hi! my name's hafsa (she/her)! i've been doing strictly traditional LD for three years now. my thoughts on things:

♠ please be respectful to your opponent!

♠ please signpost

♠ your arguments should be well-warranted with clear impacts

♠ weighing and extension of impacts throughout the round is so important

♠ have a good balance of offense and defense

♠ framework: please weigh and impact all your arguments under the framework

♠ voter issues are amazing! be as clear as possible on how I should vote

♠ i want you to be as comfortable as possible, so talk in a way that you're comfortable with! (spreading is only okay if your opponent is also okay with it) i'll be giving speaker points based off decorum and efficiency in speeches

honestly don't feel pressured like i'm basically just a tech>truth judge. do what you're comfortable with

my email is gen.purpose@gmail.com. feel free to shoot me an email if you have any questions :) good luck and have fun!!!

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Former Head Coach at the Brearley School; I am mostly retired now from debate

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 6/29/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

PUBLIC FORUM:

I have never judged Public Forum debate before, but have judged Lincoln Douglas semi-regularly over the last few years and also debated LD for several years in the past, including at a variety of national-level TOC tournaments.

I will flow your arguments and generally will not intervene on arguments. However, your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated (ideally with evidence). I will judge the round and reward my ballot based on which side made stronger arguments, refuted the opponent's arguments, provided stronger evidence with clear reasoning and/or empirical data, and clear communication.

I also heavily appreciate when debaters explain to me why their arguments are superior and ought to be weighed more heavily than the offensive arguments offered by their opponent.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS:

I debated Lincoln-Douglas at Mission San Jose High School (CA) from 1999-2002. I competed at various local and national TOC bid tournaments, sometimes breaking to elimination rounds and occasionally earning a TOC bid. Since graduating in 2002, I have only been minimally involved in the activity, which was mostly limited to judging at the Berkeley and Stanford tournaments during my first couple of years in college. I am returning to the activity now that I have a child that is involved in the activity.

In terms of judging philosophy, I try to be Tabula Rasa and am generally open to all arguments, although claims should be substantiated with evidence or logical reasoning -- blips/assertions without any warrants will carry significantly less weight with me, even if dropped by the opponents. I generally prefer debate on the merits which rely on more conventional substantive arguments, although I am also open to off-the-run arguments, kritiks, and theory arguments. On theory, I view it mostly as a check on abuse, and when I was debating, did not view it as an independent voting issue. However, I will consider it as a VI if the opposing position is extremely abusive.

Kritiks should be very well explained, with clear links to why they should lead to winning the ballot.

In terms of speed, I can handle a moderate amount of speed, but will struggle to understand full-on TOC-level speed. I will try to indicate when I am struggling to keep up.

In terms of speaker points, I follow tournament guidelines. I reward clarity and good logical explanations. I also don't like jerks, so unnecessary animosity towards opponents will likely lead to speaker point deducts.

I’m fine with both progressive and trad debate. I have some restrictions on progressive arguments, however.
I will not vote on death good, racism good, etc. I will also not vote on trick debate either.

Please be respectful to your opponent. I will drop you/lower your speaks on the grounds of being a jerk.

Please add me to the email chain: dkann21@gmail.com

lay judge.

Nora Moses (She/Her/Hers)

The Brearley School '23

I am a senior and student leader of the Brearley debate team. I have experience in parliamentary and Public Forum debate and am familiar with the structure of Lincoln Douglas. I keep a flow but prefer a round with clear crystallization and voting issues and clear succinct speaking style.

Please speak clearly and slowly so I can understand the arguments you are making. All the best and good luck for all the participants.

Willow.C.Roark@gmail.com — She/Her

Policy Debate(NDT/CEDA) at the University of West Georgia

Western Washington University (2020-2023)

Mount Si High School (2016-2020)

—— Overview ——

I most align with the communications paradigm. I flow the round. I flow cross-examination.

I will evaluate all complete arguments. A complete argument is a claim, a warrant, and an implication.

I currently compete in intercollegiate policy debate but I’ve also competed in 5 other formats: Advocacy Debate(CARD), British Parliamentary(BP), International Public Debate (IPDA), Social Justice Debate(SJD), and Public Forum Debate(PFD). I’ve had a pretty broad tour of the debate world so don’t worry about just competing as you would in your home format, be that communicative or technical, slow or fast, “progressive” or “traditional.”

I have a considerable bias toward innovative arguments across the board.

Laughing at your opponents is an auto-drop and lowest possible speaks.

If your opponents tell you to slow– slow, or I will stop flowing your speech.

Speaker Points are based on:

1. Conciseness. People use different filler words and speak and articulate at different speeds: I am evaluating these word economy elements less. I will evaluate your sentence level efficiency, overall repetitiveness of the speech structure.

2. Cross-examination – short questions, effective follow-ups, not being excessively rude or interruptive.

3. Signposting (especially including numbering responses in rebuttal/2AC)

Random pet peeve: I don’t want a “card doc.” The round is over dude.

We don’t know how to do tech or truth. Just do the work and try and make sense.

—— Public Forum ——

Argumentative preferences)

I come from the 2016-2020 PF Era but have moved into ‘progressive’ styles of debate in college.

Throw theory and Ks on the flow, I’ll evaluate it all the same.

I like procedurals, especially in a format as broken as Public Forum.

I know the rules say no plans/counterplans, they also say no snitches. It’s the debaters who get to set the norms through the theory debate, not a rulebook. I promise I won’t tell NSDA.

Evidence)

The evidence norms in PF are disturbing. Paraphrasing is everywhere, the evidence can’t be looked at before round, and the cutting of most evidence is immensely sketchy. It’s gotten to the point that I’ve had some rounds where more time was spent calling cards than actual speech time. Other debate events figured out that disclosure and highlighted cards are how you check back on this. I won’t decide every round on these half-assed evidence indicts. It’s just handing the decision to the judge at this point to sort out who did the more sus prep.

“Judge we like looked at their card after CX and squinted at it all moody-looking for a split second, drop this evidence and call for these like 12 other cards”

Because I care about PF, I will only evaluate this kind of evidence indict if:

1: There was disclosure before the round or there is an in-round email chain sent out for at least your side of the debate with your constructive and rebuttal speech docs.

Or 2: you make a formal evidence violation claim and bring your opponents to tab like serious debaters do when they think their opponent has willfully misrepresented evidence.

Summary/Final Focus)

Collapse. Hard.

Go for that one dropped turn and spend the entire back half of the round implicating it on the flow and explaining why you win.

Going for everything is bad. Don’t do it. Don’t extend three contentions in your summary.

Framework)

If you read a framework, justify it. Tell me why to evaluate that kind of impact first; read a warrant. “My opponents didn’t read a framework” is not a warrant.

Weighing)

PLEASE WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.

If you’re wondering why I didn’t vote for your impact:

Because I was confused. Because this event is confusing, and a mess, and you are the clean-up crew. Put on some gloves and do the dirty work.

Specific peeves)

“Drop them right there” – nope.

“Strike this off your flow” – no.

“for these X reasons, [Our next author] concludes”

- No they didn’t

- Not for those reasons

—— Policy ——

Procedural preferences)

Judge kick in the block as a default.

Fairness can have its own terminal impacts.

Theory can be a reason to drop the team or the argument in any instance, it depends on how you implicate it.

Pen time is appreciated!

General Biases)

In college I have been both a K 2N and a soft-left affirmative. I don't promise to have read your specific brand of high-academic kritikal weaponry, but I will always evaluate complete arguments.

I’m not too hot on ‘infinite condo.’

Floating PIKs are often extremely sketchy. Please tell me exactly what you are PIKing out of and why it resolves your offense.

I miss impact calculus.

The K AFF is fine but IMO it should have anti-topical offense or find creative routes to topicality. You are not writing a good K AFF if your offense and method is floating way off in the void, detached from the resolution.

Speed is probably terrible for everyone who does it and the entire community.

I won’t dismiss framework against the politics DA and the states counterplan.

Don’t be a toxic rage robot.

—— Lincoln Douglass ——

Hey! I am not a frequent LD judge. A few implications:

1. Explain and warrant your value criterian arguments!

2. I have a much higher threshold for theory, especially RVIs.

3. Trix are for kids and not my ballot. Check your tom-foolery at the door.

Despite debating in policy, I actually don’t necessarily default to utilitarianism and consequentialism or prefer them. I will check my biases, but at least know that I am not going to poop on your ethics party.

hi! i'm anisha (she/her) and i've been doing LD for the last 4 years at Enloe

add me to the email chain: anisharoy0211@gmail.com

a couple things to keep in mind:

• i consider framework debate before weighing the contention-level. however, don't have a values debate if they're essentially the same, move on to weighing impacts.
• i tend to be more traditional, but can judge progressive LD -- willing to entertain theory, K's, progressive case structures, etc. explanation/narrative is still key, i'd like to see that you know what you're running
• fine with spreading, just ensure that your opponent is too
• weigh!!! say your impacts outweigh and explain what weighing mechanisms matter most
• please signpost!
• i like seeing voter issues in the last speeches, use them to concisely and effectively tell me why you win
• be respectful and kind! i will deduct speaks for disrespect
• as for speaks, i'll start on 28, and go up or down based on efficiency, decorum, and attitude

good luck and have fun!

I am a parent/lay judge. Please do not use complicated debate terminology, and speak clearly at a normal speed.

Email: epicurus7@gmail.com