Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

TL;DR:

- Minimize dead time, make the debate enjoyable, be polite, and read whatever arguments make you enjoy debate.

- Speaker points linked to the quality of debating and not necessarily the quality of argument (but people often tend to debate better with better arguments).

- Will try my best to flow; please be clear on tags, names, and analytic paragraphs and give me pen time/an audible pause between sheets.

- Unfamiliar with positions outside of the realm of policy debate (e.g. permissibility, Kantianism, etc.), but will attempt to resolve them as fairly as possible.

- Don't understand arbitrarily excluding arguments from decisions (e.g. RVIs). If an argument is bad, then it shouldn't be hard to beat.

- Default to comparative worlds, competing interps, and judgekick.

----------

Did policy debate at Dulles HS from 2019 to 2023. I also dabbled a little bit in LD.

Largely similar to Anish Bhadani with a few exceptions for the "Things for Higher Speaks" section and a lower threshold for what constitutes an argument/pulling the trigger on bad, but winning, positions.

Feel free to ask for more specifics.

Parent judge:

Hello all, I am a parent judge and I have been judging LD, PF, and other individual events for the last 6 years.

My email israjran@gmail.complease use it for pre-round questions and for the email chain. Sending me your cases will help me flow and adjudicate your round better.

FLOWING: I will flow a line-by-line analysis. Please start out with specific arguments and then summarize at the end. I am tolerant of going slightly over time limits. I am fine with moderate spreading and persuasive speeds. in the case of persuasive debate, I will weigh the argumentation, and will consider intonation, inflection, diction, clarity, and truth of the arguments in question.

DECISION: I evaluate framework, arguments, reasoning and evidence. Please have a clear framework that's well explained, I default to Util but explain how your impacts function under that FW.

OTHER PREFERENCES: For speaking, please speak clearly and speak to the point. In terms of speed, please do NOT SPREAD. Speaking marginally fast is okay as long as you slow down at the impactful parts, tags, numbers you want me to flow, etc. Do NOT RUN THEORY . If I do flow part of your theory argument , it will not be a major evaluation in the debate. Pleasedon't read Kritiksor dense philosophical fws. Counter-plans are fine if you explain them well and show why they are preferable to the aff.

Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. Critical argument should provide substantial evidence for their support. Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches and extend arguments individually. As for speed, I do not mind (pretty open minded) as long as each word is understandable and clear for hearing. Please remember that mumbling words can be hard for your judge to evaluate you. However, it is safe to ask the judge at the beginning of the round just to be on the safe side. The focus should be winning the debate (more like convincing your judge), not just attacking a person's style or flaws of method. Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as the one that did not win. Good luck Contestants.

Email Chain: alejojaz000@gmail.com

CX: Policymaker. Debating between two opposing viewpoints makes a bill a law. Simple right? In this activity we argue both sides of an issue, so as a debater you should use your past experiences as an aff or neg to your advantage when you are arguing your case. Be prepared, show me through your evidence and in your own words why the other side's contentions do not hold up versus your plan/disadvantages. Winners do not just read their evidence cards, they understand the content of their cards and use that content to their advantage when on offense or defense. Try to limit your dropped arguments, and if you are dropping any arguments then signal it to me in your speech (I will not penalize you for this). Most important, relax and have fun with this!

rohantripped@gmail.com

Background: I competed for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD. In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate. I qualified for nationals three times in high school and three times in college, best finish was top 40ish one year.

I am fine with anything (Obviously excludes any argument based in rhetoric that disparages any marginalized groups) but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:

K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K. It's a lot harder to get me to vote for the K if the alt is just a way to reshape thinking or the way we talk about things, for me a K needs a tangible way to fight back against the impacts. For example instead of just having the alt be a shift towards communal thinking I want it to be a way that we can effectively mobilize that. This doesn't have to be through the USFG.

T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.

DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.

CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case. Not a huge fan of plan-inclusive CPs but I'll still vote on them in some cases.

Theory- I'm fine with theory, just gotta win proven or potential abuse. Proven abuse is definitely an easier way to get the ballot than potential for me.

Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear. Cards you can speed through fine because I'll still have those to read over and check in round, but please either include analytics on the doc or slow down on them.

If you choose for the round to be a more traditional V/C setup I tend to vote mostly on impact calculus that is made at the contention level. I love seeing these impacts used in conjunction to try and turn the other sides value. If you give me another framing argument up top on what my role of the ballot is I will default to whichever side wins framing though.

Feel free to email me with any questions- Josiah.atkinson@westhardin.org

I am a current policy debater at Barbers Hill High School

I'm a flex debater so run whatever you want it's your round I just decide who win's (unless it's racist, sexist, ableist, etc..). Because obviouslly

Skip down to the ld section for my pref thing but most of the policy stuff still applys

Overall having a fun debate experience is the ultimate goal so strive to do so, and good luck!

For email chains, my email is nbdebate06@gmail.com

If I feel as though you are stealing prep, I will warn you first and then penalize you if it continues. Please don't steal prep, it's pretty annoying.

IDC abt being post rounded I get it just don't be dumb abt it

Also speed, go as fast as you want just put me on the chain - When i say go as fast as you want just make it to where you are still clear odds are i'll understand you but i mean you'll probably sound better if you aren't mumbling every word in your speech I'll also say clear i doubt i'll need to but i will- Just maybe slow down a wee bit in rebuttals and online

Pref short cut --- (IK this doesn't apply rn but I don't wanna do it next year because I'm lazy :))

Policy ---1

K (basic)--- 1

K (identity)---2-3

K aff --- 2-3

K (pomo) --- 4-5

Phil & tricks --- lol

Tech-----x-----Truth

Voting for policy------X----Voting for the K

CondoX----------No condo

Overviews------X----LBL

Fairness is definitely an impact----X-------Fairness is not an impact

"Neg on presumption"X----------K affs that do nothing

Policy rounds ----X---- K rounds

Breaking New X-----------Repeat same round for the whole season

Debate good--X---------Debate bad (the activity)

Debate good---X-------Debate bad (the community)

Have fun in round--X--------Debate NPC

ClashX----------Cowardice

Judge ---------x- Nic

Don't make me intervein in the round if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize or touch on it and loses anyways, why wouldn't I punish the 2AR harder for fumbling? and etc.

--- Online Debate

I'm fine with your camera being off when you speak just turn it on at the beginning.

Slow down a bit no need to run a dozen or so off

I would prefer we do email chain at all times but if it is imperative that we need to do file share then so be it this goes for in person too

T/FW

Explain to me what abuse has occurred or explain why I should vote against a non-t aff

I really like these debates i feel like the aff should be built around T/FW

I believe the aff should have really good impact turns to procedural fairness and topic education if you want to win my ballot on the aff in these rounds have good DA’s on T/FW

For the neg odds are they aren’t T so go for procedural fairness & topic education and why it matters so much.

I lean more neg when it comes to TVA’s so if you want to win a T/FW debate in front of me a TVA would be much appreciated

T
Try and have a definition contextual to the aff

Answer extra T or fx T because i'll vote on it if you drop it and have competing interps but i'm not going to do the work for you so call it out in the block

DA's

I love good disad debates but the thing I look for most in a debate is the link debate and the disad turns case. Don't be afraid to run generic disadvantages; however, your success with those arguments is entirely dependent on your ability to contextualize the link for me. After the link is clear, provide me with a tool for comparing your impacts to the affirmative's impacts. I'm not picky about how impact calculus is done, but it needs to have a turns case arg if you want to win the ballot because I feel like the turns case argument is really underrated.

Please have all parts of the DA it would really suck if you have no internal link :(

Have good uniqueness that's up to date

Don't have generic links to redistribution this topic is way better then NATO for DA's so have a good link.

Counter plans

While case-specific counter plans are more interesting for me to listen to, I don't evaluate them more favorable than generic counter plans. Just contextualize your generic solvency evidence if you choose that route.

Don't assume I kick the CP (or anything for that matter) from the flow unless you instruct me to. My flow will look exactly how you tell me for it to look.

If you are running a PIC, be prepared for a theory debate and the perm debate. I don't default a certain way most of the time, but I think both of those arguments are important barriers for you to overcome if you want to win my ballot. I do however err aff when it comes to obscure pics of the aff because I feel like it’s just unfair and impossible to predict.

If I didn't cover anything feel free to ask me before the round! I don't have much to say, because I feel like CP's shouldn't really be controversial.

Also go to the theory section for how I look at that on CP's

K

Run'em

just paint a picture for me to understand what the world of the alt looks like

links of omissions/thesis links are cool just say how the alt changes it, i prefer you also have links descriptive to the aff and pull lines from there cards that's how you'll win me on the link debate.

Also don't be afraid to kick an alt and go for link turns case because if you're having alt solvency deficits your best way out of it is to just go for link turns case.

Also I know for novice rounds you probably won't be running Baudrillard but if you running high theory K just let me know what it is and what it means i more a traditional K judge(Cap, Security, AfroPess/Wilderson, Imperialism, And so on)

Please say why the alt solves the link their is never enough work done on this for most of the time.

Theory

I'll evaluate any flow you put on the page besides ASPEC/OSPEC unless it's to get a link to a DA but if it's something abscure that you are trying to win on i will audiby yawn at you

I lean aff on process cp's, consult cp's, 50 states, and multi actor fiat. I lean Neg on international fiat & condo

As I said above I think condo's not really a great argument but i mean if the neg his running like 8 conditional advocates Then i would have no problem giving an aff ballot if they don't fumble

Case

I'm always ready for a good case debate and i'm cool with any case turns etc.

I love case debate where the 2NR goes for a case turn, I feel like a case turn debate goes really underutilized it would be cool if we have a lot of offense on case to go for in the 2NR

But if you want to win my ballot easily you need to be doing internal link debate on the aff. If you win that odds are you’re getting my ballot.

Have new case defense or at least up to date stuff

In debate now i feel like we don't spend enough time on case like the 2nr only doing 30 seconds of it i get how if you are winning it you feel like you should go for more offense but i mean make sure you get to all the key points on the case flow

Misc.

I don't care if you cuss etc.

I start at 28.5 speaks and I'll go up or down depending on strategy, speaking, and argument development.

I have been told I am rude in debate and where I feel some of that is right I feel like some of it is misinterpreted let's just try to have a fun round where we don't get a heated round

Please be more than a debate robot I want people to engage in the activity and inject it with there personality unless you're boring then just stick to be a robot.

LD:

I don't necessarily like trad debate but i'm cool with wtv you run just

Most of the policy stuff from above still applies just do you tho

don't run tricks though because i'll most likely sit in the back laughing and then vote you down because i hate tricks, but they're funny

PF:

lol

Please just clash like it's one of the only things i care about and want in a PF debate

Also have good offense and defense

I really don't judge PF that often so just try and have judge instruction for the love of god (or wtv you believe in)

Name: Eric Beane

Affiliation: Langham Creek HS (2018-Present) | University of Houston (2012-2016) | Katy Taylor HS (2009-16)

GO COOOOOOGS!!! (♫Womp Womp♫) C-O-U-G-A-R-S (who we talkin' bout?) Talkin' bout them Cougars!!

*Current for the 2023-24 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated for the University of Houston from 2012-2016. I've coached at Katy-Taylor HS from 2011 - 2016 and since 2018 I have been the Director of Debate at Langham Creek High School. I mostly went for the K. I judge a lot of clash of the civs & strange debates. Have fun

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. Your aff doesn’t need to fiat the passage of a plan or have a text, but it should generally affirm the resolution. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me.

Disadvantages – Specific turns case analysis that is contextualized to the affirmative (not blanket, heg solves for war, vote neg analysis) will always be rewarded with high speaker points. Comparative analysis between time frame, magnitude and probability makes my decisions all the easier. I am a believer in quality over quantity, especially when thinking about arguments like the politics and related disadvantages.

Counterplans – PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game – you’ll need to invest a substantial portion of the 1AR and 2AR on this question though. If your counterplan has several planks, ensure that you include each in your 2NC/1NR overview so that I have enough pen time to get it all down.

Kritik Section Overview - I enjoy a good K debate. When I competed in college I mostly debated critical disability studies and its intersections. I've also read variations of Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis and Marxism throughout my debate career. I would greatly appreciate a 2NC/1NR Overview for your K positions. Do not assume that I am familiar with your favorite flavor of critical theory and take time to explain your thesis (before the 2NR).

Kritik: "Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Kritik: Alternative - We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how it resolves the link+impact you have read. I have no shame in not voting for something that I can't explain back to you.This by far is the weakest point of any K debate and I am very skeptical of alternatives that are very vague (unless it is done that way on purpose). I would prefer over-explanation than under-explanation on this portion of the debate.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value. You MUST slow down when you are addressing the standards, as I will have a hard time keeping up with your top speed on this portion of the debate. In the block or the 2NR, it will be best if you have a clear overview, easily explaining the violation and why your interp resolves the impacts you have outlined in your standards.

New Affs are good. That's just it. One of the few predispositions I will bring into the debate.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy. I've read guerrilla communication arguments in the past and think it provides some intrigue in policy debate. I also think it is asinine for judges or coaches to get on a moral high horse about "Death Good" arguments and refuse to vote for them. Debate is a game and if you can't beat the other side, regardless of what they are arguing, you should lose.

Other Information

Accessibility - My goal as an educator and judge is to provide the largest and most accessible space of deliberation possible. If there are any access issues that I can assist with, please let me know (privately or in public - whatever you are comfortable with). I struggle with anxiety and understand if you need to take a "time out" or breather before or after a big speech.

Evidence - When you mark cards I usually also write down where they are marked on my flow –also, before CX starts, you need to show your opponents where you marked the cards you read. If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain too - ericdebate@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. I'm impressed with stand-up 1ARs, but don't rock the boat if you can't swim. If you have read this far in my ramblings on debate then good on you - If you say "wowzas" in the debate I will reward you with +0.1 speaker points.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – ericdebate@gmail.com

I am a parent judge and judged mostly PF since 2020 including some TOC bid tournaments this year. But please strike me if you don’t want deal with lay judge

1) I am OK with above average speed but please don’t speak too fast

2) Key points clear and well supported

3) Make good and logical arguments

4) Be respectful to your opponents and try to not interrupt too much during crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

pf paradigm-just ask me questions if you're LD

Please be pre-flowed before the round! 

Warrants are important in every part of the debate—I need to know why/how your impact triggers.

Rebuttal

The 2nd rebuttal must respond to offense on the flow i.e. turns or else it's considered conceded if the 1st summary extends it.

Summary

Your summary needs to have all offense that you're going for. Collapse on an argument, if you weigh it should be with full access to your contention and it should be comparative to your opponent's arg. 

Final Focus

I won't be evaluating new responses or arguments, any extended offense should be in summary.

Second final focus does not get new weighing! The only exception is if it came up in first FF for the first time. 

Weighing

should clarify how to vote when both sides have offense. If you don't have access to your argument, I don't grant you your weighing. If you don't weigh, you leave it up to me to choose which argument I think is most important. I prefer all weighing to be set up in summary at the latest. Try to be comparative 

Speaks

Speaker points will start at 28.5 and go up or down from there. 

-if you don't signpost so I know where to flow I might dock your speaks

-plus .5 speaks if you physically spin while reading a turn or sing a taylor swift reference 

-

Good luck and have fun!! :)

Guadalupe Blas 

email: guadalupeblas27@gmail.com

experience: varsity policy debate 2018-2021

2020-2021 HUDL CX Champion (with Angelina Martinez)

CX (Policy) Debate: For policy debate, I look for solid arguments on solvency, time frame, and magnitude. If a team can clearly diminish their opponent's case and extend their solvency, time frame, and magnitude, I will vote for them. Although I look for those three components to cast my vote, the majority of my vote goes on solvency and magnitude since there is no reason why we should favor one plan that starts effectively tomorrow but does absolutely nothing in regard to the resolution. I also vote on "dropped" arguments, for example, if a team mentions topicality or any Kritik at any moment but never mentions it again throughout the debate. If it was clearly diminished in the round, then I will not count it against them. I am okay with spreading, but if it's too fast, I will ask for you to slow down or add me to the email chain so I can keep up as well.

LD: For LD, I vote on their expansion and defense of their framework and morality. I believe that expanding why one's framework and morality should be valued over the other is an effective way for their contentions to hold more ground throughout the debate. Often debaters tend to be on the offensive, and throughout the debate, their case really loses touch. I also vote on the development of their arguments; since LD is shorter in time, the quality of the arguments must be exceptional. 

General Paradigms:

-My greatest emphasis in a debate round is impact (what are we debating, if not the topic's impact on people/society as a whole?)

-I place great weight on logical progression of ideas, and the closer your links line up, the better off you will be

-Be cautious when using jargon since I only have limited debate experience

-Speak slowly and clearly. It does not matter how good your argument is if I can't understand it. DO NOT SPREAD. Whatever speed you believe is not spreading, slow down an additional 50%.

-As someone with extensive speech experience through choir, theatre, and voice acting, I am always listening for speaking quality as well as arguments, and a good presentation can take you a long way.

Event Specific Paradigms:

-IE Events: always make sure that any modulation in your performance is motivated. Emphasis, speed, and volume are all well and good but they do nothing if their placement doesn't make any sense

• PF/LD: always be sure to keep track of your arguments. If you make a claim about your opponent's argument that is not true, it illustrates that you are simply reading off a pre-prepared script without actually properly engaging in the debate.

Experienced volunteer judge. No spreading, please. 

Hello, my name is Ray Chacko.

I believe how we say is as important as to what we say. Teams, during debates, ignore the fact that their facial expression, tone and respect for the rules are delivering a subtle message about the team. They may have empirical arguments with supporting evidence but I believe in order to create a solid impression on the judge, each team member needs to adhere to the ground rules of respect, display a pleasant demeanor and be willing to express their opinion without argument or insults. I believe they also should take criticism of the opponents creatively and be willing to adjust the tone/message accordingly.

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Hey, I'm Josh (he/him). 3rd year at Dulles High School. 3 years LD, 1 year policy (alongside LD). As such, most of my views on debate have been influenced by people like Eric Schwerdfeger (mostly) and Patrick Fox.

- TFA CX '24

joshcheng250@gmail.com, add dulles.ld.db8@gmail.com to the email chain as well.

• Racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, etc. all mean anything between dropped speaks to stopping the round. If someone asks for accommodations, please try your best to fulfill them. Basically, don't be rude. Treat people like humans. Thanks.
• I'm okayish for some sort of speed - maybe 75-80% of the fastest debater on circuit would be a comfortable pace. Please give me time between flows.
• Write my ballot. Judge instruction makes my life easier and makes me think less, which is always a good thing. Layering and weighing should be obvious by the end of your last speech.
• I'll be as tab as possible. Tech > Truth
• Be nice to novices, maybe try to use the round to help them learn? (as in I will drop speaks if you're making the round a nightmare or being a jerk to them. Make it something they can learn from and I'll give you more speaks)

As of rn there is no world where I'm getting on a pref sheet lol... but if it helps

Shortcuts

K (generally) - 1

K (identity) - 2

LARP/Policy - 2

T/Th (substantive) - 3

Th (friv) - 5

Tricks - 5

Updated for the MS State! '23 -

General

You'll probably see my face change a bit. This probably has little indication of how the round is going, but you can almost certainly tell whether I vibe with the arg or not. Maybe use it as a speaks metric? Do as you like.

Presumption flips... neg, in most cases. I can be convinced pretty easily it flips aff. If the 2N is a separate advocacy, flips aff. Permissibility flips neg.

No judgekick - unless warranted.

In the honor of making rounds feel less like debate bots, drop me a song rec either before round or play it during cross if your opponents are chill with it. +.5 speaks for all you kids who have life in you at tournaments. Y'all the best.

K's (aff or neg)

Mostly am running these - they can be really strategic, but, please, actually know what you're reading and how it interacts with other theories of power. When ships pass in the night because neither team knows what each advocacy is it makes it a kinda sucky judging experience. Comfortable with stuff like cap, set col, security, etc. Very open to voting on pomo, but definitely explain a ton - the better I know the theory, the easier it is to get a vote - ask me before round. Identity is chill, just know what scholarship/space you want to promote well.

In general: Please know what your case does, and if it doesn't do anything, be ready to defend why that's a good thing. For affs, explain why the aff is good enough to be read on aff and why the resolution is a bad stasis. SSD and TVA are very compelling - shut them down for any shot at winning vs T.

Props to you if you can run a K and explain it passably :) (Props can be a pretty significant speaks boost in some cases.) Do with that as you will. Note - if your entire explanation is just skimming the tags of your cards I'm gonna combust. And so will speaks.

On the flip side - check with your opponent first if they're good with speed or K stuff. If you're reading it against someone who's gonna be completely lost... I'll give you the ballot but speaks probably won't be great. Make the round educational pls.

LARP/Policy

I'd like to think I'm not terrible at judging this - probably going to be the bulk of my rounds for a while. Weigh case, win framing, etc. If you're going for this consistently, please have strong links - it sucks to vote on 0.1% risk of link to whatever DA or CP you're going for. For CP's - please prove competition. It's been a year and the Dulles coaching squad still trolls Vishnu for "not understanding CP competition" - I dunno if he did or not, but, yeah, don't die to the perm.

Phil

I'll vote on it. Give me reasons to prefer contextualized to the actual theory instead of vague consequentialism indicts and the like. Explain more obscure positions and why it's uniquely necessary to good moral judgment (or why there is no such thing??) TJFs kinda silly. A few boosted speaks for this one too.

T/Th

I'm definitely a much better judge for T and substantive theory than frivolous shells. I have no plans on voting on santa hat theory in the near future, but if you win it... you win it, I guess. Topicality shells need more than one silly limits thing, if they make an I meet after you read a disad that links to their aff, I'm gonna be inclined to buy it. Probably not the best judge for 1AR restarts and 1NC's with 4+ shells, but if that's how you roll, I'm not one to stop you.

I'll assume DTD, CI, and no RVI for all shells unless explained otherwise. Defense on standards and I meets are not enough to win RVIs - read a counterinterp if you plan on going for it.

Tricks

Please don't. Like, if you can conceivably win any other way I would enjoy it so much more. If you absolutely have a burning desire to read your spikes, then sure, but unless they actually can't come up with anything to take it out, you probably won't be getting the ballot or amazing speaks.

Speaks:

I'll default to 28.5 for most circuit/flow rounds - [Both sides will probably enjoy their speaks a lot more if the round is techy... I'm just sayin'...]

Expect around a 28 for most lay rounds. Up or down probably reflects how likely I think it is you'll break.

Below 27 means you've done something bad. Debate what you debate well and I'll reward it as such.

Judge instruction please. I am a simple man with very little brainpower. If you make me think less there's a much smaller chance I accidentally screw something up on the flow or miss the tiny weighing claim you made in the middle of a massive chunk of analytics in the 1AR.

Inexperienced judge, please speak slowly and clearly. Logical, fact based arguments are valued.

archikkula@gmail.com

Overall:

Make debate a safe and educational space for each other. Don't be sexist/ableist/racist/etc, respect pronouns, and use content warnings. 

Tech > truth!

General PF Info:

- I'm okay with fast PF speed but add me to speech docs if you speak fast

- Second rebuttal MUST answer any offensive arguments or it's conceded

- Defense is NOT sticky

- Offense must be extended through summary and FF for me to evaluate it (call your opponents out if they don’t)

- Weigh as early as possible and throughout the round - I won't look at new weighing in FF

- Don't just say that you're conceding de-links. Tell me what the de-links are and how that gets you out of turns. 

Other things:

- Don't have bad evid ethics

- Extend evidence by content rather than author names

- Time yourself please

- If there's no offense at the end of the round, I presume status quo (NEG) on policy resolutions and first speaking team for others (if you want me to presume differently, tell me why)

- If the round gets boring I become a lay judge.

- I don't pay attention to cross so if you want something from cross on the flow bring it up in a speech.

Just have fun in round :)) Good luck and happy debating! 

- from laurice duan 

Congress Paradigms:

Your speech should be thoughtful and touch on one to three key issues related to the legislation. Your time should be well balanced between all points. If you are spending significantly less time on one point than on your others, cut it. You aren't spending enough time developing it if your other points are significantly longer.

Your delivery should be slow and deliberate. It should be a conversational, extemporaneous style. If you bring a laptop up to speak from, you will be docked points. You should be communicating and speaking to the chamber and judges, not speaking at them. You cannot accomplish this if you are reading from a laptop.

You should have one to three reliable pieces of evidence per point. I don't believe you need to cite everything in your speech, but you should be able to name the source if asked/challenged.

If you are not the sponsor/author for a piece of legislation, you need to incorporate some element of clash or engagement with earlier speakers. Do not come up and give a completely pre-written speech that doesn't engage with the debate that has already been established. This isn't mini-extemp. You need to be engaged with the debate. If there have been more than 3 cycles of debate on a piece of legislation or the debate is heavily one-sided, someone in the chamber needs to motion for previous question or motion to table to allow competitors to write speeches to allow for a more even debate I shouldn't hear the same speech over and over with nothing new being presented.

What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks? A PO can earn high ranks by running an efficient and error-free chamber. One of the biggest issues I find with POs is their lack of active engagement with the chamber. It is the PO's job to keep the chamber running as quickly and efficiently as possible. If debate is getting repetitive, suggest motions. If there seems to be a confusion about procedure, don't wait for the chamber to figure it out. Suggest motions and keep the chamber moving. Have a strong knowledge/practice with your gaveling or time-signal procedures and precedence tracking. Explain them clearly and then stick to them.

Please be polite when debating and no spreading! 

Congress Paradigm:

I have judged congress for over two decades, even before it became a National standardized qualifying event and have advocated for it all that time because I believe it to be the best overall, well-rounded event that we offer in forensic competition.

It encompasses the benefits of acting because you are playing a role as a representative and the more you understand the motivation of your position, the greater the performance. It is one of the purest of speaking events, because a great representative is a great orator, in life and in your chamber. The writing and interpretation of legislation is at the core of the event and illustrating your deep understanding of that legislation is paramount in your performance. Lastly, but most importantly, it is a debate event, where civil clash is necessary.

All that being said, to understand how I view the event holistically, there are specific standards I prefer.

I do believe that in a three to four minute speech the speaker should get our attention in a creative way and give us a clear call for action and preview of their arguments, coming back to that AGD at the end, time permitting. Preparing us for what you are about to argue is important. There is no actual grace, so 3:08 is abusing the time of the next speaker. I prefer fewer, well developed arguments, than many blipped ones. Sources are important and both the quantity and quality of such sources, Q2, are vital. Representatives do not just rely on periodicals, but government reports, experts in the field, think-tanks, etc. These considerations are important, not just the number of sources. Consideration and knowledge of how our government actually works and the type of legislation at hand is also vital. We are debating issues present in the real world, so take that into consideration and consider what are the real-world implications to your constituents? Know and use parliamentary procedure to benefit the progress of debate; do not abuse it.

PO's are a vital part to any chamber and I look for a strong understanding of parliamentary procedure and efficiency and fairness are of utmost importance. If you have not read "Robert's Rules." it behooves you to do so, then be aware of all NSDA guidelines in adapting them. A good PO should run an efficient chamber and be pro-active in enforcing a fair chamber. Any perception of recognizing speakers unfairly will be penalized. Make sure you are clear with your procedures from the start and follow them consistently.

Overall, consider the above standards in your performance and you will do well. Remember, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are truly representing your school, your state, and your nation. We need good role models.

Policy Debate CX Paradigm:

I have judge policy for almost three decades and prefer traditional policy making focused debates with well weighed impacts.

That being said, I can handle speed, but clarity and articulation are key. I will not say clear, so if I put down my pen and you don't adjust, it is on you. If I don't flow it, it's not on the flow; I will not just read your files. This is an oral exercise in debate, so if it's important, make sure I get it.

My teams also have had great success with progressive arguments and K's, so I'm fine with it if you really know the literature and have clear links. I don't like K's, so make sure the story, links, and alternative are clear. All types of arguments are fine, as long as you know how to run them and they are relevant to your debate. I don't vote on T often, but it must be ran and answered correctly, not "they aren't topical, or "yeah, we are topical", and there should be clear in-round abuse.

Make sure there is direct clash and not just random generic arguments with weak links and no direct weighing. I love those debating actually debating case, so don't ignore it.

Probability and meaningful impacts are a must.

Be civil and debate well and every round will be fulfilling.

Tabula rasa within the limits established here. Speed as fine as long as (1) your volume is loud enough for me to hear you and (2) know that I usually give high speaks but will deduct points if you're talking into your laptop. No tricks.

Clash is good. I like creativity and will reward that in the round. A creative case is better than one I'm going to hear every round. Open to theory but I hate tricks.

I like an efficient round - please have speech doc sharing etc completed before the round begins. I will deduct speaker points if you delay the debate over a speech doc is not ready before the round.

Please send speech docs to dullesdj@gmail.com and give me a roadmap before each speech and signpost please.

I'm a high school CXer, so I am a flow judge.

overall:

please make debate a safe and educational space!! don't be sexist/ableist/racist/homophobic/etc, respect pronouns, and use appropriate content warnings. email me (lauriceduan@utexas.edu) if you ever feel unsafe in round. also upon further reflection, i fear i may be more of a flay judge than a flow judge - take that as you will.

general pf info

- tech > truth
- pleaseeeeeeee come pre-flowed
- i'm okay with pf speed. if you want to send a speech doc you can, but i reallyyyyyy don't want to flow off a speech doc
- i don't listen to cross. if something important happens, it has to make its way into a speech. if both teams want to skip gcx, y'all can both get a minute of prep.
- second rebuttal MUST answer any offensive arguments, or it's conceded
- defense is NOT sticky
- offense needs to be extended through summary and ff for me to evaluate it. if your opponents don't, call them out!! i don't want to do that work for you
- weighing needs to be in summary, but it can start even earlier. i won't look at new weighing in ff
- please extend evid by content and not author names. i don't flow author names (yikes sorry)
- pref warranted claims > evidence with no warrants

technical pf info

- i presume neg for policy resolutions and first speaking team for on balance resolutions. if you want me to presume differently, just tell me why!
- if you ask me to disclose, i'll disclose after round with speaks too if y'all care
- don't say you're conceding the delink to kick out of the turn. tell me what the delink is and how that gets you out of turns.
- i won't call for evidence unless it's the most important arg in the round. i think it's interventionist, but if y'all want me to intervene, I will. just don't have bad evid ethics
- i try to give really high speaks because i think people who don't are pretentious. lowest i go is 27, and that's usually if you were rude/too aggressive

progressive

- i feel comf evaluating basic theory shells (disclosure, paraphrasing, tw, etc.)
- competing interps/counter interps > reasonability
- default to no rvis, unless you tell me otherwise
- if you think you have a well-warranted progressive argument and want to read it, do what you want! i will do my best to follow along. i just don't fully trust my ability to evaluate Ks, tricks, etc.
- i think tw are helpful, and i'd rather be safe than sorry. if you're ever triggered in a round, do not hesitate to tell me to stop the round, we can figure it out from there.

happy debating and good luck!! have fun out there :)

Hello. I am Vivian Esquivel and I am a parent judge. 

I am new to judging and debate, so I will not be able to judge spreading. Please signpost and go line by line as that will help me and your opponents a lot on what arguments you're extending & mentioning. I want to hear confidence in your speaking, as well as your ability to persuade me on why you deserve to win.

If you have any questions, please let me know. 

Good luck and have fun!

email: vivica3424@yahoo.com

Email: salikfaisal10@gmail.com

Experience/Background:

I primarily competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and Congressional Debate in High School. I've made it to TFA State twice and was an alternate to NSDA Nationals once in Domestic/US Extemporaneous Speaking from the Houston area.

Extemp/Speech:

I value analysis more heavily than the presentation, although there is a place for both. Don't try to force in a point or try to draw a connection that doesn't make sense just for the sake of adding another source or sounding more credible; I will notice this. Please don't fabricate sources; if I find out, this is a sure way to get you downed. I won't micro analyze every source you have, but I will look into it if I feel the need to do so. Quality of analysis always wins out in the end. Don't sound robotic in your speech and try to maintain a natural conversational style of speaking. It's fine if you're not the prettiest and most polished speaker, but make sure to communicate your analysis coherently and I can always appreciate a nice joke.

Congress:

Clever intros and pretty speaking are great, but your goal is to explain why to pass/fail legislation. I'm big on studies/analytics on the impact of legislation. I like clash and love great questioning; just make sure to be civil. POs should make the round flow smoothly and orderly, understand the process well, and show fairness and integrity in selecting speakers.

Debate:

I have some experience competing in Public Forum and have judged it plenty of times, so I know the event fairly well. I'm a fan of clash and questioning; just make sure to be civil. Good evidence and warrants are the gold standard for me. I like real-world examples and love statistics. In order to access your impacts, you must have a very good link. Wasting time and energy on hyperbolic impacts like extinction without solid links won't help you. In your final focus/ final speech, be very clear with your voters and weigh. If I have access to your case, I'm fine with spreading during constructive speeches. Slow down your pace in later speeches. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't make a fair decision. I'm not a fan of K's, picks, theories, and other progressive techniques. If you're doing PF or WSD, stay as far as you can from this. If you decide to use these in LD or CX, you must be very good in your communication and position.

Put me on the email chain: vg.nautilus@gmail.com

Dulls HS '23: debated policy all four years + three tournaments in PF

Policy

Prefs:

fyo BUT a speaks fairy

In order of decreasing frequency, rounds I most often debated are:

1. K Aff v. Fwk
2. Policy Aff v. K
3. K aff v. K
4. Policy v. Policy
5. Theory stuff ig

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. I do not know the topic sorry :,(
2. Clarity >>>>>>>>
3. Give the important args (turns, perms, DAs, links) actual names
4. Lots of pen time between flows -- blow raspberries between sheets idc just give me time
5. Send analytics if you're comfortable
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. T-USfg: functional limits check and structural fairness overwriting procedural fairness [attached reason that matters] are persuasive to me.
8. Don't judge kick
9. I don't like when people spam perms -- more than 2 in the 2AC and I may just not flow the rest — oh also an actual perm text (like literally: perm do [actual plan text] and [the parts of the CA that would be executed in the world of the perm]) will get a speaks boost and is probably also helpful when like ~articulating the world of the perm~
10. Offense/Defense paradigm
11. Condo is occasionally bad!
12. Slow down on theory, topicality, framework

PF

Probs pretty tech but not worth wasting your strikes on even if you're a lay debater.

Prog: dislike theory/Ks in PF but also like intervention probably bad so:

• I'll evaluate everything but I'll intervene at the level of speaks (e.g., a valiant effort by a lay debater facing prog will be rewarded; an LD transplant reading theory or Ks badly will not).

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. Set-up an email chain; send all cards for every speech (the underlined, bolded, and highlighted versions) before hand -- it won't count as prep time unless it takes you egregiously long.
2. Label major arguments (e.g., "the credibility turn," "intervention turn," etc.) or at the VERY LEAST number your arguments.
3. Probably more partial to no-brink = no-impact than most PF judges
4. Offense/defense paradigm
5. Asserting your impact has a "greater magnitude, scope, and probability than theirs" is not impact weighing. If y'all are going to insist on "quantifiable impacts" please at MINIMUM give me two numbers (yours and your opponents) in the impact weighing + a reason why yours matters more. I do not, however, think quantification is necessary to building a compelling impact.
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. Kritiks must have a topic link
8. Speed will probably not be a problem for me

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

Notes for novices:

Roadmap: the order in which you will go to arguments during the debate, essentially a table of contents. This is given before you start the time to your speech (eg. "The order is: the Biz Con DA, Case, the DoS CP, and the K.")

Off vs. On Case: Off case positions are either DAs, CPs, Ks, or T shells. On case positions are Case Defense, Impact Turns, Case Turns, Solvency Deficits, etc. I guess technically anything (except CPs and probably T shells) can be an on-case position - it's just a matter of which sheet you want the judge to flow on.

I am a lay judge, I will take notes on the round but I will only flow what I can hear and understand so please slow down. I encourage clear articulation and arguments.

Utilize clash and voters.

Email: belahossain2002@gmail.com

To start with, I have about 4 years of experience in CX. I'm familiar with most of the stuff. I have also debated LD for a while. I try to keep myself updated with all of the terms and topics for both. However, I would like to be reminded or explained about a few terms or shorthand if I'm confused.

Speed and technical reasoning are more than welcome unless you exclude people. Relative Analysis, Clash, and Warranting shape the debate. I respect debaters who use verbal and nonverbal cues to mark crucial information as such, regardless of speech and skill. Slowing down, changing your tone, and repeating yourself are all effective ways to communicate that something is essential, and you should use it. To avoid me misinterpreting you or believing you're using jargon as a support, you should simplify whenever possible.

I flow most of my rounds electronically to be efficient. Make whatever use you choose of that.

I normally start at 28 speaker points and move up or down from there based on productivity, simplicity, clever strategic judgments, and overall essence. I don't mind if you're funny or serious. Simply do your job well.

Theory:

I appreciate the strategic application of theory, but you must slow down and allow me more time to write, construct comprehensive arguments with a claim, some justifications, and an impact, and participate in comparative analysis.

K-affs:

I'm not excessively specific with regards to how the aff connects with the topic; simply be certain that the relationship is clear. Knowing your portrayal and having consistency of clarification from 1AC to 2AR is significant. You would be all around served to have thoroughly considered a case list supported by your counter-interpretation against a structure so you can ventilate genuine discussions that would work out under your model.

Topicality:

The more specific the explanation, the better. I refrain from competing interpretations, as I think one of the burdens of those involved is to defend their choice of support. Rationality is an argument for the counter-interpretation, not the aff itself. Limits discussion usually determines how I feel about the adequacy of aff. Accuracy standards are underutilized, and access to all sorts of interesting educational impacts that can be applied as a lack of solvency on a case-by-case basis.

Kritiks:

K-frame is theoretical. You ought to deal with it as such. I'm inquisitive about resolving questions of ways this debate, the wider activity, myself, you, your opponents, and any target that might be there are implicated inside your arguments.

Counter Plans:

A response plan for a specific case is better than a universal one. It depends on the multi-actor propensity, counseling conditions and conditions.

Disadvantages:

I tend to think that beginning conditions decide the course of occasions, so uniqueness as a rule decides the course of a connection. Be that as it may, I acknowledge the contention that typically not the case in certain cases, as distant as the proof base exists.

Framework:

Debate is an activity wonderful from other speech oriented activities, and I care about keeping that distinction. Right here are a few inquiries to guide your thinking regardless of your vision of debate: What kinds of discussions are counted and why do they count greater numbers than others we could be having? Why debate in preference to a few other modes of opposition or scholarly/activist work? What is the function of the aff? What's the function of the negative? How does conflict work? What limits exist below your interpretation?

Email: shoxha2020@gmail.com

Give me music recommendations and I'll give you +.1 speaker points.

Intro / About Me:

Shout out to Westside High and UH - I wouldn't be anywhere without you. <3

Don't be discriminatory. I'm warning you now if you have to ask, "Is this problematic? Don't read it - there are better strategies out there.

Also Important: If you read spreading bad in front of me, I will not hack for you. I can spread and I can flow, but I am disabled and these skills were harder for me to develop than most. Many debaters see this as an opportunity for a persuasive 2ar and 2nr push, don't let this be you. I consider this motivated and ableist.

You're either winning an argument on the flow or you're not. Trivializing my struggles or the struggles of any judge for the ballot is an easy way to get me to despise you.

Debate is a game, but it is an academic game. Tech over truth, but truth constrains tech. You'll have a harder time convincing me global warming is fake than convincing me warming will destroy the planet. If two debaters are equal on a particular flow, truth is the obvious tie breaker.

I will try to intervene as little as possible - I'm old school in that you need to explain things to me like I'm 5 for me to grant you the arguments you want to go for.

I have been in this space for too long. I have zero clue how some old heads have been here for 20+ years. As such, it's becoming much harder to tolerate cringe, posturing, flexing, and generally being an obnoxious debater stereotype. While I will not punish you for it, it will still make me cringe. Be nice to people, there's a difference between being confident and being mean.

I vibe check speaks, I don't know what a 30 looks like, but I can feel it. But that doesn't mean that speaks are arbitrary because my flow checks my vibes. I default to a 28.5 and go higher or lower based on your strategic decisions.

Online debate and its consequences have been a disaster for the debate community. Disclose quickly, don't steal prep. I am growing tired of people that can't manage their files and make a 45-minute round an hour long.

Post UT update: Post rounding is cool and checks against dumb decisions, I frequently make bad decisions and I encourage you ask questions, but do it nicely.

Now for the gross stuff

K

I love the K. I've read many lit bases.

Know your lit, theorize, and don't neglect the material implications of your literature.

I think generic links are fine, but specific links are always better. Saying that a K link is generic and so I should gut check it is never sufficient - you need to explain why a generic link doesn't apply to your aff.

Don't drop your alt unless you're winning a framework push because dropping the alt means that I have to weigh the aff versus the status quo, and 9 out of 10, you will lose that debate.

I default to weighing the aff against the K or something to that effect. If you wan't me to exclude aff offense, you need to do some heavy work.

Fairness is not a good argument if a K team is winning that your model is problematic, justify policy making and then cry about fairness.

Substantive reasons for why they don't get the perm > Theoretical reasons for why they don't get the perm.

You must explain how the perm works for me and the net benefit. Saying "perm do both" - is okay but super weak and usually will not be enough to overcome disads to the perm.

K Affs

Love kritikal affs, but TVAs usually pick up my ballot here. You need to explain your model of debate / method. You should have a strong relationship to the topic or at least explain why a relationship to the topic is bad or doesn't matter.

Framework:

Define how your method of debate works, the benefits only your method can access, and why you can include their model / arguments, even if they can't argue for their perfect advocacy.

Generally speaking, it's okay if the topic excludes your specific author - you don't get the perfect aff sometimes, it is what it is. Debate is about controversies and every advocacy (mostly) will have side-constraints, disadvantages, or criticism from different schools of thought. You should embrace this.

Don't neglect case - if they're winning that their scholarship is good and key, it'll be much harder for you to win this flow.

T

Debatability is not the sole metric that I use to decide T debates. Real world application of literature is another side-constraint of an interpretation.

Sure, your interpretation might produce the most clash, but if there's no exportable topic education, what's the point of clash?

I'm very happy to vote on "Nobody in X field or expertise defines the words in the resolution in a specific way." I hate fake debate T interpretations with 0 real world application.

You need to weigh between standards and different implications of interpretations.

Also weigh definitions - but saying, "Our definition is from a reliable source, and yours isn't." is not an argument.

Competing Interps > Reasonability.

Policy

Deploy whatever arguments you need to win the round.

I love a good counterplan gimmick.

Pics are good. But my default can change.

Delay counterplans are not legit. Unless, the net benefit is fire and super specific.

Process counterplans are suspect, but I'm willing to vote on them.

Actor counterplans are fine.

You must justify judge kick - and say you're kicking something.

Use differential degrees or lense of sufficiency framing to explain how I should evaluate solvency deficits vs. the net benefit of the counterplan.

Weigh between different scenarios please.

Compare warrants and explain why yours are better, this is super neglected in policy and LD especially.

Explain how the PIC solves the aff. I will not give this to you just because you label something a pic.

No opinions on condo, dispo, or how many offs are too much. I will police this more in LD. I think 2 to 3 condo positions + squo is enough neg flex, but you're more than welcome to convince me otherwise. I really don't care.

There can be 0 risk of a DA - but it's very rare. You need to do stellar work here for me to say there's no risk to the DA.

Theory: 3

I don't like these debates in LD - they're way overused.

In policy, theory debates are fine.

Defaults:

Reasonabilty > Competing Interps

No RVIs.

Yes, 1AR theory.

DTA > DTD, unless DTA is impossible.

Tricks:

I used to discriminate against these arguments, but there's no reason why these arguments are any less legit than the K, a DA, or T. I'm just not qualified to be your judge - read at your own risk.

DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE A GAME. DO NOT ABUSE TRIGGER WARNINGS AND OPT OUT WHEN YOU ARE NOT TRIGGERED JUST TO AVOID THE ARGUMENT. THAT IS EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL TO ACTUAL VICTIMS.

with that, hi! i'm sherry, and i've been doing pf on the national and texas circuits for 3 years

tech > truth unless it's stupid (ie sexism exists, racism exists, you can't disprove that. i'm ok with spark, recession turns, climate change turns, etc tho). i flow the round

ofc, debate is a safe space, and any discriminatory speech or action will result in an auto L20

general:

i evaluate framing -> weighing -> argument that won weighing -> next best argument if the argument that won weighing has terminal defense on it. if weighing is nonexistent/a wash, i vote on strength of link

i will not evaluate responses that are extended through ink

everything needs to be extended through summary and final for it to be a factor in my decision

i can flow up to 250 wpm. if you're going faster, send a doc. i'll be a little disgruntled, but i won't hold it against you

i vote off warrants, not card names. my threshold for extensions isn’t that high - just hit every link in the chain

prog:

i've run stock ks (terror talks <3, orientalism, securitization stuff) before, and i'm comfortable evaluating them. i'm not suuuper familiar with non-T ks because i've never debated them before, but i know how they work. if your k is kind of convoluted, just slow down and warrant it out more. i really don't know how to evaluate performance ks - i'm probably not the best judge for them

i've also run theory shells, but i think debaters should reserve this for actual abuse (so no friv)

i've read high theory lit (mostly baudrillard), but i'm not super familiar with it, and i've never run it before - i'm down to try and evaluate them, just be super clear abt what i'd be voting on

i think trix are funny, but i've never debated them before. i'm down to try and evaluate a trix round, but i can't guarantee an rfd or result you'd like

i don't really know what phil or larp entails lol

pet peeves, in order of i-will-probably-hack-against-u to mild annoyance:

1. reading pess when you're not part of that demographic (eg reading afropess as an asian debater)

2. dumping straight unwarranted, unimplicated, unimpacted, one-sentence turns in rebuttal and blowing them up in summary

3. profanity (unless you're reading rage/killjoy), especially if it's used aggressively

4. saying "my time will start in 3...2...1." this is a debate round, not a space shuttle launch - or "my time will start on my first word." when else would it start, ur second word?? just make sure everyone is good and start brah lol

misc:

if u finish the round within 45 minutes of starting, i'll +1 speaks

if u email rl3.rina@gmail.com "i hate disclosure" and show me proof before round, i'll +0.2 speaks

I am a policy and stock issues judge! I want to hear plans that will actually make a change, not just a basic or generic 1A that everyone else is running. If you are running a generic case, I want to hear extravagant arguments to those generic ideas.

CLASH is extremely important for me. I need something that will excite me. Both teams bouncing back and forth with good arguments that can tear down each other. I really like to hear arguments being set up in the cross-examination periods.

Clearly state your stocks, ORGANIZATION!!! Please do not be all over the place.

Be clear on each speech on why I should vote for you, not just rereading your cards, what do those cards mean.

Most importantly, even if you aren't sure what you are talking about I have to hear confident speaking! Clear and precise.

-I will not flow your speech if you spread.

This is literally my passion, so please no petty arguments in the round. Good clash and remember debating is always a learning experience.

he/him/his

please add me to the email chain : olibarra323@gmail.com

I know debate can be a lot for novices so please don't be afraid to ask for clarification on anything I say, there are no dumb questions!

i’ve been doing policy debate at dulles high school for three years. i have enough knowledge of other debate events to get by, but i might need clarification on event norms especially if you’re running theory. i’m cool with pretty much any arguments as long as you can explain why they’re worth a ballot. go crazy go stupid !!

policy:i’m very familiar with all areas of the topic. run what you want to run and i will evaluate it. i know the learning curve on policy debate specifically is insane. i want the rounds i judge to be a safe place for novices to learn and take risks, so please do not worry about messing up. i’m honestly just proud that you guys are brave enough to come out here and debate. i think a lot of people get scared off of policy because admittedly rounds are long and the competition is intimidating, but i promise you it will get easier. even if you don’t win my ballot, you have earned my respect. feel free to reach out if you have any extra questions before or after round :)

argument specifics:

DA’s: love them, they’re great on this topic. make sure you have a clear narrative and can identify the uniqueness, link, and impact of your DA. if you don’t run a counterplan with it, i need to know why the impact of the DA is worse than the impacts the plan solves for: why is the world of the aff worse than the status quo?

CP’s: if you run these with a DA, you need to explain how it avoids triggering the DA especially if it’s something broad like spending. if you don’t run a DA with your CP, i need to know why the CP is significantly better than the plan and the permutation

Topicality: go for it! even if you kick it in the block, i think it’s an underutilized argument and a convincing topicality shell can win you the round. that being said, if your shell is a reach or a timesuck, you probably shouldn’t go for it in the 2NR unless the aff completely concedes it. you need to provide examples of plans that meet your definition of the resolution so i understand what you think debates on this topic should look like.

Theory: basically same as topicality. even if you win that they committed a violation, you need to tell me why that violation is worth voting for. keep the frivolous theory in LD please

Kritiks: i love kritiks <3 that being said, i will not vote on a k without a clear narrative or a k that does not explain why it should earn the ballot.

LD: pretty much the same as policy, i have decent jan-feb topic understanding because i went to the strake jesuit tournament. i understand most arguments on it but if you’re using niche acronyms please tell me what they mean so i can follow what you’re saying.

framing: i’m very familiar with util + baudrillard and have some grasp of most mainstream philosophers. if you can’t explain your value criteria to me in a way i can understand, i’m going to assume you don’t understand it either and i probably won’t vote for it.

unserious arguments don’t need serious answers.

PF: i do not know much about the topic, but i know the basics of how PF works. just make sure you’re explaining why winning a specific argument is worth the ballot.

General:i will flow your speeches. speed is fine just be clear. i am pretty expressive so you can probably read my expressions to see if you’re doing something i really don’t like.

tell me your fav pokémon ! not a speak boost but it will make me happy :)

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly.

I will evaluate whatever is interesting and makes intrinsic sense in the context of the round. Read at whatever speed you want, keep in mind I can only make decisions based on what I hear. When frontlining case please actually respond to your opponents, dont just read random blocks. Attack uniqueness! I really like rhetoric, say stuff well. If you say rlly cool stuff I will like it.

I will add +1 speaks for the best topic related pun.

andrewjohn.sl2024@gmail.com

Dulles '23
WashU '27

I debated for Dulles High School and broke at the TOC my senior year.

Speech docs are good for numerous reasons, especially evidence ethics so send them.

Email: nathaniel.nj12@gmail.com

If you have any questions about my paradigm please feel free to email or messenger me.

Shortcut

Policy: 1-2

T/Theory: 1

Generic Phil: 1-2

Generic Ks: 1-3 (check kritik section)

Niche Phil: 2-3 (depends on explanation)

Niche Ks: 4

Trad: 2

General Things
1) Truth over tech is WACK - A complete argument (claim, warrant, impact) if dropped is automatically true. However, the strength of that argument is still proportional to its warranting therefore 2 dropped arguments do not have the same strength.

2)I will vote on anything, and I will try my best to not let my bias towards arguments influence how I evaluate them. That being said, I will be open about my biases within this paradigm.

3) I'm not the best flower since I type very slow and have been out of debate for a while. It would be in your best interest to go 80% of your normal speed if you know you are much faster than the average circuit LD debater, especially for analytics not sent out. Of course sending analytics is your choice, but recognize that if I miss an argument because you're too fast, I can't vote on it.

4) No new 2AR or 2NR arguments unless previously justified. If the argument's warrant is only heard in the 2AR or 2NR, it is new. The 2AR is usually too late to do new layering (unless the debate is irresolvable without it).

5) Please weigh, but I will default to strength of link. I also default to giving credence to weighing arguments made earlier in the debate.

6) Lying in cross or flex prep can never be justified. I will reject arguments that contradict cross-x.

7)I will not vote on the "give both sides 30 speaks" spike

My judging philosophy is heavily influenced by Brett Cryan, Jarvis Xie, and Samantha Mcloughlin

Traditional: I did lay debate in the beginning of my freshman year and more than happy to evaluate a non-spreading debate about the pros and cons of the topic. In front of me, I recommend that traditional debaters skip the value debate (there is hardly any difference between morality and justice), and focus on debating and weighing the contentions. Its a lot better to argue why this specific instance of structural violence in the debate matters more than your opponents impact than to have a convoluted philosophical debate about structural violence versus util in general.

Policy:I'm familiar with all fundamental policy arguments however I likely won't be researching the topic too in depth. Zero risk is a thing but hard to win. Underdeveloping off in the 1nc = they get less weight in the 2nr. Rebuttal ev explanation/spin > initial ev quality, but if your opponent's ev sucks and you point that out, that falls under the first category. You only get credit for the parts of the evidence you do read but I will read cards to understand context. Instruct me on how to read evidence (i.e. check if it's reverse casual, check for intent to exclude, ect.) if you want me to read evidence.

T/Theory: Read this frequently and I will vote on any shell even bad ones. I default text over spirit, norm setting>ira, no rvis, and competing interps. A shell that lacks a warrant for DTA or DTD has no implication. I feel reasonability and DTA are very compelling on majority of shells however debaters often don't do enough warranting these paradigm issues. Theory before other layers should be ideally be done in the 1AR. RVI's are a hard sell but will vote on if won.

Generic Phil:I'm relatively well versed in most LD phil. Good for many types of phil debates (naturalism vs non-naturalism, internalism vs externalism, ect) Phil debate shouldn't be immune to standard vs. standard interaction and offense weighing. Hijacks are also great. If you want to avoid this debate- simply read TJFs

Generic Ks: I primarily read the cap K, but also occasionally read setcol and mollow. I'm good for the cap K and have researched it a bit. I'm okay for security Ks as long as you can win framework. I'm terrible for IR Ks, these arguments are interesting, but I have never researched it nor do I have any understanding of them. I'm good for evaluating identity based pessimism Ks and psychoanalysis, but i have a much higher bar for warranting than most judges. I also believe psychological theories that have been rejected by 99% of psychologists and readings of history that have been rejected by 99% of historians are probably silly – there’s a reason they exist in debate, English departments, and nowhere else. However, if you feel confident in your ability to out tech your opponent despite reading these arguments, feel free to read them, I will still be tab.

Tricks: Good if they do have warrants, because I understand most logical tricks and am open to evaluating any spikes you read (if I find one creative or very strategic, i may bump your speaks), but bad if you all you do is extend conceded claims or don't explain the warrants well because then I will disregard them and lower your speaks. I'm also not evaluating any part of the debate early, so no eval theory after 1ar or eval after 1nc.

K affs: I really like K affs with a relation to the topic and can be compelled that the value they provide may outweigh marginal skews in fairness.

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during prep. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Against novices/trad debaters: I will still be tab in making my decision, but if you (as a circuit debater) want good speaks I expect you to be accessible. To get higher than 29 speaks, you shouldn't spread if they don't spread (unless they let you), and stay away from reading Ks and highly complicated frameworks (these tend to be the most confusing arguments). Almost any policy argument(DA, CP, Impact Turn), should be fine. For this, a novice is defined as someone in their first year of LD that only knows lay/trad debate.

Speaks:These are primarily based on strategy, but can increase if you are nice to novices/debaters much worse than you/traditional debaters, read funny arguments, make funny debate jokes, or give speeches with 0 prep.

Lay/Parent Judge

I prefer a slow debate, as it ensures more engagement with the opponents position, so spreading will not be the best course of action. I do look at evidence and value evidence comparison so put me on the email chain (smjohn@gmail.com). I will try my best to evaluate all arguments but I am only confident in my ability to understand LARP. Speaking persuasively along with explicit weighing are very important, so make sure to do both those things throughout the entire debate. When there are 2 claims in opposition, explain why I should trust your evidence better in order to win your claim. I will try my best not to intervene with my own personal opinions, however claims that are more intuitively true, like extinction is bad require less work than intuitively false claims. Speaks are based on strategy, clarity, and argument explanation. Lastly please be kind to your opponent and do not make arguments that make debate unsafe.

New assistant debate coach this year--still learning the ropes of speech and debate in general and the judging for both.

I am primarily an AP English 3 teacher, and that informs my judging. Make your argument as if I am entirely unfamiliar with the topic.

I have only judged LD, PF and several speech formats at this time and am still learning the other debate types.

In judging, I look for:

-Logical consistency in your argument: your framework should carry through your arguments.

-LD - value/criterion/framework. I like to see the connections of how the framework influences your cases and argumentation.

-PF - I'm always looking for argumentation and clash.

-I value the quality of the argumentation over attempts to win points on technicalities.

-Speak at a normal conversational pace. Do not spread or rush your speaking--if I can't follow what you're saying, I can't fairly evaluate your argument, and this will work against you in terms of both speaker points and the overall quality of your argument.

You may find feedback from me in your online ballot after your rounds. As a general rule, I do not do orals.

dulles classic 2023 updates:

leenajoshi [at] utexas [dot] edu

please start round ON TIME. this means emails sent by the start time

freshman at ut who did 4 years of policy at dulles, primarily ran policy/t/theory args

i have 0 topic knowledge so pls explain ur acronyms

no phil pls

run whatever ur best at

tech>truth, for the most part. unless it's egregious

concessions in cx are binding

don't be mean it won't win u rounds

am lenient with 1ar responses if the 1nc is unwarranted but blows up in the block (maybe bc i was a 1a idk)

reasonability needs to be contextualized to the counter interp

go as fast as you want but i can tell when ur actually enunciating vs slurring - speaks start at 28

higher speaks if u end prep/speeches early j lmk

feel free to ask me for specific things in round!

I'm a parent judge

- I have some basic experience judging CX & NPF

- Please go SLOW unless you flash blocks

- Please flash whenever possible

Basically: Talk slow or flash analytics, be organized when speaking, explain well.

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 career bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Mkdebate@gmail.com

Kritiks: 1
Phil: 1
Theory: 2-3
LARP: 2
Tricks: 3-4

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent. I have ADHD and will lose focus if the debate has 5+ shells and every single sentence refers to a specific line by line argument. Extremely dense theory debates are not good for me and I will vote on overviews and voting issues, ignoring line by line concerns sometimes. I would not recommend you debate like this infront of me.

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. This means yes, I will vote on it, but I give the opposing side a ton of leeway. If the aff makes a bad I meet or has marginal offense on a really dumb shell like "Link chains bad" I will err that way. I like theory when strategic, but LOVE it when there is legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a jerk proportionally to the amount of foolery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.

Exceptions:

*****I will NOT vote on ****

1) Brackets theory
2) Font theory
3) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
4) Evaluate the debate at X speech (no - I will eval the whole debate regardless)
5) New affs bad (but "Must disclose plantext/framework" is fine)
6) Arguments that exclusively link to your opponents/your identity without structural warrants- ex. "White ppl should lose", "vote for me cuz im X minority group"
7) Must Disclose Round Reports



Kritik:

This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me. Race and Id pol Ks are fine

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur stuff at SOME point at least)




Framework:

Love it, think its cool and underused.
.

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.


LARP:

I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong. I'm a sucker for good IR analysis. If you understand how States function in relation to eachother and can use concrete examples in explanations I'll be persuaded and also boost your speaks.


Theory:

Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, is strongly in the direction of the topic, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™ I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.



Tricks:

I just evaluate it the same way I would a bs-heavy theory or framework debate, which lets be honest, is what this is.
Paradoxes, Aprioris, and presumption/skep triggers are all fine.



Things I'll boost your speaks for:


Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a crap: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.5-29.9: ur fire
28.6 - 29.4: You good
28.1-28.5: meh
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: f you

Head Coach for Kempner. LD / Extemp when I was in school, but LD was very different then.

I approach every round as if I know essentially nothing about it, beyond what an average person who has normal levels of world knowledge would know on it. While I probably have researched the topic or know it from working with my students, it is your job as the debater to explain and convince me of your argument.

Be kind and have fun. While debates can get intense, they should never delve into rudeness or unprofessionalism. If your opponent is being rude to you, I've already documented it and will report it accordingly.

Spreading is highly and actively discouraged. Debating should be about logic, argument, and genuine debate. Spreading removes the ability to have an effective engaging back and forth. Jamming 100 cards into a speech and does not provide anything to anyone, nor do rebuttals where the entire time is "opponent missed this card, and this card, and this card" when neither me nor your opponent know that you even said it. You're here to debate and argue for why I should agree with you. If I do not hear it, it will not count in your favor. If you see me not typing (with exception to cross), I'm not flowing/understanding it.

Explain the why. Claims made that don't explain how or why something would happen will be weighed significantly less. Example: If you state that raising taxes will lead to nuclear war, then immediately move on to your next point without having evidence or a direct chain of events that will lead to this impact does not hold any weight at all to me and is just a baseless claim.

I disclose in out rounds, but not in prelims.

hi, this is han tran, and my dad is dat le.

my dad is a lay judge. please do not spread and don't make confusing or complex arguments. also signpost and respond to arguments line by line. just try to be as persuasive as possible while not violating rules. good luck!

email: bwa77459@gmail.com

bcc: andrewjohn.sl2024@gmail.com

if you have no questions go ahead and email andrew john anyways tell him hes cool or smth

@parthparekh06

come preflowed

be respectful and have fun

PF

rebuttal - start weighing in second rebuttal

summary - no sticky defense, extend your link, WEIGH

final - mirror summary make my ballot easy tell me whats important

everything else?

basically the same

if its speech gg

I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room.

dulles '24

email: justinhli@yahoo.com

for novices:

extend your arguments in your rebuttals and clash with your opponent's arguments (rather than repeating what you've already said) - i vote solely off the flow

i don't flow cross so make sure to bring it up in your speech if you want me to consider it!

pref shortcuts:

larp/trad - 1

k + pomo - 1

theory - 2

phil/tricks (unless it's interesting) - 4

speaker points:

I start at a 28 and go up or down from there (usually will be up) - you can do any/all of the following challenges to increase your points:

- point gamble - + 0.5 points for each 30 sec you end a speech early and win BUT if you lose I will subtract 0.5 points

- if you rap anytime during your speech - up to +1.0 based on bars/flow

- making a drake/baby keem/carti reference - up to +0.2

- making a reference to science concepts (physics, chemistry, biology) - up to +0.5

- doing a 360 degree spin when you read a turn - +0.1 per instance, capped at +0.3

feel free to ask me any other questions you have before the round! have fun :)

hi im rina and im a junior at dulles !

add me to the email chain (send speech doc if you read over 250 wpm) rl3.rina@gmail.com

obviously, nothing discriminatory (sexism, racism, homophobia, etc); it’ll be an auto L20

tldr tech > truth

i don't read prog stuff often + idk k lit that well but i will vote on it if it's well-articulated

defense is not sticky :( extend with warrants, not just card names

i don’t evaluate new arguments/warrants in later speeches (this includes weighing in ff unless it's responding to second summary)

i don’t flow cross (bring up important args in speech) if you do your cross in a british accent that's auto 30

not familiar with current ld and policy topics but i've done policy once at districts (lol very lay) and am decently familiar w ld

please don't say "my time starts in 3..2...1." this is a debate round, not a space shuttle launch. similarly, don't say "my time will start on my first word" either. when else would it start, your second word? just start brah. If you say any of those statements, I will cringe visibly.

^^ shout out to my goat in rounddd ???? i agree w everything sherry's paradigm says except for disclo - i buy disclo

last but not least, have fun/make jokes because debate is so much more enjoyable that way :)

feel free to ask me anything else in round !!

I did PF for 2 years, so I have a somewhat decent understanding of what should be going on in a round but little knowledge of the current topic. I'm not going to be flowing everything, so treat me like a flow-lay judge. I'll only write down the significant progressions and arguments in the round.

Just a few preferences:

1. For speaking speed, I would really prefer if you don't spread as it's harder to keep track of everything you're saying. Make sure to signpost and warrant throughout speeches.

2. Give clear voters during Final Focus.

3. Don't be rude and/or interrupt too much during crossfire.

4. Please no theory!

For every other debate event, treat me as a lay judge and minimize theory/K's.

Wassup, I'm Charlize! I use the pronouns she/her.

I will not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities.

If you want to link me to an email chain, my email is: charlizelopez2024@gmail.com

Background

My primary event is World Schools & I have some background in PF, LD, Congress, Extemp, and CX (extremely minimal) but it is minimal. I understand the structure and most basics, as I have competed in these events before but they are not events that I actively compete with.

General Notes

I love jokes and modern/pop references, thus, if you make any jokes or references (that still correlate to your speech/argument) you'll likely get an increase in points. I love serious and intense debate rounds like every other judge but I'd rather have a laugh than be hearing monotone borderline screaming for hours.

I don't mind spreading but if you are incoherent when you spread and/or speak in the same tone (e.g, monotone or emphasizing each word) then it's best that you speak at a slower pace. My memory isn't the greatest & my brain lags sometimes, so it's best if you use lay terms on me but I know most/all of the terms in regard to weighing.

The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents. I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

Sportsmanship is also very important to me. If I see that you disrespect or inappropriately disrupt your opponent or me during the round, you will get speaker points taken off. This includes before and after rounds as well. Make sure you show your respect to everyone in the round, not just me.

Finally, my biggest point. PERSUADE ME. you can argue all the technicalities you want but at the end of the day, I will likely vote for the person who convinced me the most, even if some of the opponent's arguments slipped through undefended.

Add me to the email chain: Jayda.ma135@gmail.com

General

Tech > truth

Go line by line

I’m fine with speed, just be clear

Give me a roadmap before speeches and please signpost

Keep your own time but i will probably also be timing

Evidence

don't take too long to find cards or evidence and have everything formatted

warrants > evidence

i won't call for evidence unless:

1. you tell me to

2. the round is so messy that I have to

Rebuttal

I won't flow any defense read in first rebuttal; there's really no point

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Summary

Defense is sticky

Extend and frontline arguments; dont just read author names you should also be briefly explaining the argument

Please collapse

Comparatively weigh or the round will be very messy

FF

Any offense must have been in summary

Should look the same as summary but with more weighing and less frontlining

There should be no new arguments so just highlight why you win

Weighing

Please weigh starting from second rebuttal. It should also be comparative and dont just use buzz words or I wont evaluate it. Metaweighing is fine

Crossfire

I will be paying attention and any conceding will be binding

Please be polite and try not to get too heated lol

Speaks

you can do any/all of the following challenges to increase your points:

- point gamble - +1.0 points if you end your last speech more than 1 min early and win BUT if you lose I will subtract 0.5 points

- if you freestyle rap during your speech - up to +1.0 based on bars/flow

- sing your framework - up to +0.5

- doing jumping jacks during CX - +0.5

- spin around whenever you read a turn +.5 speaks 

please ask any questions you may have before the round! glhf :)

I am a parent judge -- I will not evaluate the following arguments

K, Phil, T/Theory, Tricks, Plan Affs,

Dont spread in front of me please I am not accustomed to it.

I am a traditional judge -- focus on framing and how your offense links -- you win the flow based off of the framing

I look for persuasive, evidence-based arguments. For example, if your opponent uses your card against you, beware that might be outcome determinative unless you find a way to rebut.

I think extinction debates are silly -- I will likely err to the side that uses probability rather than defaulting to the biggest impact

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Alief Elsik High School in Houston, TX. As such, I currently coach and/or oversee students competing in a wide variety of events including all speech/interp events as well as Congress and World Schools debate. My debate paradigm is better explained if you know my history in competitive debate. I was an LD debater in high school in the early 90's. I then competed in CEDA/policy debate just before the CEDA/NDT merger. I started coaching speech and debate in 2004. In terms of debate, I have coached more LD than anything else but have also had a good deal of experience with Public Forum debate. Now that I am at Elsik, we really only have WSD and Congressional Debate in terms of debate events.

When adjudicating rounds, I do my very best to intervene as little as possible. I try to base decisions solely off of the flow and want to do as little work as possible for debaters. I hate when LD debaters, in particular, attempt to run policy positions in a round and don't have a clue about how the positions function. If you run policy stuff, then you should know policy stuff. I am open to the use of policy type arguments/positions in an LD round but I want debaters to do so knowing that I expect them to know how to debate such positions. I am also open to critical arguments as long as there is a clear story being told which offers the rationale for running such arguments and how the argument is to be evaluated in round. I am not a huge fan of a microdebate on theory and I strongly encourage you to only run theoretical arguments if there is clearly some in round abuse taking place. I will obviously listen to it and even vote there if the flow dictates it but know that I will not be happy about it. In terms of speed/jargon/etc, I do have a mixed debate background and I can flow speed when it's clear. I don't judge a ton of rounds any more as I find myself usually trapped in tab rooms at tournaments so I cannot keep up the way I used to. With that said, my body language is a clear indicator of whether or not I am flowing and keeping up. I do see debate as a game in many ways, however I also take language very seriously and will never vote in favor of a position I find to be morally repugnant. Please understand that to run genocide good type arguments in front of me will almost certainly cost you the round. Other than those things, I feel that I am pretty open to allowing debaters to determine the path the rounds take. Be clear, know your stuff and justify your arguments.

The last thing I think debaters should know about me is that I deplore rude debate. There is just no room in debate for nasty, condescending behavior. I loathe snarky cross ex. There is a way to disagree, get your point across and win debate rounds without being a jerk so figure that out before you get in front of me. Perceptual dominance does not mean you have to be completely obnoxious. I will seriously dock speaker points for behavior I find rude. As a former coach of an all women's debate team, I find sexist, misogynist behavior both unacceptable and reason enough to drop a team/debater.

I feel compelled to add a section for speech/interp since I am judging way more of these events lately. I HATE HATE HATE the use of gratuitous, vulgar language in high school speech/debate rounds. In speech events in particular, I find that it is almost NEVER NECESSARY to use foul language. I am also not a huge fan of silly tech and sound fx in interp events. Not every door needs WD40...lose the squeaky doors please. I think the intro is the space where you should be in your authentic voice telling us about your piece and/or your argument - STOP OVER-INTERPING intro's. Sometimes folks think loud volume = more drama. It doesn't. Learn to play to your space. Also recognize that sometimes silence and subtlety can be your best friends. With regard to OO and INFO...I think these are public speaking events. Interpatories generally don't sit well with me. I don't mind personality and some energy but I am finding that there are some folks out here doing full on DI's in these events and that doesn't work for me very often. I am not one that requires content/trigger warnings but do understand the value of them for some folks. I am really VERY DISTURBED by able-bodied interpers playing differently-abled characters in ways that only serve as caricatures of these human beings and it's just offensive to me so be careful if you choose to do this kind of piece in front of me. Also know that although I have very strong feelings about things, I understand that there are always exceptions to the rule. Brilliant performances can certainly overcome any shortcomings I see in piece selection or interpretation choices. So best of luck.

Experience:

I primarily competed in Impromptu speaking and Humorous Interpretation at Ridge Point High School. I made it to TFA state twice in my Junior and Senior year.

Impromptu:

It is important to have a structure to your speech, regardless of whether the topic is humorous or serious in nature. Blocking is also very important, as movement can add weight to each talking point but it needs to be purposeful otherwise it's unnecessary. Talk with confidence even if you are nervous and emphasize an important point.

HI:
Humor is subjective. Relax and let your piece speak for itself. Move (A LOT), have voices, be creative, and most importantly don't run out of breath (I did a lot).

Other Events:
DI:

Put weight into EVERYTHING you do and make your movements matter.

Prose/Poetry:
Look up and use your emotions to your advantage, keep the binder at hand, and only use it not only to look at but to emote as well

Lincoln-Douglas Debate/Policy Debate/ Other Debate: Don't talk too fast, if I can't understand what you are saying I won't be able to judge you on it.

I prefer Speechdrop, but if you insist on using an email chain, add me: fedupblackgurl@gmail.com

4/12/2022 addition: The strangest thing happened to me last weekend. I have been judging since I graduated from Lamar HS in 2006. I use similar language on my ballots in every round, and a problem has never been brought to my attention. However, two coaches at an NSDA recently complained about the language used on my ballots. I am including that language here:

Comments for *the debater*

"Do you have a strategy for reading the AC? Because you sent me 35 pages and only got through like 24. Is the strat just to literally spread as much as you can? Would it not be better to structure the case in a way where you make sure to get through what is important? For example, you read the stuff about warming, but you did not even get through the "warming causes extinction" stuff, so you do not have a terminal impact for the environmental journalism subpoint.

New cards in the 1AR?! As if you do not already have enough to deal with?! This strategy is still making no sense. And then, you sent this doc with all these cards AGAIN and did not read them all. This is so weird to do in the 1AR because the strat should be really coherent because you have so little time. This was SLOPPY work."

RFD: "I negate. This was a painful/sloppy round to judge. Both debaters have this weird strat where they just read as much stuff as they can and I guess, hope that something sticks. This round could have gone either way, and I am in the rare situation where I am not even comfortable submitting my ballot. To be clear, there was no winner in this round. I just had to choose someone. So, I voted neg on climate change because it was the clearest place to vote. I buy that we need advocacy in order to solve. I buy that objectivity decreases public interest in climate change. I buy that we need advocacy to influence climate change. I buy that "objectivity" creates right-winged echo chambers that further perpetuate climate change. These args were ineffectively handled by the Aff. The other compelling line of argumentation from the neg showed how lack of advocacy on issues like climate change harm minorities more. I think neg did a good job of turning Aff FW and showing how he linked into SV better. This round was a hot mess, but I vote neg... I guess."

If I am your judge, these are the types of ballots you will get if you give me a round that it messy and hard to adjudicate. I should not have to say this because my reputation precedes me, but ASK ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. I AM NICE. I AM KIND. MY BLACK MAMA RAISED ME WELL. I show up at tournaments and hug people and smile (even people on the circuit who are known to be racially problematic and even coaches who are known to be sore losers). I am literally good to everyone because as a Black woman, I do not have the luxury of raising my voice, making demands, or throwing tantrums. Actions that coaches in other bodies with other body parts are allowed to get away with are prohibited and result in career suicide for me and humans who look like me. So, if these ballots offend you, STRIKE ME NOW. Request that I not judge you/your students NOW. Do not wait until you get the ballot back and paint me into a villain. It isn't that I will not try to make my ballots less harsh. It is that IN MY QUALIFIED OPINION and in the opinion of many other qualified coaches and judges, the ballots ARE NOT HARSH. Communication styles are largely CULTURAL. And as a Black woman, I do not think that I need to overly edit myself just to make white people comfortable or happy. I have done enough to make white people love me, and my entire life, I have adjusted to their passive and overt aggression, including the white coach who most recently told me in a call that he "better not see my ass again at a tournament." I responded with an apology text.

I love students and I love debate. I am never tired of debate. I come to tournaments happy and leave fulfilled because debate is all I have loved to do since I found it. It is (or maybe was) my safe space and my happy place. *Ask me the story of how I joined Lanier debate as a 6th grader :)* Please do a Black woman a favor, and don't treat me like the world treats me. Do not read a tenor or tone into my ballots just because they are not fluffy or favorable. Unlike a lot of judges, I am flowing (on paper -- not hiding behind my computer doing God knows what), and trying to write down every single helpful comment I can come up with (and still submitting my ballot expeditiously to keep the tournament on time). As a result, I do not always do a great job of editing my ballots to make sure they don't sting a little. But students and coaches, if I say something hurtful, find me after the round. I guarantee you that it was not intentionally hurtful. You can talk to me, and I always smile when people approach me :)

Notice the parallels between how I write in my paradigm, in the "controversial" ballot, and in the new stuff I added above. If anyone would have taken the time to read my paradigm, they would know that this is how I ALWAYS communicate.

Students, TBH, a lot of the stuff I am writing on the ballots is not even your fault. Sometimes, as coaches, we do not know things or forget to tell you things, and that is ON US, not on you.

MY ACTUAL PARADIGM IS BELOW:

I don’t know everything nor will I pretend to. Please don’t hold me to such an impossible standard. But I read; I try to keep up with you kiddos as much as I can; and I’ve made speech and debate a priority in my life since 1999. So even though I don’t know everything, I know a lot.

Before you read my paradigm, hear this: Good debate is good debate. Whatever you choose to do, do it well, starting at a foundational level. At the end of the day, just know that I’m doing my very best to choose the best debater(s)/the person/team who showed up and showed out :)

General debate paradigm:

*I do not keep time in debate rounds, and I am always ready. If you ask me if I am ready, I will ignore you*

The older I get, the less I care about tech, and the more I care about truth.

1. ARGUMENTATION: Line-by-line and big picture are two sides of the same coin. It’s crucial not to drop arguments (but I won’t make the extension or fill in the impact for you. It is your job to tell me why the drop matters w/in the larger context of the debate). At the same time, the line-by-line is a lot less useful when you don’t paint the picture of what an Aff or Neg world looks like.

2. EXTENSIONS: When extending, I like for you to extend the claim, warrant, and the impact. I’m old school that way.

3. WEIGHING: Weighing is crucial to me. A bunch of args all over the flow with no one telling me how heavily they should be evaluated is a nightmare.

4. FRAMING: I understand that not all the debates have framework per se, but do tell me which impacts to prioritize. That’s helpful.

5. VOTERS: I like voters. I’m old school in that way too.

6. SPEED: I am generally fine with any level of speed and will indicate if this becomes an issue. I do appreciate that PF is designed to be a little slower, so I would like it if you respected that.

7. SPEAKS: If you cross the line from snarky to mean, I will dock your speaks, esp if your opp is being nice and you are being mean. I will also dock your speaks if you do to much unnecessary talking (e.g., constantly asking if I am ready, saying "Threeee.... twooooo....one" and "tiiiime....staaarts....now" or any similar phrase.) Basically, just run the round and make all your words count rather than just talking to hear yourself talk or nervously rambling.

LD:

1. STYLE: I’m indifferent to/comfortable with the style of debate you choose (i.e, “traditional” v. “progressive”). This means that I’m fine with value/vc framing as well as pre-fiat “framing” args (or whatever you fancy kids are calling them these days) like ROB/ROJ args. I love a good critical argument when done well. I’m also fine with all policy-style arguments and appreciate them when properly and strategically employed.

2. FRAMING: framework isn’t a voter. It’s the mechanism I use to weigh offensive arguments. To win the round, win/establish framework first; then, tell me how you weigh under it.

3. IMPACT CALCULUS: Offense wins debate rounds. I vote on offense linked back to the standard. Weigh the impacts in both rebuttals.

Policy/CX:

1. POLICY-MAKING: generally, I vote for the team who makes the best policy.

2. TOPICALITY: While I default reasonability and rarely vote on topicality, I do appreciate a good competing interp. I will vote on topicality if your interpretation blows me away, but I do need coherent standards and voters. Don’t be lazy.

3. THEORY/KRITIKS: I’m a sucker for philosophy. Give me a well-contextualized alternative, and I’ll be eating it all up.

4. IMPACTS: I respect the nature of policy debate, and I realize that hyperbolic impacts like nuclear war and extinction are par for the course. With that said, I love being able to vote on impacts that are actually probable.

5. TOPICAL CPs: No, just no.

PUBLIC FORUM: your warrants should be explicit. Your terminal impacts should be stated in-case. You should extend terminal defense and offense in summary speech. Give voters in the final focus.

HOW TO WIN MY BALLOT: I am first and foremost a black woman. I don’t believe in speech and debate existing in an academic vacuum. If you want to win my ballot, tell me how your position affects me as a black woman existing in a colonial, white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist, heteronormative society. Show me coherently that your advocacy is good for me, and you’ll win my ballot every time.

PUBLIC SPEAKING AND INTERP:

I judge based on the ballot criteria.

I like to see binder craft in POI.

I like a good teaser with lots of energy.

I do not like ACTING in the introductions. That should be the REAL YOU. Showcase your public speaking ability.

I like pieces to fall between 9:10-10:10 time range.

EXTEMP SPECIFICALLY:

I like a good AGD.

Restate topic verbatim.

Most important thing in extemp is directly answering the prompt.

Three main points preferred.

I like at least 2 sources per main point.

Do not get tangential.

Do not be stiff, but do not be too informal.

No colloquialisms.

STRONG ORGANIZATION (Intro, 3MPs, and a Conclusion that ties back to intro.)

I LIKE ALL THE STANDARD STUFF.

I'm a pretty chill judge. You can either call me Judge, Jaydev, or whatever else gets my Attention. But a little about myself, I'm a senior varsity Debate Captain at Elkins High School, so I can pretty confidently say I know debate. I also have done interp so I know what I am doing when I am judging it. Just be nice to me and your competitors, don't be that guy who rubs the room the wrong way, because it also rubs me the wrong way as well. Also be confident, just do your best because that's all you can do, so don't worry about the result. I have been in your shoes before so just give it all you have and I'll judge you fairly.

Interp:

I like to be entertained but do your own thing. Just get into, if your piece is supposed to be funny, make me laugh (I laugh at anything), if your piece is deep and emotional, make me cry (I cry easily).

Debate:

I have done LD and Congress, but my primary debate event is World Schools. I am a national qualifier who broke to trips in 2023 so I know what I am doing in debate. I look for a clash within a debate, as most argumentation is neutralized because both sides bring in rebuttals. Explain why, head to head, your argument is better than theirs, and if you have to in your debate event, WEIGH! I LOVE WEIGHING ❤️ ???? ???? . It's my favorite so please give me weighing, it makes my decisions much easier to render. One last note, tell me why your side wins, its just good practice for any debate event, but telling your judge why you win makes it easier for your judge to render a winner and understand the debate.

BIG NOTES:

HAVE FUN - that's why we are here, rounds shouldn't get too serious or toxic, if I see toxic or bad debate ethics I'm docking points, it's that simple,

DON'T SPREAD (unless ur in CX) - I HATE SPREADING, mostly because I write slowly, so don't spread unless you have to.

Extemp and Speech Event:

I love extemp and other speech events. I did impromptu and extemp throughout my debate career, and what I want to see out of your speech are two things. I want to see clear and coherent speech. If you have to slow down to be more fluent in your speech, do so, I'd rather hear a more fluent speech with terrible content than a messy speech that has good content (not really but you get the point). And secondly, have fun with it. In these speech events you're supposed to unleash your inner style of speech and I want to see that. So be funny, be charismatic in your speech, and just make the speech sound inviting rather than a PSA or public announcement.

paradigm got wiped for some reason?

vishnunataraja1215@gmail.com

hi im vishnu. i debated at dulles for 4 yrs. i qualled to toc my senior yr w/ 10 bids and made semis.

Start on time. Email chains should be sent AT or before start time

i did every style of debate and am open to anything so do wtv u want just do it well.

and lastly, do NOT read smth just bcs u think i will like it

I don't have any real defaults and I hope I never have to default anything (do judge instruction)

If I don't hear smth I can't vote on it.

Policy:

Did this a lot more my senior yr. Policy debaters tend to get the highest speaks in front of me. Love creative solvency deficits and process cps.

Like good competition debates but NEED you to slow down on perm texts.

Just do judge instruction

in policy v k rds i dislike strategies that are solely fwk + ext ow. i do believe the aff should get to weigh case tho

K:

Like/know some pomo. I am not super familiar with most lit bases though so I need good judge instruction.

Hate long overviews. Yap less, lbl more.

Theory/T:

Good for this.

Be clear and slow down, these debates are almost entirely analytic and sometimes unflowable

Whoever does the most weighing p much always wins.

Speaks:

I am pretty stingy. I like ppl being funny/sarcastic, good analogies, and strategies ive never seen before and will reward speaks.

You can lose speaks for docbotting, and being mean (in an unfunny way).

Novices:

if ur hitting a novice don't be distastefully mean but don't hold back in terms of what u wanna read.

Debate 

1.Arguments: I am generally open to all types of arguments; however,I do not vote for any arguments that I do not fully comprehend. Meaning if you are planning of running kritiq or various progressive/novel arguments, be prepared to provide clear context and explain to be why this your argument is applicable to the round. 

2. Speed- Talking fast is not usually an issue for me, however, keep in mind you do run the risk of enabling key arguments slipping through the cracks. Do not spread unnecessarily. I strongly prefer rebuttals with strong analysis rather than a rushed synopsis of all your arguments. I witnessed many debaters conditioning themselves into thinking it imperative to speak fast.  While sometime speed is necessary to cover your bases, it is more more impressive if you can cover the same bases using less words. Be concise.

3. Technical stuff - If you have any short and specific questions, feel free to bring them up before or after the round. Here are some things to keep in mind. When extending, make sure your arguments have warrants. If you say something like " Please extend Dugan 2020," without re-addressing what argument that card entails, I might opt to disregard that argument.  Also, when responding to an opposing argument, please don't simply rephrase  your the same argument in your initial case without adding anything significant. I will sometime consider this as you conceding the argument. For any type of debate, I really like it if you can set up the framework on how the round should be judge along with giving strong voters. This essentially helps you prioritize what's important throughout the round. Always weigh whenever possible. 

4. Additional items.

a. When sharing  or requesting case files, we be expedient. If this is during the round and prep timer is not running, no one should be working on their cases. This exchange should be very brief. Please do not abuse this. 

b. For PF crossfire, I prefer it if you didn't conduct it passively where both side take turns asking basic questions regarding two different arguments. I also rather if you built on from your opponent's responses by asking probing questions. Capitalize on this chance to articulate your arguments instead of using it to ask a few question.

I am a high school CX debater so I do have some sort of experience.

If you are planning to spread, please send the speech doc and sloooow down on analytics, taglines, etc. (basically anything that you want me to hear and flow and understand that isn't in your speech doc).

Email: rainacpatel04@gmail.com

I will try my best to flow every argument that is read, but if there is something you really want me to know, point it out (I can't read people's minds and my flowing is not the best). Also, I would prefer a roadmap before your speeches, and please signpost so I know where to flow!

Don't forget to tell me why I should vote for you, and please don't just read cards for the whole debate. Cards are good as long as they have an ACTUAL ARGUMENT behind them (so please know what your cards are actually saying).

I'll probably disclose and give an RFD in round (if it's allowed).

For speaker points, I'd like to say I'm pretty lenient as long as no one is being rude (so don't curse unless there is a justifiable reason, don't rudely interrupt people during cross-x, don't be offensive, etc.). Debate is supposed to be a fun activity. Also, try to be as clear as you can. I know that might be a little hard online but just try your best! I'll let you know if I can't understand you.

Specifically for LD, I don't have experience with it so please explain your arguments. I probably won't vote for something I can't understand. I understand theory, topicality, DAs, and CPs pretty well. I don't understand kritiks that well, but I don't mind judging them as long as they make sense and are explained well (so don't read a kritik if you don't know what it is saying).

This is a pretty short paradigm so please feel free to ask me any questions you have about it before the round or you can email me if you need to! Good luck!!!

tl;dr: debated pf in high school; typical flow judge ^^
i like roadmaps and clear signpostings. for theories or k's to be evaluated, they must be explained very well. if you spread, send a speech doc and make sure to enunciate. clean warranting is very important. defense is sticky.

add me to the chain: chloepineda@gmail.com

general:
- i value quality arguments over quantity of arguments. fewer, well-developed arguments will get you farther. therefore, I don't need gasp-level speed. warrant analysis is essential to a good debate and i need to be able to flow it. do not waste cx time asking which cards the speaker skipped. do not waste your speech time answering arguments they didn't read. do not miss the analytical arguments that your opponents included speech but not their doc (either because it was dope and off-the-dome or because they don't have to)

theory:
- i'm unlikely to go neg on t absent a clear violation and an abuse scenario. if your abuse scenario is underdeveloped, then a good clash elsewhere is key to an offensive t debate from the negative. t debates should be framed on both sides, and standards need to be impacted and weighed comparatively
- the 2NR should only go for one position/world. multiple, contradicting positions in the 2NR make the judge's decision difficult.

k’s:
- if you run a k, demonstrate that you've read the literature, know your authors and truly understand what you're advocating-- don't wait until the rebuttals to explain the critical theory behind your lx and alts
- tagline extensions of 1NC evidence will never win you the k debate. If the neg is not doing in-depth work on the link, the perm will likely solve it. framework, where necessary, should consist of the same aspects as a good theory or t debate.

cross/speaks:
- tag-team cx is generally unnecessary. if your partner needs help answering a question, a short interjection is fine. otherwise, tag-teaming should be avoided
- running a k on novice as varsity debaters is unnecessary and will only hurt your speaks. i consider myself a "tabula-rasa," but i will default to policy-maker if you don't provide me with a decisive way to evaluate the round
- make a reference to a new jeans song and i’ll give u full speaks :3

other:
show care and always aid in your opponents' understanding of the arguments and the world of debate as a whole; be authentic and vulnerable but know your arguments inside and out; do not take this precious activity or space for granted and learn something from every round ^^

Hi y'all! I did four years of policy debate in highschool, 2 as the 2n, 2 as the 2a. I'm not debating in college now, so the extent of my connection to the activity is periodic judging and chatting with current debaters.

For the purposes of email chain: spencer.powers726@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

For Dulles 2023:

Haven't judged since nationals of 2023, so I may be a bit slow on the uptake. I should be able to warm back up pretty quick though. Key issue will be a lack of topic knowledge. I don't know the full resolution off the top of my head (although I am vaguely aware of it!), and I'm not familiar with common topic arguments.

Policy:

Sparknotes/before round:

-Less is more—I’ll evaluate a lot of offcase arguments but I will be sad if i have to use a lot of sheets of paper that get tossed in the block

-I flow on paper--I can understand you speaking fast, but I can only write down so many arguments so quickly

-You can run generic arguments, but I'm generally not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counterplans.

-K framework that takes away the plan is fine. Probably more receptive to it than most.

-I'll default to offense/defense framing, but you can persuade me out of that. Zero risk is hard but possible.

-Conditionality’s fine. 2 is probably a good limit, but I'm open to hearing both sides debate it out.

-Tech>truth, but if I can't explain the argument and its warrants it's not going into my consideration

-I don't take prep for flashing.

-I'll shout clear twice. For online debating, this is especially relevant. You are not going to be as clear as you are in an in person debate, so slow down.

-I tend to take a long time to make my decisions. Don't read too much into it, I just like to cover all my bases.

Full thing:

My goal as a judge is to let the debaters do what they do, and judge accordingly based on who most persuaded me that they are correct. "Persuasion" here may be a bit of a misnomer because debaters oftentimes think that their only goal is to sound pretty when the judge wants to be persuaded. Let me be clear: you should sound pretty, but I will be flowing and taking into account technical concessions as well. But the effect that technical concessions have on my decision will be dependent on how well you persuade me to vote in a direction. I am human, I have biases, and you should use your ability as a debater to make rhetorically strong arguments that make me vote for you.

Kritiks:

As a I 2n, I went for mainly very basic kritiks (as I was a younger debater at the time) such as capitalism and security. As I got older, my partner and I experimented with psychoanalysis, gender, and nietzsche. I have a strong familiarity with all of those kritiks, but my ability to understand them in the context of debate has declined over time without the frequency that competing with them brought. I have a passing familiarity with other kritiks, and will depend highly upon strong negative explanation on both the framework and alternative level to give you a win.

I have found as I have judged that I have oftentimes voted for kritiks that I don't think were very strong. I think this is a symptom of affirmative teams that struggle to explain why state policymaking is valuable and why their affirmative is good. I also think that negative teams have moved towards a "meta" of going for framework really hard, which has turned out to be quite effective for me. Framework really is the central question of the round, and I generally find myself not doing what most judges seem to be doing and kind of evaluating it on their own as "aff gets a plan and neg gets discursive DAs." I really will just let you completely void the plan or completely say Ks aren't allowed. But you need to work for it.

Do more impact work. Teams don't do enough impact work on the K. Aff teams should impact turn more. Neg teams should explain more impact work in general.

K affs:

Sure. I've read a few in my time. I strongly prefer them to be related to the topic, and generally look down upon affs that are critiques of debate in general. I think that having a predictable topic is good, and K affs that are closer to a traditional model of topicality will get more leeway with me.

I don't think it makes sense just to impact turn framework. How can you win if you don't have a counter interpretation? Defend a counter interpretation of the topic and explain its standards in relation to the neg's interp if you want my ballot.

Performance:

Sure. It should exist for a reason, otherwise you're just handing links to your opponent.

Counterplans:

I prefer advantage counter plans and PICs that remove something from the plan. Not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counter plans, such as consult, reg neg, delay, or any other procedural counter plan. Agent counter plans only make sense to me when the aff has a clearly defined agent other than "the USfg". I haven’t made up my mind on 50 states. Not a fan of word pics that don't change the function of the counter plan (No "The" PICs please).

If you feel up to it, you can still run all those counter plans I don't view favorably. Just know that I'll probably align closer to aff theory arguments against them if the affirmative decides to go for theory against you.

I don’t default to judge kick, but I will if you tell me.

Disadvantages:

Judging DA and Case 2NRs is difficult when people don’t do impact calculus. Please do impact calculus.

I’m alright with generic politics DAs. I understand that you might not have a specific strategy for every affirmative. But please, try to get specific with the link if you can.

Theory:

Cheap shots make me sad. If you want to go for one, shame me into voting for you because I will likely feel like I shouldn’t. I’ll default to reject the argument.

Topicality:

I went for topicality a lot, both in my 2NRs and my 1NRs. Predictability/precision standards are probably the most persuasive to me, followed by generic limits and generic ground. Remember to connect them to education (I mostly view fairness as an internal link to education) or I won’t know why to vote for it.

I default to competing interps, but I'm not very strong on that. Affs can win reasonability if they work to.

For the neg: I'm somewhat receptive to dubious T interps. Feel free to explain why your interpretation of the topic is so obviously true, even if the aff is also probably pretty easy to predict generally. It's about the interpretations, not the aff specifically.

Neg Framework:

I am more amenable to skills based/“State policymaking is really great actually” arguments than I am fairness based arguments.

I also think limits as necessary for effective topic education is a good argument. I like smaller topics.

Speakerpoints:

I've found that I'm very kind with speaker points. I'll try to turn it down a notch but I'll probably still be above average. Be kind, rhetorically effective, make good arguments, and make strategic decisions if you want to get high points.

LD Section:

Everything above is true. If you’re doing LD in front of me, you’ll have an easier time persuading me if you treat it like mini-policy. I have preliminary knowledge of Kant, Rawls, Hobbes, and some other weird philosophers but I don’t know anything about how they’re used in LD. LARPing is a good idea. I’m much more likely than any given LD judge to wave away theory arguments as a reason to reject the arg. RVIs are not my thing.

PF Section:

PF evidence standards are not great. Paraphrasing is technically allowed in my book but you need to be very careful about it. Don't say the evidence says something it doesn't, or your speaker points will be bad. You should have quick and easy mechanisms by which your opponent can read the evidence you bring up in your speech. Arguments supported by evidence your opponent can't read will be understood as made without evidence. If you provide the full evidence to your opponents and me before your speech with highlighting of what you've read, your speaker points will be dramatically improved.

I will evaluate the debate by weighing impacts at the end of the round, comparing each team's solvency for their impacts as well as which ones are more important.How I determine which ones are more important is up to you.

Hey! My Name is Conor Rice

I am one of your traditional style judges! I am an NSDA Alumni and I used to compete in the various speaking events.

What I Look for as a Judge:

Speaking Events (OO, INFO, NX, DX, FX)

I look heavy on the content side of these speeches because good content is what makes a speech truly effective. I also do expect a performance of a good content speech is pointless if it is not well presented. I want to feel that personal reason why I should care about the topic. Bring me into the topic and hit me with the facts through an engaging speech. For INFO I want to see the true connection with the audience do not let your props become an obstacle.

Acting Events (Prose, Poetry, HI, DI, POI, DUO, DUET)

I want to see the story (beginning, middle, and end) of your piece and you truly feel it. The pieces that make it the furthest are the ones where you can see the person having fun and loving it. I want to be able to tell this piece is well-rehearsed and not thrown together minutes before the round. I love good blocking and choreography and will always highlight it in the feedback I write. I also look for the small details the attention to detail in the blocking. Ex: How you hold and pick up things.

Debate Events:

LD/PF:

I am looking for a clear framework and articulated argument with a clear structure. Tell me your value and crit and side post so I know exactly where you are in the argument.

WSD:

I need to see a clear framework and structure for the speeches and arguments. In the reply speech, I really want to see you clarify your team's argument and crystalize it, don't use this time to attack the other case.

Sincerely, Conor Rice

Coach at THE Atascocita High School

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: John.Rogers@humbleisd.net

I debated for New Caney High School for three years and have completed my seventh year as a high school coach. My program competes primarily throughout the Houston TFA circuit and has a heavy focus on Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Dramatic Interpretation. I judge as needed at local invitational TFA tournaments and have experience judging all debate events, with the exception of World Schools.

CONGRESS:

Presiding Officer Philosophy- If the PO runs a flawless chamber, it is almost certain that they will advance to the next round, especially if they were the only one volunteering to do so.

I like to see all of the normal things we look for within a speech (arguments, evidence, responses to arguments from previous speakers, etc.). Offense is key.

Pet Peeves- (1) Do not tell the PO you have a speech when gathering splits and then not have a speech for the chamber. This makes for bad debate. (2) Faux outrage in order to gain a ballot is annoying. Refrain from shouting and pretending to be angry about something that you don't have a personal stake/connection in/to. (3) Questioning should not be a competition of who can scream over who. It's not a shouting match. (4) Gotcha questions and questions that you already know the answer to are annoying.

CX Shortcuts (1-YES; 5-STRIKE):

T/Theory: 3
DA: 1
CP:1
Conditionality: 4
K: 4

General CX:

· From the 1AR of one of my favorite former Kingwood HS debaters, “You’re a policymaker. You vote on one of three things: (1) a policy option, (2) a competing policy option, or (3) the Status Quo.” I think that this debater did a great job of describing pathways to win my ballot.

· I don’t like intervening in debate rounds. However, I have to write a ballot. My suggestion for all debaters is to use your rebuttal speeches to write my RFD for me. I’m very fond of “even if” strategies when it comes to ordering arguments of importance (Ex: “You vote NEG because of _____. Even if you don’t buy that, you vote NEG because of ___.”)

· Tech > Truth (Please note that I’m reevaluating this idea each time I hear a terrible argument. I don’t recommend counting on me dismissing an argument on a truth standard. I DO recommend going line-by-line.)

· PREP TIME ends when your flash drive leaves your computer. If we’re on an email chain, which I prefer, you will see me get frustrated if I feel you’re stealing prep.

· Line-by-line is important. This is where clash should happen. When you read a long overview, and even though most of y’all tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper, those arguments don’t ever cross over to my flow. This is where arguments are missed and, possibly, rediscovered post RFD.

· I will presume NEG in policy rounds due to unlimited prep for the AC. I will, from time to time, depending on the quality of the argument, go for the “any risk of [impact solvency] you vote AFF” in the absence of any negative offense. I will NOT presume NEG for a counter advocacy other than the status quo.

· NEG STRAT: Not a fan of negative teams that go more than 4-5 off.

Speaks:

· In really good rounds, I don’t have a problem giving more than one speaker a 29.5. I don’t tend to give tenths of points other than halves. My speaks in these rounds usually averages somewhere around 28.5.

· I will tank your speaks if you use arguments to attack debaters personally. You should be responding to the argument itself, not assuming that the argument represents the debater that is making it. Same goes to being rude and/or disrespectful to other debaters.

o With that said, I love aggressive debate. If your level of aggressive toes the line of aggressive and disrespectful, I’ll err on aggressive when it comes to my ballot and just make a comment to you at the end of the round.

o Anything overboard that deserves more than just a warning, I’ll stop the round and give you a loss (this hasn’t happened yet throughout my career).

Speed:

· I’m about a 6/10. I can give you a little room to go faster if I have your doc in front of me on my computer.

· Please slow down on your tag lines so as to help me flow. I don’t tend to flow authors unless they’re addressed in the round, so please let me know what the author said (the tag), let me find it on the appropriate flow, and THEN give me your analysis.

-If you try to read at a 10/10 pace and mumble over half of your evidence, that is grounds for 25 speaks. This is almost the same thing as clipping to me.

Disadvantages:

· Go for it.

· Full, 4-card DAs are best for a 1NC.

· Case-specific links are best. As debates get better, I like to see more unique DAs that are more specific to the AFF. Then again, I’m probably more familiar with the generic DAs, so you do you.

Counterplans:

· Go for it.

· Not a fan of multiple CPs as a neg strat.

Impact Calc:

· Please be sure to evaluate risk of impacts instead of making the round about how a nuclear war is definitely going to happen. Appropriately evaluating impacts improves quality of debates tremendously.

K Debate:

· This is probably not the best way to my ballot, but I’d love for a good K team to help me change this mindset.

· While I understand real-life impacts are present in our society (structural violence, racism, sexism), I’d prefer to have some kind of policy solution to these problems rather than just talk about them. I will roll my eyes if the word "reimagine" is in the text of your ALT.

· I have not read any of your literature. I am not familiar with any of your literature. Please make appropriate adjustments if you choose this strategy.

· Not at all a fan of non-topical affirmatives. 1AC should always have a plan text.

Ethical Challenges/Cheating:

· If there is an accusation of cheating, the round will stop, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. 30 speaks for winning team; 20 speaks for losing team. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

· Debaters are accountable for the evidence that they read. I will be a little more lenient if the card is from a camp file, but that does not excuse blatant misrepresentation/academic dishonesty.

Individual events: in extemp, I'm looking for you to first answer the question and then answer the question with the best possible information that you can give that is factual. My expertise is more on the domestic side but I can do international extent with some basic knowledge of what it is that's going on around the world. Also what I'm looking for is a person that reads like a human encyclopedia or a human archive newspaper person who knows all the facts of the question that is being given them. I can also be flexible in terms of politics but the politics has to still come across as somewhat neutral in nature.

In drama and humor, what I look for the most is a performance that makes me forget that you are performing the peace and that you have somehow become the characters that you have portrayed. The more I get into your peace the better your chances at winning in this event.

My favorite category is original oratory. In oratory all that I look for is for you to tell me a topic and give me all the information that is there. Make sure your sources are correct and that you're not trying to be too showy and sometimes even more natural will get the job done for me.

In duo interp what I always do is that I always look at both performers I'm not looking for a performance where it's just an exchange of lines but what feels like a real dialogue. I'm also looking to see what happens when the other partner is not speaking and if they are performing their character while not being able to speak. You must be in character at all times during the performance.

In prose and poetry, it is similar to what I look for in drama and humorous. I'm looking for performance where I'm no longer seeing a person reading something and more like feeling like you are very much in character in telling a story.

In big questions, your arguments are still important but just like in public forum I look at what it is that is said during The question period. More information can be gleaned from asking questions then what it is that is said during regular arguments.

LD: I will honestly say the I don't judge LD in the traditional sense and I draw my decisions based on my IE and PF experiences. Like PF your cross and rebuttal speeches usually wins the day in my eyes so if you can extract good counter information in cross and use it in rebuttal, then you'll likely get the win.

PF: I put more weight on crossfire than anything else. Be efficient to get your points across and you will win the debate.

I put more emphasis on your time during crossfire because of the shared time for all four speakers. If you use the time efficiently, you should get the win.

Congress: the key to winning Congress is a simple case of taking the chamber seriously and delivering your speeches to say three things. The first thing that you're saying is that you read the bill completely and understand it. The second thing you want to say is that not only do I understand it but my position is this way because I researched it. And the third thing you want to say is that you want to be able to say that you put the time and the effort to push the bill forward because it's the right thing to do. As long as you move the legislation and you don't bother down the bay with amendments and points of order that are unnecessary you are going to go far. If you aren't designing officer it's almost the opposite of what has to happen because as long as you are not cold out and as long as you stay fair and if you keep yourself practically anonymous during the session you'll also do well.

Being the presiding officer it means that you have to dedicate your life and your time at the chamber to the speakers and making sure everybody speaks when they're supposed to. I compare being a presiding officer in a congress chamber the same way of football offensive lineman in a football game. When they barely know you, you've done your job. When you're constantly being pointed out for the mistakes that you made, then you haven't done your job. Presiding officers will always rank high and in the top half of my ballot as long as the chamber is running well and everybody seems satisfied in his or her control of the chamber and considering it's a thankless job that has you not even being able to speak.

I judge on the premise of what did you do to move legislation forward during a session.

My primary judging experience includes the Northeast and Texas regions.

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it. I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

Hi I'm a hs incoming sophomore who's been debating since ms I did mostly LD in ms and now I do policy,

Speaking:

-Spreading is fine by me but make sure you're articulate and if not then you shouldn't be spreading. I will give you a couple of warnings in the round if you're spreading and not speaking clearly however, if you don't slow down after that I will stop flowing what I can't understand.

-Be sure to signpost makes the debate a lot clearer and easier to follow for everyone in the round.

Args:

-Everything is fine by me but theory usually doesn't stand with me unless your opponents have broken a major rule

GLHF

Paradigms: The main paradigm I have is pertaining to case debate is using "big picture" , meaning primarily main arguments along with supporting evidence without going too much into the technicalities of the subject at hand. In addition to this, spreading is fine, however if the competitor spreads to the point where what is being said is not understood by the judge and the competitors, it ultimately does not help the competitor in the debate. What helps me is slowing down once they are on the main arguments and as the competitor gets into the supporting evidence and arguments, they can speed up a bit. Other than this, there are no other specific paradigms.

I am a stock issues judge. I believe that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens. If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. As a stock issue judge, I generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Hi I'm Cathy

cathysui1072@gmail.com

I debate varsity LD at Dulles High School

Pref short cut -

1 - Theory/Policy

2 - Phil

3 - Common Ks

4 - Identity/pomo

Strikes - Non-T Affs, Tricks

My paradigms are: Do not spread (meaning do not speak too fast to the point of incomprehensibility), take your time, and present your argument coherently. In addition to this, when presenting an argument, use hand gestures and good voice projection. This shows confidence in the debate and points will be rewarded.

He/Him; Sophomore at Dulles High School.

I have been debating CX as the 2N for a little over a year now.

TLDR: Be kind (this also means none of the -isms or the -phobias), be clear while speaking, and at least try to clash. Substantiate your arguments, I won't do it for you. I also don't know much about LD or PF, but I will just judge as normal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like speech drops, but if you are making an email chain, please add me to it at stevewang347@gmail.com.

I adore clash in debates, make sure your link chain is strong and that you actually respond to what your opponents are saying in a meaningful manner. Tell me why what you're saying influences the round and why I should care.

Speed - If you want to read fast, make sure you read with clarity. Even though I will likely have the document, if I can't understand you, I won't be able to follow your argument.

Be kind - If you have previous experience debating and are aware that your opponents are new to the activity, be kind. I have very little patience for condescension or rudeness.

Questions - Feel free to ask any and all questions you have (likely after the round, although it will probably be a time crunch), it is my job to make sure the debate is a learning experience and that you take away something.

"Progressive" Arguments- If you're gonna run something a little unique, make sure it's inteligible to both me and the opponent

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Dont like over exaggeration to extinction

Dont really care about framework but you cab read it if you want.

Good luck and have fun!

Congress:

I don’t really care about the formalities I would prefer for them to be followed as they help maintain order in a round 

The more jokes you have the higher your ranks are

I will not consider Args that have already been said or attacked unless you bring something new

congress is about adaptability, Quantity<Quality but quantity is still important

Speaks are important if I can’t understand you I can’t judge you

Ask me if I’m ready pls

last but not least make the round fun!

maggieyuan24@gmail.com add me to any email chains please

hi! i'm currently a junior at dulles hs and i do pf. 

i adhere to the most basic outline of pf-- some major points are:

this is the most important point: PLEASE warrant your arguments out!!! don't just make empty claims!!!! and make sure the entire link extended, especially in summary and ff, otherwise i have nothing to go off of in the end

I will default NEG in the instance that I genuinely have nothing across the flow to go off of

i prefer email chains/speech docs because it makes evidence exchange easier and more time efficient (my email is at the top of the paradigm)

no racism/homophobia/sexism/etc. and be polite to your opponents 

front-lining should be done in 2nd rebuttal

i don't pay attention in cross and keep your own time please

weigh!!!! and interact with your opponent's weighing 

ff should be a condensed summary-- wrap up the debate and give clear voters

speed is fine but no spreading/ be loud and clear

not too experienced with progressive material but i'd be open to hear those types of arguments :) (just run them at your own risk)

most importantly, have fun!

*every taylor swift references give you +0.5 speaks :) 

hi ! i debated pf for 4 (ish) years at dulles, reach me whenever @ katherineyue@rice.edu

general

preflow before!

the best way to get me to vote for you is to spend your last speeches pointing things out to me (dropped response/extended arg/your link chain)

you can spread if you want but you still need to be clear, i won't flow + eval off docs if your speech is incomprehensible to me

especially in ld/policy prioritize making your arguments clear to me over more evidence + arguments if you want me to understand + really vote on something

progressive

i basically debated all substance, treat me as a flay judge & run progressive if you want but i probably won't understand it (theory/ks) unless there's a clear violation in round

speeches

i was a second speaker so i prioritize responses that interact with your opponent's arguments directly ! everyone reads generic blocks, i'll be more responsive to evidence & warranting/responses i haven't heard before. i think the best rebuttals cross-apply responses back to your own case. (ie, prereq/xyz solves, etc.)

go line by line/in a intuitive order (ie your flow then opponents) + roadmap before, if i can't follow your responses/extensions logically i can't vote on it

don't just throw around the word outweigh + random mechanism at the end of each speech, it doesn't mean anything if unwarranted, i tend to be preferential towards statistical/impact weighing over logical

ps i <3 (nonbasic) taylor swift references

I am a classical debater, and I don't tolerate aggressive arguments or improper behavior. I don't like spreading and be clear with your enunciation.

LD

No excessive spreading where you are hiccuping and wheezing trying to breathe, or progressive arguments. I like to see direct contention class and Value/VC debate.

As a parent volunteer, I am not a professional judge. I prefer a speed not too fast. such as not exceeding 5 if the speed scale is 1 to 10. But I have judged LD & PF for several years. I understand the requirements of PF & LD.

Hi, I am parent judge and I've judged IEs and debate during the 22-23 debate season for TFA and NSDA District.

IEs:

For speech delivery, I appreciate that you speak clearly without excessive word crutches. Use time wisely to fully develop the speech. Fluid speech and professional mannerisms will be noted.

On EXTEMPT/INF/OO, make sure your points discussed clearly address the question that you’ve chosen. Following the standard speech outline and including clear impact analysis would help. Cite your sources. I read broadly about economics, geopolitics and technologies on a regularly basis. Logical analysis of event and impact will be noted.

On INTERP, it is a performance and characterization is important. All movements (gestures, head, and other body movements) are done with purpose.

Debate:

- I do not mind speed as long as words can be understood. I also evaluate on speaking ability.

- I will evaluate how each side address other’s arguments with good logic and evidence.

- Off-clock road map is much appreciated.

- Please add me to the email chain: joyzhang08@gmail.com

I'm a PF judge so use progressive arguments at your own risk. If you're going to spread send me a speech doc, my email is aidanrayzhu@gmail.com.