speed = good

I am extremely unlikely to vote in favor of mandating pref disclosure

Do not ask for high speaks

Moralizing is prohibited

I would frankly prefer not to hear fascist and genocidal arguments about "first striking" Russia or China or Iran

other than that, more general "death good" is fine

"kritik affs"/planless affs/t-usfg/framework:

Debate is a game. It is also 1) A game with potentially meaningful effects on the social/political consciousness of the participants and 2) A game with a community, culture, and history. This history may mean that even if an argument is narrowly true, the actual enforcement/implementation of a rule may have historically been used as a tool of exclusion. On the flipside, without rules to the game it might cease to function entirely, and then whatever benefits there are to it would be lost. I can be convinced of either of these things.

affs should not defend a moral truism

i will lean more strongly towards the policy side of these debates when affs do not clearly advocate for something and more strongly towards the critical side when negatives make very racist or orientalist arguments

critiques generally:

Critical debates are good when done well. As mentioned above, I am very knowledgeable about literature bases related to Marxism, critiques of imperialism, or orientalism. I am also conversant in baudrillard, foucault, wilderson, etc -- most of the literature that is conventionally read in debates.

links to the plan + alts that function as counterplans OR links that function as impact turns are the most enjoyable k debates for me. these debates produce the most interesting revolutionary research. this doesn't change at all that affs that can't justify weighing the plan will lose in front of me.

I think "weighing the aff" is not all-or-nothing, insofar as the aff is attached to a number of things (political and educational methodology, engagement with certain structures, goals, etc) besides its scenarios which these debates are almost entirely about

Impact turns when well explained and well carded are often a good strategy.

t vs policy affs

I default to competing interpretations.

reasonability is not a thing

not much else to say here

disads

I read most if not all evidence

uq + link + internal link + impact

counterplans:

I like well-researched, specific, techy, creative, etc counterplans. I am a big fan of the advantage cp. I especially enjoy cps that rely on a macroeconomic or ir theory to ground solvency (mmt, prolif good, etc). uniqueness cps are cool

Process counterplans become better the more they are grounded in topic literature. Process counterplans become worse the more they use neg fiat to manufacture an opportunity cost or lead to the aff. Theory will be covered below.

Sufficiency framing >>>>

Logical arguments or arguments based on obvious holes in the aff don't necessarily need solvency advocates

obviously you can kick specific planks

theory:

lean negative on: condo, pics (including plan-inclusive alts), no plan no perm

lean affirmative on: fifty state fiat, multi-actor fiat generally, agent counterplans generally, process counterplans that don't very obviously compete

i am open to intrinsic perms being okay to punish shitty process cps

LD:

Same views as in policy apply for the most part. Best for larp or structural k debates.

Biases in no plan debates significantly weaker in this activity

I do not know much about analytic phil. I know a decent amount about continental and political phil.

People who have influenced how I debate/judge/view debate:

Ronak Ahuja, Ken Karas, Atticus Glen, Daryl Burch

If you make (nice) jokes at the expense of someone from Mamaroneck chances are that I will laugh, especially if it is Sonia Suben

Всё идёт по плану - YouTube

Hi, my name is Joel Swirnoff, and I did policy debate at Lexington High School in MA for 3+ years. I TA'd novices at LHS (in policy debate) in my senior year. I use he/him/his pronouns, and it would be great if you could let me know what yours are, as well as your preferred name if it is different than what is listed on tabroom.

I'd like to be on the email chain- please use the email joeldebate@gmail.com

Look to the bottom of my paradigm if you need a TLDR

Overall/if you have time:

Please signpost! Tell me what flows I need and in what order for your speech, and say "and" in between cards.

tech>truth. This doesn't mean you can just make any claim however, you also need a warrant. If you have a sufficient one, I will presume it is true until the other team makes an argument against it.

Framing ends up being really important in my decision. More on this below.

Spreading is fine, but if I cannot understand you I won't be able to flow what you say. If you are more comfortable not spreading, don't! In the end, it's about what you say, not about flexing how quickly you can talk.

Clarity is super important too, for the reasons above.

Make sure you are extending warrants when you make any extensions! If you tell me "extend Swirnoff- that turns the link" I want to know HOW it does that.

Dropped arguments are concessions, but it is up to you to capitalize on them. Like I said above, I want to hear why that concession wins you the debate, rather than you telling me it wins the debate. Say things like "they dropped our Swirnoff card, this means only the plan leads to xyz impact as..."

Organization is key for both you and me. It helps everyone in the round when you tell us you are moving on to another specific part of the debate. This means saying clearly when you are moving to another flow, or even when moving to another part of a contention (for example: "now onto the uniqueness of the disadd")

Big fan of impact calc, especially when it is explained well! In closer rounds, this and framing is usually how you win.

In your last speech, tell me why you win the debate. Outline the arguments you are extending and say what my ballot should say.

Things specific to Policy Debate:

A note: please don't say you "solve for racism," you don't.

Case: Case is your child, so take care of it. If you are on the aff remember that you start with the burden of proof.

Framing: As mentioned above, framing is really important in my decision. I will default to a utilitarian framework unless told otherwise. This means for soft left affs, a lot of what will likely end up going into your win is an explanation as to why we should prefer your framing of the round. For the neg, you will have to defend your framework as well. I've found in rounds that each team can win under each framework, the explanation just needs to be there.

DAs: DAs are the epitome of tech>truth, and I love debates over DAs if the link is thought out well and is contextualized to the plan. Take me through the different parts of the debate: this will organize my flow best. Tell me what's unique, what the link is, what the internal link is, and what the impact is. One thing I've seen a lot this year is that it's really hard for me to vote on a DA when there isn't a coherent link chain. So please, please, in your 2nr flesh it all out for me and weigh it at the end.

CPs: CPs that are contextualized to the aff are super strong, but remember you always always always have to prove that it is mutually exclusive from the aff. As I mentioned before, take me through all the parts of the CP. For the aff, this means going through POSTAL.

Conditionality: If you are running one or two conditional advocacies, it probably isn't abusive (two can be argued). More than that you've got a real debate on your hands, but I can be swayed either way.

Ks: I love Ks like Cap and Security! If it is well thought out and contextualized to the aff, I'll be a big fan. Make sure you prove to me that the world of the alternative is better than the world of the aff and status quo. If your alt is "Reject the Aff" it's gonna be a much harder sell to me than real substantial change (eg communism as an alt to capitalism)

T: The neg will have to win a couple parts of the debate in order to win T, but it is definitely doable if you devote your 2nr to it. You'll first have to win that the aff is violating the resolution. This includes a good definition of the language in the resolution you think the aff is violating. From there, you have to prove that what the aff is doing is bad for debate or is abusive. I think that fairness IS a voter (sorry Kaz), but it can also be used as an internal link depending on how you see it.

Things specific to Novice LD:

Framework: I love debates about values and criteria. If you can win your framework it's much more likely that you win the round. A well thought out criterion that fits your evidence well makes the round an engaging one that will probably help your speaks.

Definitions: These can really be your friend! Later in the debate you might be having an argument over how certain actions pan out in the world of the debate, and having a strong definition (it's helpful to include why this definition is good) can decide whether I choose yours or theirs.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: I do not have much topic knowledge.

Random: You don't need to say "I affirm/negate resolved" or "I urge you to vote aff/neg." I'm aware, but it's not a problem if you do, I just think you should be saving time for actual substance.

FAQ:

Open CX- I don't really care

What should you call me- "judge" is fine

Open speeches- I'd prefer not, but it's not the end of the world. I'll flow it but it probably mentally holds more weight if the actual speech giver says it

Cameras on- I'd prefer it if you had your camera on, but if you're not comfortable don't feel pressured to do so.

New arguments from the 2ac on- I'd really prefer it if you didn't. Add ons are okay but it's much better if you just go with the arguments that came out of the 1ac and 1nc. Exceptions are if a team does something within the bold below.

Keeping track of prep- I'll do my best to keep track of prep but I don't always remember to. Consider this a panopticon tho- I am keeping track of your prep and speaks will go down if you steal.

Speaker points- I start out at 28.3-28.5 and will go up or down based on the debate. I consider clarity, respectfulness, arguments made, quick-wittedness, etc.

Lastly,

Be nice! Respectfulness will usually lead me to giving you higher speaks. If there is a lack of respect or if there is demoralization between opponents, it'll likely lead to lower speaks, especially when this occurs from a male team towards a female or other identifying team.

Racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, ableism, or any comments of the like will automatically dock speaker points and may lead to a loss.

Some stuff about me that I might give you plus speaks on: I'm a big fan of soccer (I'm a Man Utd fan) and really all sports, so if you want I'd be down to talk about it before the round. Also, if you can make jokes about Lex Debate or anyone in it I'll definitely appreciate it.

If you have any questions, please ask, and have fun!

TLDR:

- You can run pretty much anything you'd like in front of me

- I am very much tech>truth

- Be respectful

- framing is usually pretty important in my decision

- Do impact calc

- organize your speeches well, be clear, and say "and" in between cards

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

wake 24 | law magnet 20

call me asya, like asia.

pls add me to the chain - asyadebates@gmail.com

be fun/funny/interesting, unless you’re not, then don’t be.

i’d rather watch debates i’m normally in (clash, k debates). i’d also rather be doing things that aren’t judging debates so don’t feel like it’s adapt or die if you wanna do plan things, just know i need more handholding on argument interaction.

defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe.

“with high risk comes high reward, etc, etc” -- you win more the more you’re willing to try things you wouldn’t go for, and you can persuade me of most things (not ethnic genocide good, never ethnic genocide good).

i flow, but sometimes not very fast or well. if i’m judging you, assume that i’m in the camp of people who are literally writing down what you’re saying and not always the argument you’re making. i don’t suck at debate, i just have short term memory loss and don’t want to literally miss arguments you’re making.

i can’t flow when people are atrociously unclear, which is like saying “i can’t flow when the debaters are completely silent” because you are effectively saying nothing. i get being nervous though so i try as much as possible to not punish debaters for stuttering or anything else that people traditionally suggest makes someone a "bad speaker"

i’m unclear on why people try to resolve debates in their paradigm - if i could resolve a debate on my own, then i would ask you to send speech docs for the 1ac/1nc and get back to you in thirty.

argument specifics:

-convincing me fairness matters as anything more than an internal link will be difficult.

-if debated equally, i tend to err aff on framework.

-default offense-defense, technical concessions matter - unless someone says they don’t or another frame of evaluation

-won’t judge kick unless told to

-unless the negative is crushing framework, at best i default to weighing the non-idealized version of the plan in most aff v k debates (i.e. i’m unlikely to ‘moot’ the aff)

-don’t really follow docs to be honest, if i’m sus about clipping i certainly will (will dock speaks, won’t drop team unless the other team suggests it)

ask me questions about my paradigm, wake debate/the rks, or my rfd. disagreeing with me is fine, insulting me is not.

LD STUFF:

I evaluate debate like a policy debater that reads k's and read 'larp' or more traditional arguments in high school. I value really good thought out strategies over obfuscating the debate. Debate should be about substantive issues so it's easier to get me to reject the argument and not the team for theory.

please don't ask me for your speaks (uncomfortable), please set up an email chain (not fileshare)

if you need help preffing me, nate kruger gave me this guide:

k - 1

larp - 1

theory (topicality) - 1

phil - 4

tricks/theory - 5

Please add me to email chains: lexingtonkt@gmail.com

Lexington High School '22.

2A/1N

Disclaimer: My last debate tournament was over a year ago, and I haven't judged any rounds on this topic. I may be a bit rusty. I'm probably best for straight-forward policy rounds, as I've probably forgotten a lot of my K knowledge at this point.

Tech > truth, I'll try to be as non-interventionist as possible. I view it as my job as a judge to adapt to whatever y'alls styles of debate are and not your job to adapt your style of debate to my preferences. You can take this to mean that I'm fine with whatever kinds of arguments you want (besides blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc arguments), as long as you explain it well.

If no one brings up how to weigh impacts, I will default to utilitarianism.

I strongly recommend that the 2NR and 2AR start with a quick overview of why I should vote for the neg or aff team respectively. Judge instruction strongly increases the chance of me seeing the debate round from your perspective, and voting for you.

Analytics are underrated. In my opinion, most arguments in debate can be beaten by a little bit of critical thinking. If you’re facing a new disad for example, I’d much prefer you respond to it in the 2ac with 30 seconds of analytics which take out the logical basis for the DA than 2 minutes of impact defense.

Here are my thoughts on different kinds of arguments:

Disadvantages: A lot of the common DAs on recent have simply made very little logical sense. That doesn't mean I won't vote for them, but it does mean that an aff team can often beat disadvantages by pointing out their logical holes (even without cards).

Counterplans: These can be very strategic, especially when your disadvantage is somewhat weak. Also, don't feel compelled to only read generic CPs. A lot of the time you can come up with creative aff-specific counterplans just by reading through the other team's evidence or using your brain. Process CPs are also fine, but they can often be beaten by strategic perms.

Kritiks: I'll do my best to evaluate any kritik in an unbiased manner, but I'll be most familiar with security kritiks or kritiks relating to settler colonialism or afropessimism.

K-affs: Not an expert in these, but I've read them on the aff a few times, and been negative against them many times.

--- When going for framework: Neg teams should do more case debate IMO. Especially now that a lot of K affs are basically designed just to beat framework, conceding the affirmative team's case can make it hard to win.

--- When going for a K against a K aff: Go for it, but I may end up being very confused if there's a lot buzzwords involved. I'm most familiar with going for cap against K affs.

Topicality: I tend to lean towards legally precise definitions, as I find them to be the most predictable. Probably slightly aff-biased

Impact turns: Good w me. You can read spark/wipeout/whatever, you just need to justify it.

hi! my name is michelle, i go by she/her pronouns, and if you're reading this i'm probably judging you soon whoa! please add michellewu7154@gmail.com to the email chain

*for novices: novice year is all abt learning so if there's anything you want to work on specifically, let me know before the round

tldr:

- be clear, organized, and explain your arguments

- weigh and compare args, write my ballot for me

- time yourself and keep track of your own prep

- be nice, make the round a safe and fun learning environment

- you do you, but i'm not the most experienced in high theory ks or other strange theory

abt me:

- currently a freshman in college,

- i've done policy debate since freshman year and ran policy strategies

about the debate:

- a complete argument has a claim, warrants, and impact (all are important but most people will forget warrants and not use impacts)

- i shall say this many times, please weigh your arguments and do comparisons with your opponent's arguments (it helps me make a decision and it'll make ur debates much more in depth and fun). don't just say we have a higher probability, magnitude, or timeframe, explain why and how they interact with each other on both sides

- tech > truth (this means i will look at the arguments on the flow and what has been said, not what is my or your personal opinion. you should point dropped args and explain why they're important for you. that being said, i will not value "tech" if it is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or in any way disrespectful because that wouldn't be very cash money of you please use ur best judgement)

- clarity > speed

- organization!! tell me which arguments you're responding to/extending and when you switch flows. please roadmap before you start your speech, which is telling me the order of flows in your speech, and sign post during your speech, which is labeling the points you're talking about

- write my ballot for me! this takes lots of practice but make your last speeches big picture, tell me what are the most important points from the round, and what i should care about. before you start the 2NR or 2AR, ask yourself "why are we winning this debate" and your answer should be the first sentence of the speech

- did someone say impact calc? did someone say evidence comparison? did someone say weighing across multiple flows? :0 yes indeed i said it (key word: outweighs)

for ld

i've judge a couple ld rounds, but i'm still unfamiliar with some jargons or ld-specific theory. i can flow your arguments, but i might need a little more explanation.

good luck and have fun!!

Messai Yigletu: Head Debate Coach at BASIS DC

4 years experience as a debater in high school, LD.

Coach for policy debaters, middle & high school. (Presently coaching.)

I currently coach the policy debate team at BASIS DC and have done so since the 2020 season.

would like to be on email chains for case files: messaiyigletu@gmail.com

if you are reading this, that means I will be hearing you debate pretty soon! good luck! take a minute to read a few important points that will help you in this debate.

Arguments/Debate

not usually a fan of spread/speed. Usually fine + can keep up if I have case files & you read taglines.

SIGNPOST ALL ARGUMENTS! Expecting me to guess what off you are reading based on evidence is irritating and causes unnecessary confusion + various different names/key words in round for the same block/arg. Be clear and straightforward.

Prefer to hear roadmaps at the beginning of every speech.

fine with K as long as it is clearly explained and set out in the speech. not guaranteed that I will have prior knowledge and even if I do, prefer a deep and analytical explanation of your thesis. Make sure to give a detailed/clear explanation - especially w/framing + alt.

comparative + clear clash & addressing all arguments on flow are key winning points for me.

do not assume I will automatically indicate drops in anyone's favor. if drops occur, you are responsible for addressing and explaining the warrants for why the drop is key relative to the round. (Actual drops occuring, plz don't just try and lie in 2AR/2NR. yes - it has happened.) all args on flow should be extended or specifically kicked out of throughout the debate by both sides.

speaker points are awarded basis on quality of speeches, time usage, and clarity.

keep it respectful, especially during CX. intensity and passion are fine and even encouraged, but never make it personal/attempt to take it to a point of disrespect.