Background: Hello, my name is Lorelei Bailey (she/her/hers) and I am a past student judge. I competed in LD for 6 years and have judged debate tournaments ranging from middle school, novice, and varsity. I am currently an NPDA college debater at Tulane University. Debate is something I have enjoyed for the more significant part of my life, below I have some things I like to remind competitors about before rounds. Please do not hesitate to clarify any questions about my paradigm before the round begins.

Competition preferences (LD):

Please put me in the email chain- email: lorelei.e.bailey@gmail.com

I competed as a traditional LD debater but I know progressive/tech well. Please off-time roadmap/signpost because I flow during every round I judge. Please keep time, I do time during the round but also prefer competitors to do the same, and use your prep time.

Basic stuff:

• Don't drop args.
• Weigh.
• Consider organization.
• Use prep time effectively, same for the cross.
• If you're going to spread, make sure you actually can- don't attempt to if you can't do it "correctly"
• Unpopular opinion: tech and truth are equal and it is better to have a bad response to an argument than no response.
• AFF has the burden of proof.
• I'm more familiar with trad but am fine with progressive

Speaks: No clear formula, but here are my main consistencies

• I am fine with spreading as long as it is done well if you're able to speak clearly
• I like cross-examination and it does affect speaks during rounds I judge.
• A general rule of thumb: don't be rude
• Organization = higher speaks
• Time unused = lower speaks
• Fluency, clarity, etc = higher speaks

Cross-examination:

• I was told that CX is where the round is won which I think is generally true. CX takes organization skills, strategy, and direction. The intent of your questions is more obvious than you think...asking clarification questions (i.e "what is your V/VC") tells me that you are unprepared and did not listen to your opponent, you should be able to ask better questions than that.

K's:

• EXPLAIN your argument. If it is not relevant, I will not flow which could negatively affect you.

Tricks:

• Unpopular opinion, but tricks can be very useful, but only if the debater does it right.
• Substantive tricks: hijacks, determinism, and moral skepticism are the types I'm most familiar with.
• Theory tricks: not preferred at all, they're usually messy and just bad.
• Responding to Tricks: 1) Underplay, 2) line-by-line response, 3) generate turns

Disadvantages:

• Perfect DAs need to consist of 1) Uniqueness, 2) Impact, 3) Link, 4) Internal link
• How I like to respond to DAs/how to respond to a DA:
• Answer the link/ turn the link- When you make a “no link” argument, you are contending that the first step in the disadvantage will not result from supporting your plan.
• Answer the internal link/turn the internal link. When answering the internal link, you are essentially arguing that “A” will not produce “B.”
• Answer the impact/turning the impact. An impact answer says that the impact is false. An impact turn says that not only is the final impact not bad, but it is also good.
• Strats: 1) Use your affirmative to non-unique the disadvantage. 2) Use your affirmative to solve the impact. Think of a way that voting for the affirmative can prevent the impact. 3) Maintain an apriori claim

CP's:

• Make sure your CP applies and is realistic to the topic. I think only topical CPs should be allowed in a round, but that is just my opinion.
• Responses: P.O.S.T
• P- Permutations (PERMS): These are the most common, I do not have a preference
• Severance permutations—Severance permutations attempt to do part of the plan and all or part of the counterplan and thus "sever" out of part of the plan. When done as a counterplan, it is often called a plan-inclusive counterplan or PIC.
• Intrinsicness permutations—Intrinsicness permutations attempt to do all of the plans, all or part of the counterplan, and something in neither the plan nor the counterplan. Their rationale is that the counterplan is not intrinsically competitive with the plan because the added actions make it possible to achieve the benefits of both the plan and the counterplan.

Competition preferences for Congressional Debate (CD):

If you need time signals, I will provide them but clarify how you would like them done. Eye contact is vital so I know when you are ready to begin speaking, this helps tremendously with timing.

• Don't make up your sources
• Don't rely on reading straight from your laptop, impromptu responses make Congress the event that it is, if you know the subject matter that is up for discussion then this shouldn't be an issue.
• POs: move the debate along, that's the essence of your role. Remain impartial to your school

Competition preferences (IE)

If you ask for time signals, I am more than willing to provide time signals. Project your voice and speak clearly. I evaluate characterization, speaking pace, and theme

For all competitors:

Have fun and enjoy competing !!! <3

Hi! I'm an incoming college sophomore currently competing in BP/ APDA, and championed WSDC with Team USA in 2023. WSD preferences/ thoughts below, but I don't think I have any particularly hot takes -- feel free to run whatever you want (within reason) as long as you're persuasive, and have fun!

On principles: I won't automatically weigh the principle before the practical. You need to explain to me why you should. I also won't automatically discount a "principle" just because it's hung. I'll just evaluate it as a practical argument.

On third substantives:You don't need one if you don't want one. Just make sure you're flagging extension material in the 2 if you choose not to run a 3rd argument.

Thirds, replies, and new material:I won't evaluate entirely new mechanisms. I won't evaluate entirely new impacts. New analysis of mechanisms and impacts that were brought up in the 1 or 2 is fine in the 3rd speech. New refutation is fine in the 3rd speech. I'm not going to evaluate new analysis and ref in the reply -- you should be using this speech to highlight your winning arguments and explain how you've already beaten their winning arguments.

Interventionism: If your mechanism is egregiously wrong (think: the sky is green levels of wrong) I won't factor it into the round even if your opponents don't respond at all. Otherwise I'll evaluate it, but keep in mind that the less substantiated your claim is, the less of a response it requires.

POIs:will dock speaks if you don't take at least one, assuming they're offered.

CLASH

Make sure you signpost arguments

Overall, I would rather you do you and I will flow it.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!

Background: grand saline high school 21-23

2022 uil ld state champion

2023 uil ld state semifinalist.

I will vote for the better debater

Theory>framework if reasonable

Counterplan substance will be weighed greater than or equal to framework, that being said if you run a cp make sure to run it properly

Absent framework debate i will default tangibility of impacts

Ask further questions if you want!

Lay Debate

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is Jack Miller, I've been a LD debater for 4 years. I've qualled to NSDA nationals twice, qualled to TOC twice, and placed top 3 in lots of different national circuit tourneys. I care less about what you read and more about how you read it; idc what the framing and contentions are as long as its executed well. Just win the flow and I'll vote for you.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args
-LBL>large overviews that just concede args (i.e. please dont give a 2nr where you just extend everything thru ink and say "voter" a lot)
-Framing isnt a voter, you need to win contention level offense under it otherwise its just a presumption ballot.

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

Circuit Judging

About Me

Hey everyone! For those of you who couldn't tell, my name is, in fact, not Pegasus Mitusbishi Fitzgerald - it's Jack Miller. I am currently a rising senior from a small school in Oklahoma (ACCS). My decisions in debate very much center around strategy, so I've read a very eclectic range of arguments—everything ranging from a myriad of phil affs, to trix and friv theory, to pess and debate bad—so I am happy to evaluate whatever type of round you want.

Ideological Overview

One of my strongest beliefs in debate is that the flow is the sole determiner of who should win the round, so my goal as a judge will always be to render the most objective and equitable decision possible. I don't ever want a debater to feel like they have to accommodate to me—read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round presented in front of me. Of course, I am not omniscient so I naturally understand some arguments more than others (i.e. I am probably the worst at evaluating larp vs larp), but I will always consciously attempt to detach myself from any biases or predispositions I have. In summary, you can read whatever arguments you want as long as you win them on the flow and implicate them as justifications for voting in a particular way.

I don't care how fast you go, but if I can't understand you, I will shout clear. I would also prefer if you included analytics in docs since it ensures with certainty that I won't any miss arguments, but if you decide not to, I'll still do my best to toggle on my inner flow-bot.

Judges who I've always liked and strive to judge similar to: JP, Castillo, Taj, Sam Azbel, Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Scopa, Aqin, Leedrew, Austin Broussard, Joey Georges, and pretty much every other tab judge on the circuit. If you like the judges listed above, you will hopefully like me.

Quick Pref Shortcut

Prefs are hell to do at most tourneys, so if you are feeling time-crunched or lazy, here's a TLDR as to what I feel most comfortable evaluating:
1. Phil, Theory/T, K, K Affs, Trix.
2. Policy (this is for policy vs policy; I feel very comfortable evaluating policy vs Phil/K and don't lean in either direction)

Specific Arguments

Kritiks

Overview: I've read a lot of Ks throughout my career and think they have the potential to be very strategic. The lit bases/Ks I'm familiar with are disability (Mollow, Fritsch, St. Pierre, Hughes, Campbell, and pretty much every other author that is read in debate), Deleuze, Baudrillard, Berardi, Edelman, Lacan, Setcol, Cap, Security, Afropessimism, Grove, Bataille, Weyhelie, Cybernetics, Onticide, Virilio, Baldwin, James, and utopian authors like Munoz. HOWEVER, you should not take this as an excuse for not explaining arguments - I'll still have the same threshold for extensions as normal.

Specific Preferences:
-Word PIKs are strategic
-Not a huge fan of author indicts or other ad homs.
-

K Affs

Theory

Overview: I read lots of theory throughout my career and think it's incredibly strategic in a lot of circumstances. Here are some of my specific thoughts on theory:
1. I am of the belief that there is no such thing as friv theory - if you win a theoretical arg then it's just as valid as any other. However, feel free to make arguments to the contrary in the round and persuade me otherwise.
2. If you are going for reasonability, PLEASE provide a reasonability brightline! Otherwise, I don't know how to evaluate what is reasonable, and I'll probably be very compelled by arguments as to why I should reject reasonability without a brightline.
3. RVIs are coherent and people should read them more often. I don't know why they have such a negative stigma to be honest. In most cases, they waste the opponent's time at worst, and can win the round at best.

Trix: Like I mentioned in the ideological overview, I will evaluate any argument with a warrant (no matter how bad it is), so yes I will evaluate trix. I've gone for a lot of tricky arguments and honestly find this style of debate to be super fun in moderation. Here's some things to keep in mind:
1. I am a philosophy geek and am particularly interested in things like formal logic and skeptical problems, so there's a good chance that I've read entire articles about whatever trick you are going for. This is not to say that you should under-explain arguments; I am simply saying that you shouldn't feel pressured to shy away from esoteric arguments or condense claims into incoherence for the sake of explanatory ease.

Policy: This is the style of debate I am least familiarity with because I never enjoyed reading these arguments myself, so I have much less first-hand experience with it. However, I do still feel very familiar with the Policy vs K/Phil debate, and think extinction outweighs is one of the stronger arguments in debate. Here's some miscellaneous thoughts and things to keep in mind if you are reading a policy aff or DAs/CPs in front of me:
-Even if the 2NR is 6-minutes on T, you still need to extend case—It feels arbitrary to disregard args that aren't extended in every instance except for a 2AR vs T. HOWEVER, saying "extend case, it was conceded" will suffice.
-In a lot of scenarios, I think 1AR framework + weigh case is the right 2AR rather than the perm (i.e. the perm is pretty incoherent vs pess in my opinion). However, I do still think spamming perms is a good time suck, and am a big fan of creative, strategic perms.
-I think multiple condo is probably bad but you can easily win otherwise. I also really enjoy hearing CP theory debates.

Speaks

Speaks are a referendum of how well you debate, not how well you talk. If you make strategic pivots, smart arguments, demonstrate good time allocation, make arguments efficiently, implicate claims well, and display impressive round vision, I promise you that it will be reflected in your speaks.

Safety

As I stated at the start of my paradigm, I am an incredibly tab judge, and will evaluate any arguments presented. However, if anything makes you uncomfortable in any way, please let me know (you can text me at 405-763-7778 if you would like to do it discreetly but quickly) and I will immediately stop the round and figure out the best course of action.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Defaults

If no arguments are made on a particular issue, I'll default to the following:

Ev Ethics

I would prefer you to just debate it out if its a insignificant rule like not having a link to an article.

CX

1. CX is binding just like any other speech. I highly doubt I will evaluate any arguments to the contrary (to clarify, you can argue about the semantics of what was said and the implications if it, but just not blatantly choosing to sever out of what has been said.
2. Prep can be CX but CX can't be used as extra prep.
3. I don't flow CX (by default - if you want me to flow, tell me and I will), but I'll listen and will write down anything that you flag as important.

Traditional/Locals Paradigm

Flower Mound '25

2A at camp but primarily do LD.

um202190@umich.edu

flomospeechdocs@gmail.com

Coached and largely influenced by Vikrant Maan, Brett Cryan, Enya Pinjani, Bryce Sheffield, Peregrine Beckett, Raunak Dua, Tuyen Le, Aidan Etkin, Adarsh Agrawal, Agastya Sridharan, Sachin Aggarwal, and Sebastian Cho.

[Tournament]---[Round]---[Team] (Aff) vs [Team] (Neg)

CX is binding. Open CX is fine.

No inserts unless the words were already read in the debate. Rehighlights are fine.

Not voting on ad hominems under any circumstances.

I think intrinsicness tests are bad.

Default judge kick, competing interps, no RVIs, DTA, and comparative worlds.

have fun and be chill and learn something

liam.debate@gmail.com

seriously haven't been keeping up with debate

please go slower and be clear I'll miss what ur saying

idc what you read

u will lose 4 misgendering and bigotry

I'm lazy, I will vote the easiest way first(extend)

prolly will b nice w speaks

ask me questions if you have them