Top Level:

Email: seijidebate[at]gmail[dot]com

West High School SLC '24

Harvard ‘28

Call me "Seiji" [say-G]. Pronouns: he/him/his

Title the subject of the email chains: [Tournament Name] [Round Number] AFF [School Name] vs NEG [School Name]

I am colorblind. I can't see blue highlighting.

No PDFs.

I prefer to watch a good debate I have less experience with than watch a bad debate where teams try to appeal to my preferences. "I begin evaluating almost every debate by listing out all the impacts made in the 2NR and 2AR and then determine the degree to which each team gets access to the fullest extent of those impacts by parsing out the rest of the debate. After, I'll weigh these impacts by deciding what the implications of winning each of them are (defaulting to and prioritizing the comparative metrics forwarded by the debaters in the round) and then usually have a good idea of who I believe should win." - Kenji Aoki. Good debating, line-by-line, impact calc, etc. will all minimize the intervention I have to do and help with me evaluating args I have less experience with. Dropped args still need claims and warrants extended.

KAFFs/Framework:

KAFFs usually get the perm but I hold a high threshold for how it is explained, especially when you're trying to moot/shield links. I'm open to NEG interpretations of how the perm should be theoretically evaluated beyond just "a test of competition."

I like KvK debates, but not any more than I like Framework debates. I prioritize explanation in the round compared to card quality.

Fairness can or can’t be an impact. Winning it's an "intrinsic good" requires you to win a prescriptive - not just descriptive - reason as to why debate should be a game, which is why I'm more convinced with explanations as to how fairness is a necessary internal link to the educational value of debate and why both sides require it for their impacts.

Clash needs to be explained comparatively between the two models of debate. I think the most convincing explanation of clash as an impact is how it implicates skills.

Any NEG case debating should implicate AFF solvency for their potential impact turns and/or become offense for why discourse around your interp is good.

Topicality:

I tend to give greater weight to cards that define the word in a holistic context, not just use it in a sentence or for a specific purpose, article, or court case, UNLESS that specificity matters in the debate.

I like impacts like limits and ground to be contextualized to how the topic operates, i.e. what is the core controversy of the topic and what arguments (ground) are necessary for external educational-related impacts.

Counterplans:

All CPs are fair game and competitive until proven otherwise.

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to a 2AR that pushes back on judge kick if 'perm shields'/'links to the net benefit' is a core part of the strategy, especially if the 2NR doesn't have defense of judge kick.

Sufficiency framing doesn't always apply to the AFF's impacts that are yes/no questions. I also prefer it be contextualized to the internal links at least by the 2NR AND why 'sufficiently' solving outweighs the specific AFF deficits.

The more specific the solvency advocate, the better. If you have a really good and specific card that says the 50 states can solve the specific mechanism/area of the plan, I am more likely to err NEG on substance and theory than if the AFF only dumps 3 generic topic fed key warrants.

0 solvency is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Disadvantages:

You do you.

0 risk of an impact is possible (this applies to the AFF too).

Being late breaking in these debates (not reading a terminal/uniqueness in the 1NC) just makes me a lot more lenient on new 1AR and 2AR answers.

Kritiks:

Contextualized overviews are very cool. Super long overviews are not.

Links that are able to pull lines from the 1AC/2AC, cx, or rehighlight their cards are very good and help me better evaluate the link debate.

Whatever happens on the framework debate will obviously dictate how I evaluate rhetoric links but I'm more inclined to evaluate them if it's in the tag of a card/said in a highlighted portion, speech, or CX and less inclined to evaluate them when it's a rehighlighting of the 1AC's shrunken text or anything similar.

Your framework interp should probably moot the AFF and have links that interact with how case is framed in terms of impact calculus and solvency. If you're going for the alt, you should probably just scrap framework and engage the AFF on the level of materiality with the links OR have a framework interp that enables you to abusively fiat solvency. I want to know what the alt does at the end of the round.

Plan pre-round what you want your 2NR to look like based on which part of the K works best against your opponent's AFF (framework/alt).

Shameless Plug:

HIGH SCHOOLERS AND COACHES — IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A COST-EFFECTIVE DEBATE CAMP THIS SUMMER COME TO THE UH HONORS DEBATE WORKSHOP (HDW). We have some of the top faculty from around the country teaching an intense two-week course for Congress, LD, CX, PF, and WSD with a one-week Individual Events portion.

More information -https://uh.edu/honors/Programs-Minors/co-curricular-programs/debate/debate-workshop/

Background/other notes:

University of Houston (2023-current)

Jordan High School (2020-2023)

I am a Policy debater at the University of Houston.

I competed mainly in Congressional Debate for all 4 years of high school with sprinkled experience in WSD and Extemp.

Please put me on the email chain (for policy people) and ask me for my email before the round starts.

Don't call me "judge" -- call me Olive :D

Pronouns are she/they

CX/Policy:

Policy v Policy: I like these debates, generally. I think what’s key for me in evaluating these is proper framing of impacts and sufficient ev comparison. re-highlighting is great. Have clear weighing, give me clear overviews in 2AR’s and 2NR’s as to where your winning the debate.

Policy Aff v K: I really like these debates. I think the key here is the FW debate and sufficient aff analysis of neg alternatives. The aff needs to have a clear defense of policy action being able to resolve the K. Typically these debates devolve into incrementalism vs the alt (assuming the aff wins their FW interp). In this case I need very explicitly why either incrementalism is preferable to the alt or why incrementalism is fundamentally unable to resolve the K. On the link debate, the more specific the k link is the better. Typically, it’s pretty easy for the aff to weave out of non-1AC specific links so yeah. On impact calc here, if the K has a good link, the threshold for me voting on extinction outweighs is high. Perm arguments are more compelling to me alongside linking to aff to working to resolve the K.

K Aff v K: I love these debates lol. However, I’m not that familiar with every lit base. Therefore, explanations and overview of each K in the debate is key for my ability to adequately evaluate them. In these method debates, I just need good solvency deficit claims to either side. Or maybe more specifically adequate reasons as to why the starting point of the aff or the neg is the best starting point in order for understanding the topic.

General K Notes: In College thus far I've ran K’s on both the aff and the neg. I’m most familiar with Queer Theory, Settler Colonialism, Security, Weaponitis, Cap, and Ableism. I also have a surface level understanding of Afro-Pess, but for some of the more nuanced aspects of this argument im going to probably need a bit more explanation compared to other K’s. Outside of these arguments, my exposure to other lit is minimal. That does not mean I wont vote on other K's, it just means they need to be explained well.

T: Im gonna be so for real. I do not like T debates, but ill still vote on it. Interp's should be obvious and self evident. I define this as generally being realistic. I think most K aff's are mostly topical as long as there is a clear justification as to why the aff is the best or better starting point than pursuing a policy based aff or a topical plan. I'm willing to give a good amount of leeway to K aff's as long as they do what they need to on the T flow.

Theory: For theory arguments i need pretty explicit reasons as to why I should vote on it to reject the team. There are a lot of instances where if the violation is not significant enough I would definitely buy the argument that I should just tank speaks and not reject the team (obviously this does not include racism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, etc.). This is more referring to things like one theory argument I heard recently that was a "power-tagging" violation. Justifications like "its unfair because we have to read their evidence", or anything to that effect, wont ever win in front of me because you should be skimming through evidence already. So yeah, just be realistic when banking rounds on theory violations. Most often, violations should be really obvious and justifiably unethical for me to vote on them.

Congress:

good arguments matter more to me than presentation. For me presentation is more of secondary "tie-breaker" when i have to compare competitors who both present good arguments. But good speaking will not discount bad argumentation and clash on my ballots.

A good argument in congress is not just a independently strong argument, but also needs to be a relevant point in context of the round. There should be a clear overview that connects your speech to the rest of the speeches in the round.

The later in the round you go, the more important it is to narrow down you speech to the main issues/points of clash in the round. That being said, if you argument is more constructive and less able to build off of other people arguments, then you should probably go earlier in the round. After the early speeches, every speech should begin to build off one of another through clash and connections to big constructive arguments in the round.

That isn't to say you shouldn't bring up new angles and ideas mid round, but there has to be a reason as to why what you are saying is important/needed in the round. And you should clearly communicate to me and the round why that is the case.

If you piggy-back off of other speakers, do something to add depth to what they said as opposed to throwing more evidence into their train of thought. Don't just rehash arguments, obviously.

I don't like when mid or late round speakers blatantly ignore previously made arguments that contradict/conflict with their argument. Make sure that you address every argument that interacts with your own. Also a side note, if you spoke early, use question blocks to poke holes in arguments that contradict yours. Its a good way to make sure your voice is still being heard late in the debate even if you spoke earlier.

Overall, just make sure you (both in speeches & questioning) engage the round by keeping your content relevant as the round evolves in addition to strong refutation of previous speakers.

Lastly, be respectful. Respect pronouns. Avoid agitation and be professional. Lack of composure or ignorance will definitely drop you on my ballot.

Have fun, its congress :D

LD:

Basically ditto what was I said for Policy.

Only difference is that I have no actual experience competing in LD although I have judged it.

So expect that my interpretation of LD rounds are done from a mind that is very oriented by Policy tech standards. This means I may not easily pick up on technical issues in round. That doesn't mean I won't vote based on them. But it means i need clear articulations of (especially FW debates in LD that are about criterion and values) what your winning and what the other team is not or has dropped.

PF:

I mainly care about strategy in PF. There are too many rounds I’ve seen were both sides make an initially decent argument and then refuse to interact with the others for the whole debate. I need to see weighing of all kinds in order to know whose argument is more important (assuming you can’t prove it to be wrong). Weighing will for sure make it 10x easier for me to vote for you if you do it properly. By the end of the round their should be clear points you've won on or at least that you can tell me you won on to make my job a lot easier.
I also like good presentation and professionalism in PF. Don’t be rude or condescending, that’s not going to make you look cool and smart lol. On a simular note, i don't have problems with spreading as long as you are clear and you sound good. Regardless of speed you need to still be sure to emphasize important points, links, blocks, etc.
for arguments themselves I need good framing, warranting, and impacts. By the end of the first speeches I should have a very clear grasp of the arguments in the round and there shouldn’t be a need for those arguments to be continuously readdressed and reframed throughout the rest of the round (because of vagueness/confusion). Long story short, if by the end of the first speech a can't grasp what the narrative of your arguments are then that's a problem.

Recently, Ive learned K's are thing in PF now? maybe thats always been a thing... idk. I need a clear explanation of how the K works in context of the pros policy action and also need a good reason why I should vote for the K over the magnitude of the pros impacts or why the K outweighs. To my knowledge, the concept of fiat is not a thing in PF. Therefore, I feel that i can only judge the round based on what is the "best argument". This makes judge instruction key. Make it clear what voting on the K does or why it wins the round.

WSD:

In Worlds I'm a pretty balanced judge: I love it when worlds speakers know how to present their case in an engaging way, but I don't like worlds teams that don't have the argumentation to match strong presentation.

Refutation and weighing are key.

By the end of both second speakers speeches i should already have some picture of what the main clash in the debate is as well as the groundwork for a path to ballot (early weighing, identification of the main clashes, etc.).

Be very clear with your arguments through the use of strong link chains & examples.

Also be nice to each other :D

Extemp:

You need good analysis that goes at least a step beyond whatever the article said during prep time.

I'm also looking for good delivery and persuasion.

don't crack jokes on topics that maybe are a bit more serious, make sure your intros flow well and match the topic that your speaking on.

I love jokes if they are funny and appropriate for the topic though.

Don't be afraid to utilize rhetoric and a bit of passion depending on the topic.

Judged WSDC, PF, and Congress multiple times. I speak competitively in the BP style

General:

- you can sit or stand. Do whatever works for you.

- You can speak fast but be clear

- Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.

- I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously overtime. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. In descending order of importance, I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering, and increasing happiness. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to the final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about.

Be nice to each other on the cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through the final focus.

Hello,

Bio: My name is Jessica Awurum and I am a Law School Student at the University of Ilorin Nigeria. I have been a debater since 2019 and have been engaged with high school debating since 2020 mostly as a judge and coach. I was also the President of the legal debate team for 2 consecutive years and currently coach with a number of debating institutions. I am very versed with all debating strategies as I have to engage a number of different debating styles on a frequent basis with my engagements on international fronts.

Email: jessicaawurum@gmail.com (same as tabroom mail)

Advice for speakers:

No matter what form of debate, here are some general rules of respect I expect all participants to follow:

• I credit good structure and organization highly as it shows intentionality and preparedness in the debate. Factors like a clear flagging of your argumentation and summary speeches that focus on clashes will all be credited. I look to them to resolve really close calls sometimes so be aware.

• Being respectful and polite is also a fundamental rule for me. I will not accept any form of rudeness Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone will be hugely frowned out. This doesn't mean you can't be strategically triggering but it must be only within the content of the debate to offset your opponent and must only be on objective metrics. (That is up to you to figure out but it has to be generally objective) No yelling, interrupting, cursing, or name calling during cross. I will dock speaker points for inappropriate behavior or language.

• A trigger warning must be given for topics concerning SA, abuse, etc. If the opposing team is not okay with these topics, you are expected to have a backup argument that you can use in its place.

• I appreciate valid evidence and clear statements from them. If you have alot of specific knowledge on an area do not hesitate to use them all in a story in a song in whatever way you please. Feel free to also weaponize that expert knowledge as you see fit to point out your opponent lack of Knowledge thereof. Using references of any kind from educational to facts from games will all be accepted as binding form of evidence

• Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis. I am open to unorthodox argumentation and running new evaluation metrics to an old truism or likewise. Thinking out of the box and making an unconventional or radical argument will not earn you a loss especially if you engage it well. Feel free to break from standard. Be creative in a realistic way!

• I respect a good rebuttals void of individual criticism of the speaker but still as engaging. I will not credit responses that are new argumentationsas rebuttals. So make sure to tailor your responses to the immediate argument you are responding to.

• Debate fairly and do not place unfavorable burdens on your opponents. Debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and acceptable. Please don't drop them.

Biases:

I have no inherent bias per se. I would say that I am very averse to disrespectfulness and I cannot deny that any form of discrimination or equity violation will impact your ability to convince me on anything else. Please be very respectful of everyone in the room.

That aside, I don't vote on truism but actually analysis. This means even if I know for a fact that your claim is true I will not value it if you do not prove it.

Note Taking:

This defer for the style or debating but i range from taking short note of bullet point, to noting key terms to elaborate notes. More importantly I am likely to note personal feedback for each speaker as I listen to their speech so feel free to ask for personal notes after the speech and those will be provided for you.

I am open to judging all styles of debating: Parliament, CX, Policy, Congress and other speech styles. I do not have as much experience with Lincoln Douglas mostly because I don't use it often but I Understand all the processes of it.

Finally, I am pretty decent and understanding so if you have any questions do not hesitate to ask them including feedback on the round through your coaches or parents. Also notify me of any notice I should be taking from your speech prior to it so I don't miss something you would consider as important.

Thank you .

My background includes high school debate, speech scholarship to college, speech and argumentation Adjunct at the college level, director of forensics and debate coach at the college level, high school speech teacher. My background also includes numerous presentations around the world for multiple audiences in education and teaching at the BA, MBA, and DBA levels online and in person. I am most interested in how well participants convey their cogent arguments to their audience in a reasonable, organized, and supported manner using the best speech techniques to convince us of their position without speaking so fast that we lose their arguments.

Judge Lorain Clawson
She/Her or They/Them
Freshman at Davidson College

Hello, good people!

A few things to know about me

1.) I debated all four years of high school! I mostly competed in Policy Debate (my main category all four years), but I also dabbled in Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate. I am best versed in Policy and like to keep my realm there.

2.) I also was a speech kid for three years in high school! I often double entered at tournaments and enjoy some good POI.

3.) I struggle with speed-- in any form of debate. I can handle it, but I willrequire you to send me your files via an email chain this way. If not, I will only flow what I hear. If you don't have clear tag lines... Then please work on making them!

Things I won't tolerate
This is the most important section of my paradigm, so please read it!

1.) I will not tolerate racially motivated statements at any time. If you read evidence that is racially motivated, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team racist for reading off evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

2.) I will not tolerate sexist or misogynistic actions or statements made by the participant. If your evidence has these connotations, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team sexist or misogynistic for reading off charged evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

3.) I will not tolerate cuss words being used in my rooms. I understand that you are a high schooler and I am a college kid, but we will not be using this language. It is not conducive with a semi-professional environment and I do not see it as a way of adding to an argument in any way. Do not use profanity. If you do, I will deduct points from your speaker points.

4.) You will not talk over one another in a debate. If you need to cut someone else in cross, please do so politely and with grace. Most importantly, if you are in a partnered debate, do not correct or interrupt your partner in way that is disrespectful. I will dock points if this persists throughout the round.

Policy Debate Judging Paradigm

Judge Type: Policy-Maker and/or Tabula Rasa.
- You drop an argument, you lose the argument. This includes your case!
- If you are extremely disrespectful in rounds, you will lose and be reported to tab.

Evaluating Topicality: Traditional; Needs Standards, Violation, and Impact of it. I see Topicality as a vital part of Policy Debate, but it is also a time-suck. Extratopicality arguments are normally a wash for me.

Evaluating Inherency: I believe in Structural and Attitudinal Inherency. Either way, you need an inherent barrier for me to buy your plan. Validity arguments are welcomed for Attitudinal Inherency.

Evaluating Solvency: I weigh solvency very heavily. I have seen teams win on Solvency and will vote accordingly. Remember that Magnitude and Time-Frame should be discussed when Solvency is brought up.

Evaluating DAs: Outline your Link, Brink, Impact, and Uniqueness. I accept Generic DAs, but have UQ arguments ready to go on both sides.

Evaluating CPs: Your CP must be nontopical, it must be competitive, and avoid the DAs. I will largely compare in policy making-mode, but feel free to expand CPs to include more if you want.

Evaluating Ks: Tell me what type of a K it is, the Links of the K, and why I should buy the K over an argument or plan. Please only run a K if you know what you are getting into. Outline your K with detail so that everyone understands. Do not use buzzwords and expect people to know what they mean.

Rebuttals: I will not accept new evidence in rebuttals. Please use these to summarize your round and make final, quick arguments. Remember to flow your case through these as well. Use this time to overview the round!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Stanford," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Stanford matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about border security to "Stanford." "According to Professor Dirzo of Stanford" (yes, he is THE expert on how border controls affect wildlife) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Stanford" and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League or equivalent scholars. I've never heard an "according to the University of Arizona" citation from any of you even though that's the institution doing the most work on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases.Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it's a game with real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debt, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on are chefs ki.ss

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good.

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they can access the same scholarship under the TVA.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

Email: josephcharlesdan@gmail.com

You can call me Joseph (he/him) in rounds.

I was a CX debater in high school for 4 years and now debate for UTD.

My preference is the k, but I ran a lot of policy. The only arguments you shouldn't run in front of me are tricks and preferably not phil (I never ran it or debated against it, so there's a good chance I can't evaluate a phil round the way you would want me to). Debate however you want; I try not to interject my own biases into the round. This also means I'm tech over truth and will vote for arguments that I personally don't agree with. Cross is binding and I'll be paying attention. If you make the round easy for me to judge through judge instruction, you will be more likely to win and there's a much lower chance of judge intervention.

FW is fine; I don't have any specific feelings towards it. I think teams need to do more impact framing/comparison, especially if you are going for a procedural impact. I think the we meet is a yes/no question, while the TVA and SSD are more flexible. I enjoy KvK rounds as long as there is an actual link. Contextual link analysis and argument comparison are important and the easiest ways to get ahead in a round. Policy teams also let the neg get away with way too much on the alt. The perm is generally a persuasive argument against non-ontology Ks, so I do expect neg teams to have a robust answer to it.

Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, but I do give them some credence. Not that it will change the way I evaluate rounds, but I generally think debaters are better off going for arguments that are better and they are more familiar with than chasing ink unless an argument was mishandled. Spread however fast you want as long as it's not unclear.

Critical literature I read in debate:

• Afropess (Wilderson, Warren, Gillespie, Barber, etc.)
• Baudrillard
• Berardi
• University
• Cap
• Fanon
• Security

But I'm down with anything.

Email me if you have any questions!

I debated LD for William G. Enloe High School, graduating in 2024. I got two bids and three bid rounds senior year, qualifying for the TOC. I now attend Johns Hopkins University where I do not debate.

Conflicts: William G. Enloe High School, Teaneck LP. List will get longer as the season goes.

Please use speechdrop, but if you must, my email is enloepddebate@gmail.com

This paradigm used to be way longer since I figured it would be more informative to those inexperienced with prefs. I have concluded that writing copious amounts for some sections and less for other sections gave the incorrect conclusion that I prefer certain types of arguments more than others. So instead, I will provide a list of quotes from the paradigms of those I respect and hope that sums up my judging philosophy well enough.

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

"I will vote on anything, except arguments about things that didn't happen inside the round." -Brett Cryan

"Not voting on call outs. Not my business." -Brett Cryan (You would think that the first quote assumes this one, but you never know.)

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom." -Rafael Pierry

"This is your debate, not mine. Do not abuse that privilege." -Vishal Sivamani

"Perm double bind" -Aidan Etkin

"I think I naturally give lower speaks than most judges, but there’s also usually around 2-3 rounds where debaters ask for higher speaks, so don’t read too much into it" -Eva Lamberson (rant doc)

"Easy ways to get higher speaks with me:bring me an energy drink (the brightline to an energy drink is 80mg+ caffeine; speaks are a sliding scale based on caffeine but bringing me a bang will give you negative speaks)" -Nick Ford (yes this applies to me)

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

For more detailed and nuanced takes, here's Eva Lamberson's rant doc. I agree with everything in here, except I like T debates more than they do, I'm not a philosophy major, and I will feel much more annoyed if you ask me for a 30 without giving me an energy drink. I'm already leading you to water. Take a freaking sip.

If you are still reading, and you still have questions, the answer is probably yes, I will vote on it. Now go prep.

Don’t be annoying, don’t be mean, Don’t be stupid. Just be good!

hi, im hari! interlake hs (policy), fremont hs (moved) (ld), umich '27 (policy, briefly). i'd likely agree with most things an interlake debater (in particular co '23 and up) has to say about debate; they taught me everything i know about this activity.

read the bold if in a rush

harigan0907@gmail.com

update for umich camp tournament: i understand people not wanting to send analytics, but you need to be clear. i will not clear you. if you don't send analytics but are spreading through them like card text (fast, unclear, not enunciating), i will not catch many of the arguments you are making. more than comfortable defending a decision on "you were not clear enough, it is not on my flow." this hasn't happened yet, don't make it happen thanks!

also, because this is online, do not believe in any of my facial expressions :sobbing_emoji:. If it looks like im nodding my head, it's probably because i'm bouncing my leg up and down and as a result my head is bobbing. If I look annoyed, it's more than likely it's because I'm concentrating on flowing, or squinting because my glasses are never clean enough.

non-negotiables: no -isms, no cheating (clipping). i get to stop the rd.

tech > truth. no intervention. if someone tells me to stop the round for whatever reason i will, tabroom decides the winner from there. apart from that, i truly don't care what you say, here's some stuff that'll make me vote for you:

1. explain your arguments. i don't study economics or government, nor do i read the authors in your 1nc for fun. i'm on the math, skincare, & charli xcx side(s) of twitter if that helps. i know how basic gov and econ systems work (three branches, supply & demand, etc.) + judged @ camp, but don't throw around acronyms/jargon and expect me to know them: i probably don't.

2. i love it when people do judge instruction. implicating arguments even if they're not good will win you rounds. i'm so serious. also i like laughing so be funny it's great + will help speaks. be clear, it makes judging easier + more enjoyable, i also rarely look at the speech doc (mostly only for author names). i'd say i'm good at flowing, you need to be good at spreading. that's what makes this work. enunciate & emphasize when reading analytics, particularly for LD.

stuff i have read--this is representative of what arguments i have thought would win rounds, not if i think they're correct. i don't think winners win is true, but it was like ~100% of my 2ARs to politics. historically, i have said "policy" arguments more than "critical" ones, but that shouldn't matter to you. at camp most of my neg ballots were on some framework k. biggest things is do line by line, and tailor your blocks to the other side's argument, which includes everything from 1NC link cards to 2AR framework explanations.

"defaults" (debated equally/not debated at all, i'll have to insert my opinions unfortunately. don't let that happen): weigh the plan and the kritik. only functional competition necessary. fairness is an impact. infinite condo good. eg. 2ac/1ar/2ar only say the words "condo is a voter, kills 2ac time allocation which is unfair." 2nc/2nr only say the words "condo is good, key to rigorously test the aff, necessary for education." i'm voting neg because i am biased: not my fault nobody did line by line. you should tell me to judge kick the counterplan or alternative (there's a slight chance i'll forget, but i haven't yet so hopefully i can keep that up!)

i like really flavorful or interesting strategies but don't go for something that you don't know or understand. eg. neg's going for a (sometimes dropped) floating pik or fiat k, or impact turn/case turn 2NRs. i also enjoy when aff's straight turn DAs, have unconventional strategies against the K (interesting framework interp or k-ing their k), or leverage framing with non-extinction-impact affs in a way that's not "probability first butterfly effect no util" etc.

have fun! if you play ssbu, listen to charli xcx, have a really cool boba order, or a monkeytype/typeracer/etc speed above 167 wpm, lmk!

My name is Opeyemi Faith Gideon (she/they). I am a student at the University of Ilorin. I have much speaking and judging experience and am an accomplished debater. I have a lot of experience presiding over many debate competitions such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF) and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I value positive, fair, equitable, and appropriate interactions with others during discussions and cross-engagements. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, deal with debate burdens, disputes, and conflicts in an efficient manner, as well as deal with contentions in an equitable and effective manner. It is crucial that you understand that even if you disagree with the contexts and frames offered by the opposing team, I advise that you still discuss their argument while offering your counterfactual if needed. Your summary speeches should concentrate on emphasizing the arguments, justifications, and logical implications that help you win the dispute. The only points that should be included in your final emphasis are those that have already been discussed in the debate.

To make sure you're keeping track of the time spent on various parts of your speech, I ask all debaters to monitor time as I do as well. It would be lovely to hear you finish your speech naturally and on time.
I also advise debating participants to always have their cameras on. However, I am open to making exceptions, so if there is ever a time when you are unable to turn on your video camera, please let us know and we'll be sure to excuse you and make an exception.

And yes! When I think debating I think the most powerful and fun sport. The experience and knowledge I get from every room that I have ever been in and the people that are in those rooms always inspires me to learn more and grow, not just about the policies of debate but also about the policies of humanity and how to be a better relatable person.

The biases I tend to have when I speak and the unbiased attitude of a judge I adopt when I judge all adds up to the intensity of the sport. If you're thinking debating then I'm your buddy. Saddle up and let's SPEAK UP!!

Quick Notes:

- email chain: harrison.hall1999@gmail.com (use for additional questions after round)

- available for virtual coaching on weekends

- tech > truth generally, but I am fond of epistemology arguments

- fully extend unique impacts speech to speech

- restating taglines is not persuasive; extensions need to include interactive warrants

- this is a shared space so please make it accessible

- I need clash and comparative impact calc to stay awake

- jargon/buzzword spamming is not persuasive & mucks up the flow; signpost with intention

- evidence evaluation is very important to me; send out cut speech docs before speaking

Experience:

- 4 years of local & national LD for Centennial High School

- 3 years of policy for the University of Wyoming (executive authority, space policy, & alliances)

---LD AFF's---

1 Person Policy:

- fiat means that the advocacy of the aff is impervious to domestic political inherency for sake of comparative world construction; nothing more

- moderately high threshold for durable fiat; I need 1-2 warrants for it

- more than 30 seconds of frontlines designed to enable abuse are annoying & obvious; just prep the incoming shell and stop wasting 1AC time

- whole resolution please

- framing is optional but encouraged

- try not to write reverse engineered, impact oriented cases that epitomize security k links; you can still win on tech but I'll be a little bored

Traditional:

- framework should be reasons to prefer a method of evaluation for impacts and/or truth in the round, not just definitions

- definitions should have their own section to clarify ground (and function as interpretations for T)

- LD is a debate of philosophy (aesthetics, axiology, epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, etc.), not just vaguely imperative morals; specify your prescribed philosophy to avoid ranting about subjective morality

- if you read an ends-based criterion/standard of any kind, YOU NEED SOLVENCY

- if reading a means-based criterion/standard, you do not need solvency; you also cannot access ends based impacts of any kind

Kritikal:

- discourse, performance, pedagogy, affect, proximity, etc. are all crucial; show me HOW within YOUR aff in THIS round

- if untopical, provide offensive reasons to ditch the resolution

- the more stable your advocacy is, the more stable my vote is; I hate shifty aff's

- please utilize these arguments with the intent to clash and learn more about the topic

Framework Heavy:

- I need at least 1 bit of substantive/contention level offense to weigh through the framework (link + impact); you can't win off of being endlessly theoretically correct

- unframed offense will be evaluated under util by default; make your framing obvious and consistent coming out of the constructive speeches

- epistemology operates above aesthetics, axiology, and moral evaluations in general until you tell me otherwise

- I interpret LD resolutions as truth testing and/or comparative world and enjoy that specific framework debate

- I evaluate competing frameworks under epistemic modesty, not confidence; the neg can weigh their DA's under aff framing, their own, or default util to save time

- stick to your lit; do not use obscurity as a strategy (ie buzzwordy & vague high theory) or I will punish you

---LD NEG's---

Traditional:

- line by line & strategic grouping are a must

- overviews are vital for traditional debaters; condense and collapse the debate to win on depth

- story telling is powerful in traditional debate assuming it isn't highly syllogistic or heavily reliant on pathos

- underviews are time wasters; further contextualize evidence in the rebuttals

- clearly separate the 1NC case from off-case arguments applied to the 1AC flow

DA's:

- do not read linear DA's, especially multiple

- 'DA turns case' is a swell argument, but absolutist rhetoric is sketchy; be specific when explaining the turn on the link and impact level

- high threshold for vague econ, heg, and privatization DA's ; provide recent and specific evidence

CP's:

- condo isn't inherently good or bad, so debate it

- process CP's are boring

- low threshold for PIC's good

- neg fiat must be frontlined in the 1NC; no private actor, no international, no multilateral

K's:

- not everyone is familiar with k's; please make the debate reasonably accessible for sake of clash

- one off k's NEED extensive framing; ROB's, theory, method etc.

- performative contradiction makes evaluating k's super uncomfortable, so please don't do that to me

- do not read multiple prior question/ a priori arguments; that's just backtracking the k and your offense

- the k should NOT operate as a linear DA with an easy to kick CP; provide solvency for your alternative or don't read a k

- links of omission are boring (high threshold)

- rejection alt's are boring (high threshold)

- PLEASE make presumption arguments if the aff functionally does nothing; I will vote for presumption over deontology in most debates

- THEORY TO PRAXIS; CRITIQUE IS A VERB

---GENERAL/RANDOM---

- DISCLOSURE IS GOOD FOR DEBATE and debate arguments

- I am comfortable evaluating policy, LD, and PF but prefer LD simply because framework is fun

- generic t/theory is not persuasive; keep it explicit if you need to utilize those arguments in a 45 minute LD round lol

- high threshold for RVI's; you need to prove that they provided no substance and wasted our time

- do not be condescending or you'll get a low point win

- do not call arguments or people ableist adjectives; your speaks will default to 27

- please default to gender neutral communication; unless your opponent doesn't like being referred to as a side or speaker position just call them those objective terms

- performative contradiction will affect speaker points, but it will only show up on the flow if the opponent impacts out the implications of the contradiction within the debate; subject positioning is crucial to these/all debates

- speed is # of arg's per minute, not words per minute

- if you spread analytics I want a doc (and so does your opponent)

- I'm a sucker for creative impact turns; do NOT impact turn forms of oppression (i.e. Nietzsche turns), but you can totally go the dedev/spark/extinction good/nuke war good route

- you will get dropped for creating a hostile environment; debate is a game, but that should NEVER normalize violence of any kind

- off time roadmaps only need to tell me the order of sheets to flow

- card/file manipulation will drastically affect overall truth threshold and speaks. CLIPPERS BEWARE

- essays with parenthetical citations are not debate cases and hurt my eyes; please utilize discretely cited evidence in the form of tagged cards

- all authors should ideally have qualifications written after the publication date in parenthesis

- please don't use news outlets as sources

- verbally deliver cards with tag, author, and date included

- using a verbal pause followed by "and" or "next" before reading a tag or transitioning in general is a good habit to form

- vague quotes at the top are a waste of time unless they are funny

- being super formal annoys me; just treat debate like the workspace

- I will evaluate any philosophy and sincerely attempt to remove personal biases BUT for the sake of transparency:

--philosophy I hate: Kant (all), Rand/egoism, vague/buzzwordy Baudrillard, Hegel, rule of law, constitutionality, social contract theory (all), trans exclusionary feminism, humanism, cosmopolitanism, minimum effort Rawls that is just colorblindness, state led communism, judeo-christian morality (all), psychoanalysis, and any Marx that dips into material realism

--philosophy I like: anti capitalist scholarship from the last 2 decades, anarchism that accounts for ableism, Beauvoir/existentialism, Braidotti, Butler, Deleuze ♥, Derrida, Escalante, Foucault, Habermas, Nietzsche other than oppression good crap, Puar, Eve Sedgwick (I love paranoid/reparative readings of the 1AC), schizoanalysis, utilitarianism (especially negative, go Karl!) and skepticism (trix 4 dayz)

- trix are fun but don't be mean or overly obnoxious about it

- I low key think that evidence from Rand Corp. and the Heritage Foundation is propaganda

- k debate should not be a 'race to left' with little to no technicality

- traditional debate should not be a 'race to the right' with little to no technicality

- not a fan of choreographed pathos in debate; save it for speech

- not a fan of bravado, condescension, passive aggression, tiny CEO syndrome, meme-ness or any other unprofessional dispositions normalized by debate

- I ultimately think that competitive debate is a black hole of diluted data bent to the egos of hyperconscious maniacs that specialize in sophistic threat construction, so showing off real world research and communication skills is the best way to generate ethos with me

- my goals as a judge are to:

1) attentively & objectively adjudicate

2) learn & teach via critical pedagogy

3) run the tournament smoothly

4) be paid fairly for my time & relevant experience

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

Hi everyone! My name is Heba, I'm a current junior in high school residing in Dubai. I've participated as a debater myself at competitions such as the world scholar's cup, but I wouldn't call myself the queen of debating! Besides debating, I enjoy judging round as well. Over the past few years, I've judged quite a few debates at school and online during covid. In case of any queries, please don't hesitate to ask me:) I hope we have a wonderful time together!

Hello, My name is Peace John-Kalio, I am a seasoned debater, experienced judge and a great coach.

I have gathered experience and exploits in different forms of Debating such as British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debating format, Public Forum debates, Lincoln Douglas, Speech formats, and Canadian National Debate format etc.

As a judge i pirotiize logic and contents within debates and how speakers are able to logically defend their side and also logically rebutt their opponeths side.

I also pioritze equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants in general to have read tournaments briefings and manuals as I also do so myself in other for each participants to know what is expected from them.

The above also makes knowing different procedures like role fulfillment easier and how to tackle different types of motions and the burdens these different types impose on speakers therefore making rounds more engaging. I deem it as valuable for speakers to be aware of this.

Going further I appreciate when speakers are able to apply special skills and techniques within rounds such as counterfactual and fiats etc.

I also appreciate when speakers are time conscious and employ techniques like Pioritizing more important arguments so when time is up they are not at a loss.

In conclusion I like when speakers in whip and summary speeches are able to emphasize and compare why they win with the arguments brought up by their previous partners and how those arguments beat the opponents by drawing comparisons and not necessarily trying to add extentions. Speakers are also advised and encouraged to keep cameras on during rounds in an online tournament unless in situations that they absolutely cannot afford to.

I have also participated in cultural diversity training as a judge, several judging workshops and of course several tournaments both as a speaker and a judge.

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at CKM and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: If you want to read 9 off you can.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

Hi, my name is Vibhu Kanna and I am a pretty experienced debater around the circuit. I mainly compete in congressional debate and foreign extemp.

Congress:

There has been this weird trend where a lot of judges emphasize that congress as a debate event but never really care about the "debate." I ain't all about that. I personally believe Congress is equivalent to actual debate if you make good arguments and actually interact with the round, which is why I weigh arguments over speaking. HOWEVER, your speaking must be good enough to the point where I can coherently understand your argument. If you give good speaking but a really bad argument that's out of the scope of congress (ie. this is a resolution so it is vague and therefore fail) will get dropped. But if you give bad speaking but a good argument, you'll be in the middle 50-60% of the ranks. If you give GREAT SPEAKING and GREAT argumentation, that will be the top of my ranks.

Questioning: I want to see that you answer questions well. I don't really care about asking questions that much, but make sure you do ask some and make those questions unique. This will be part of my ranks. I want to see you being engaged.

PO: You will start my rank at 5 and then move up or down based on how you do.

I have a FORMULA to ranking congress.

I'll rank your speaking on a scale from 0-4. I'll rank argumentation from 0-7. I'll rank questioning from 0-2. Then I'll add it all up and rank you based on who has the highest score. So example that I might write in your ballot: "Speaking: 4; Arguments: 7; Questioning: 2." This total adds up to 13 points. So then I base ranks on that. Notice that it is mostly based off arguments, that's where you can collect the most points. That's because I think argumentation is the most important thing in CD.

Oh and also if you use humor you get brownie pts. I hate that sappy congress rhetoric everyone gives

Extemp:

I value speaking a lot here but you should also answer the question.

I want to see you have an in-depth understanding of the topic you are speaking about. Make sure you aren't flow heavy though, I want to see that creative element shine in your speaking.

Debate events:

Whatever argument I believe the most will win, make them believable. Make sure you have good responses and backups as needed to defend your argument.

BE RESPECTFUL!!!!

Name: Klaudia Maciejewska

School Affiliation: N/A

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: -

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: -

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 6

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 7

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? BP Debates, WSDC, AP

What is your current occupation? Competitive coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery: writing down important points, trying to type as much as possible fo being able to deliver RFD

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Comparison of both sides, depends on speaker if prefer clashes or other structure, should provide crucial points for the debate

Role of the Final Focus: unclear what final means

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: Allowed but unstrategic - left little time for rebuilding and responding to rebuttal

Topicality: important, arguments should be linked to the particular context

Plans: structure and strategy are helpful

Kritiks: depends on the format

Flowing/note-taking: im writing most of speeches, marking my comments to be sure after the round what i add

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Ideally rebuttal, conclude outcome of rebuttal in summary speech

I am a proud great-grandparent of 27 children. The only argument I'll vote for is extinction good.

Edit: After a long and hefty decision, I have also decided to not abide by any rules in debate. Now, all debates will be a fight to the death. No talking is allowed.

I have competed in congress my self, but I am familiar with what is classified as a strong argument in other events as well.

In Debate, I look for:

-tone variation (only congress)

-refutation/clashing with other side or other debators (addressing their concerns, explaining why your side is the better world and wins the debate especially if you give a late round)

-I like unique arguments if you are able to stand your ground and explain how that argument applies well to the debate

-confidence even if you are dealt a bad set of cards or have to argue for a hard to argue for side

-participation when possible (if you’re in congress, I expect you to ask a good amount of questions when possible unless you are forced to write a late round)

-strong arguments or strong enthusiasm in your argument

-credible and non biased sources (no Wikipedia or made up sources of course)

-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)

In Speech events, I look for:

-tone variation/emotion

-consistency in your performance

-passion

-fluency in speaking (speech breaks/stuttering doesn’t matter much to me if you recover your fluency)

-for duo/duet, a strong cooperation and synchronization between both actors

Last Updated 7/19/2024.

Pronouns: Xe/Xem/Xey. I need to be on the email chain -Nyx.Debate@gmail.com. Mostly debated the K, will listen to any type of debate.

If there is stuff in the chain you don't want shared with others, I would still appreciate it if you could email it to me separately - I'll make sure to delete the files after the round. It helps me to physically see what you are doing as I flow. If you don't want to send me stuff, you should not send me stuff.

I started debate as a novice at Johnson County Community College -> debated/coached at the University of Central Oklahoma -> Independent Debate Work -> Coached at Texas Tech -> Coached at University of Texas - San Antonio -> Current Coach at KU.

How can I make the debate better/easier for you, the debater? Let me know if you need any accommodations, I'll do my best to make them happen.

Paradigm Proper:

I will listen to any debate. Please, do whatever you do best, just explain it to me. Why is your aff/neg amazing, and why do I need to vote for it? I love impact comparison and think it should be done more. When looking at evidence comparison, if I can be persuaded that an author has a flawed epistemology, it's hard for me to justify voting for said scholarship. I'm more interested in voting on deep pieces of evidence that are solid rather than short two sentence thoughts.

I'm fine with speed, especially if I have a doc that I can follow along with. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, and on the third clear I will stop flowing.

I'm all about the game - I can go either way on condo.

I like unique PICs - the aff should be able to defend their use of rhetoric in the debate.

Evidence needs a claim, warrant, and impact. "Write my ballot for me" by making it clear to me in the last speech what really matters in the round and why I should vote on it.

Nuanced evidence explanation is key to me. If I can't figure out how the aff uniquely makes the K worse, it's an uphill battle to win the K. On the flip side, I don't think the aff should get to duck out of links by simply saying "oh, that's not us." Warranted evidence explaining why these things are true or not is critical.

Open CX is fine.

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

Hello!

I am Esther Olamide Olayinka, a graduate of University of Ilorin Nigeria. I am an advanced level judge and debater with over 2 years involvement in debating. In these years, I have experienced/ participated in over 200 rounds of debating in BP, LD, WSDC, AP, PF and Policy Debates.

I have no conflicts and you can always contact me through olamideakanbi2000@gmail.com

Simply, I value and take note of arguments that are well analysed and impacted. I don't really have a preference for speaking styles or speed as long as you're comfortable with it and your arguments doesn't violate equity policies. Please within rounds, ensure you keep to time, abide by the tournament's policies and respect both I and other speakers in your room.

Finally, I find comparative arguments to be very persuasive. Good luck in your rounds. Thank you!

I am a high school senior and I have been in speech and debate since middle school. My main debate event is Public Forum although I have done LD a few times throughout the years.

I am a flow judge so I will jot down anything and everything that you say as well as if something is dropped or not responded to. I am not a fan of spreading, but feel free to talk at whatever pace you want. If I can't understand you due to technical difficulties, then I will let you know. Please sign-post so I can keep track of whatever you say in my flow.

In terms of what factors into my decision, everything on the flow determines how I judge, including dropped/unresponded points. Impacts are a must and if you want me to buy your point, then warrants and impacts must be explained and expanded on. Be nice and don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, disrespectful, or rude to anyone in the round, otherwise, you will get bad speaker points.

I chose to keep this paradigm pretty brief, but if you have any questions, you can ask me before we start the round.

Hi! I'm Vidhi Patra, a high school LD and Parli debater. I also participate in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, OI).

things I appreciate:

A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debater's own words along with a crisp impact.

B. Good manners!

C. Turn on your camera if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.

D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)

E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur on an email chain. My email is mailtovidhipatra@gmail.com.

You can speak as quickly as you think I can understand you, but I won't tell you to slow down. Choose your speed wisely.

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, don't expect to win the round.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

Hey!

The most important thing to know if you're going to be debating in my room is how much I value fair and thorough engagements! This looks like making concessions where necessary (when the cases have been properly analyzed and are logical) and engaging in fair and charitable comparisons.

Next up, don't be rude or disrespectful! Avoid racist and discriminatory slurs. I am more than willing to penalize debaters on this basis.

Thirdly, I am fully cognizant of the fact that speakers have a lot of material to cover in such a small time, but please make sure you don't excessively speed through those arguments! DO NOT SPREAD. If I can't hear it in your speech, I will not flow. Please speak clearly so your opponents and I understand you.

Finally, always be conscious of your burdens in the debate and do justice to them. Do not merely assert, justify those claims.

Good luck!

utd 26'

email: rahulpenumetcha10@gmail.com

NDT x2

Top Level -

The debate should be up to the debaters and I will not intervene - any of my opinions discussed below will not affect my decision-making process if any argument in the debate is made over them.

A lot of this philosophy (and my beliefs in debate) will echo austin kiihnl, kevin hirn, and julian habermann's philosophies'.

There is almost always a risk of any argument, its a question of how the debaters do calc as to which risk matters more

I will vote on any argument that I disagree with or is not true if the argument is won at a technical level (doesn't apply to non-negotiables)

"Evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly"

"I have a fairly strong preference for organized, technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it a lot harder than you'd like for me to adjudicate the debate." (From Austin)

Notes:

-Analytics need to be used more (esp vs less truthful args)

-I won't judge kick unless told to

-I don't lean a certain way on cp theory but 2ac blippiness means the neg block has a low threshold to meet. I'm better than most for theory to make it into the 1AR but still, every cp theory other than condo is probably a reason to reject the arg

-We meet on T is a yes/no question - generally T debates are my favorite when done well.

-“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.” (From Julian)

-I've spent a decent amount of time reading critical literature with the most time spent on Calvin Warren, Frank Wilderson, Christina Shrape, Arthur Kroker, and Douglas Kellner in that order. This means my threshold for your explanation might inevitably be higher, however aff specific contextualization and the explanation of the theory of power on the line by line should overcome any gap in understanding.

-I have a sweet spot for impact turn debates.

-My evaluation of K affs vs FW is best for the aff when there is either a firm impact turn strategy with some metric to evaluate aff case offense or a counter interp that focuses on establishing an inroads to 2nr offense while solving external impacts. I'm better for the negative when the strategy is either hard right fairness and providing a metric to view aff offense through or a strategy that revolves around clash/fairness and establishing ways FW can solve aff offense via a TVA/SSD. If it matters I've been on the neg side of these debates slightly more than the aff.

Non-negotiables

Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, or misgender.

CX is binding

I will not vote on anything that did not happen in the round because that is not what a judge ought to do.

If the debate can be made safer, accessible etc. Please let me know.

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day (AFA , IPDA , NFA) ... currently I'm a consultant teaching IE's at the university level (AFA/NFA)

• PLZ treat your opponent and judge the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate or toxicity in debate
• I prefer speechdrop, google docs or NSDA file share .. unless you're a debate coach or tournament director or prospective employer... you don't need my email
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• I mainly judge College IE's and HS nat circuit PF - these are my absolute fav's
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DON'T want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
• IF USING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (whether debate or public speaking event) , you need to address the 5 C's of historical analysis ... if not then this is for you ---> L
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

PO's: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

^^ To the PO's, if you don't establish your gaveling procedure almost immediately I will have no problem ranking you last - non negotiable

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO A LONG WAY IN THIS EVENT

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Usually Tech, however it all depends on what you run, if you're going to say things that are absolutely not true (holocaust never happened... etc) STRIKE ME - because if I have to go Truth I will have no problem telling you you're wrong and will make an example out of you

I better see clash

IMO, Condo and anything Fiat should be left to LD/CX - but I will evaluate it I guess

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

I value good strategy and refined rhetoric, if you have this you'll most likely get my ballot

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

IMPACT CALCULUS is your best friend !!!

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - HECK YEA

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory/Performance - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX, but I am getting back into the groove.... best way to describe me when pertaining to policy is Game Theorist

Now in days no judge is really Tab - lucky you I'm all about Game Theory

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

If any debate round is near impossible to judge (terrible evidence, round going in circles, no clash, toxic behavior, challenges... etc) I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2024-2025 season!!

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24 | Berkeley Law '27

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

--

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

my email- kendraschmidt6644@gmail.com

pls put me on the email chain!

top level stuff- don’t make any racist/sexist/problematic args

be kind & have fun 

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to d
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

I keep meeting fellow folks in the debate community with my same conditions (migraines, nausea, fatigue, vertigo, chronic spinal pain, neurodivergent and on). I created this doc with stuff that's helped https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vYS4o8JEqE0N1BO-HsaDUEzNz_Ck-gFt4P5jK2WzPT4/edit

& a podcast for my fellow migraineur/chronic pain/chronic illness debaters https://open.spotify.com/episode/3Tk0Pr7MM61JNWFH7RTVtZ?si=DoOOrI8FQr2nrTh3JHW9Sw

BEFORE ROUND PLEASE READ:

Please email me the speech docs before your first speech & any evidence read after each rebuttal (-.5 speaker points if not). If you’re Aff do this before the round so we can start on time & if you're Neg you can do this before your speech but please have speech docs ready so this doesn't take long thanks! Copy & paste this email nickysmithphd@gmail.comif you sent it we’re good, no need to ask a bunch if I got it (internets slow at tourneys but it eventually works:)

I’m always ready, no need to check in with me before each speech (I sit down to flow & have a standing desk so then I don't have to sit and stand over and over messing up my flow :). Ironically, I also get up here & there to stretch (I do this during prep time) as I have Scheuermann's. Time each other including each other’s prep time & CX

Please don't have your timer super close to your mic (the high pitch beep isn't fun for vertigo/migraines thanks :).

Flex &/or running prep is fine. If we’re at a zoom tournament and video is making your audio choppy/etc then it’s fine to emphasize the audio as that’s the key:). Ps Tournaments Please if possible don’t start zoom rounds ridiculously early with the different time zones so debaters can do their best as well:)

PF: Please share the evidence you’re reading with your opponent before the round so half of the round isn’t “can I have this specific card” (it ruins the flow/pace of the round) thanks! Feel free to run disclosure theory every round I judge (aka drop my opponent for not disclosing their cases on the wiki, disclosure makes debate more accessible/educational) when your opponent doesn’t have their case on the wiki https://hspf.debatecoaches.org/ It makes debate more fair & outweighs if someone runs your case against you/your school as you should know how to block it anyway:).

Pronouns: they/them/theirs; genderqueer, no need for judge and please no mister, that’s my cat Mr Lambs. Nicky is fine:). If you insist on last name formalities, students have called me Dr Smith

Your oral RFD can be done as Gollum, John Mulaney or Elmo if you so choose.

I have coached Lincoln–Douglas debate as well as other forms of debate and speech since 2005.

I participated in debate throughout high school, won state twice, and was competitive on the national circuit (advanced far at Nationals and other prominent tournaments like Harvard, Valley, etc) so I understand the many different styles of debate that exist and the juggling you as debaters have to do in terms of judge paradigms. My goal is for you to learn/grow through this activity so feel free to ask any questions.

Big Picture:

I studied philosophy at Northwestern, my PhD was in sociology (intersectional social movements/criminal injustice system) at Berkeley/San Diego & have taught many courses in debate/theory at the graduate & secondary level so I love hearing unique arguments especially critical theory/strong advocacies/anything creative. When I judge debate, I flow throughout the round. I appreciate debaters who take time to crystallize, weigh arguments/clearly emphasize impacts (when appropriate), and who are inclusive in their debate style and argumentation. By this I mean debaters who respect pronouns, respect their opponents, and who work to make debate more accessible (as someone who has been disabled/queer since the time I competed, there is a lot more that needs to be done, but it starts with each of us and beyond the activity).

PRACTICES I LIKE:

- Taking risks to advance debate (such as using theory and arguments that are often ignored in debate both in high school and beyond, ie not the same several social contract theorists/arguments for every debate topic/round). Advocating, being creative, showing your passion for something, researching different perspectives, and bettering/supporting your fellow debaters and our community as a whole and beyond are some of the best skills that can come out of this.

-Sharing cases/evidence with your opponent/the judge before your speeches/rebuttals; there should be no conditions on your opponent having access to your evidence.

- Enunciating clearly throughout the round (I can handle speed, but I need to be able to hear/understand you versus gibberish).

-Having explicit voters. Substance is key. Signpost throughout.

- To reiterate, I am open to a range of theory and frameworks and diverse argumentation (really anything not bigoted), but be clear on why it matters. With kritiks and any “non-traditional” case, avoid relying solely on buzz words in lieu of clearly explaining your arguments or linking where needed (and not, for example, jumping to exaggerated impacts like extinction).

- And again, delivery matters and being monotone gets tiring after judging rounds throughout the day so practice, practice.

PRACTICES I DISLIKE:

- Any form of discrimination, including bigoted language and ableist actions (such as using pace as a way to exclude opponents who are new to circuit).

- Also ad homs against your opponent such as insulting their clothing or practices, and attacks against an opponent's team or school. Don't yell. Be kind.

- I have noticed lately more and more debaters trailing off in volume as they go; ideally I don't like to have to motion the "I can't hear you or slow down" sign throughout the round.

- Non-verbal reactions when your opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up your hands, rapid "no" shaking).

Speaker points:

Be as clear as you can. Uniqueness/making the round not like every other round is nice! Be funny if possible or make the round interesting :)

Accommodations:

If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations please let me know and feel free to contact me after the round with any post-round questions/clarifications (I can give my information or we can speak at the tournament) as my goal is for all of you to improve through this. I see debaters improving who take advantage of this! Good luck!

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't os it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

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

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

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

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

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

PF paradigm-On a tech panel, you can do whatever you want. On a lay panel, treat me like a lay judge. I feel that PF should be a debate any judge can walk into and understand, but if you're given a fully tech panel feel free to do what you want. However, take a moment to think if you're reading progressive in front of an LD/policy judge if your argument is structured properly, you know what you're doing, and you'll make the round interesting by reading it. If not, reconsider.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

riley.rosalie@gmail.com ; 7 years of policy debate experience

Debated at the TOC level in high school for 4 years, debated at the University of Wyoming from 2017-2021

Judging 2021-Present (Policy, CARD, sometimes high school policy & LD)

Over the last few years of judging policy and CARD, I find myself being a big picture type judge. While I still believe that a dropped argument is true and I can follow tricky framing arguments on the flow, debaters need to provide clear judge direction in the rebuttals on what those arguments mean and how I should deal with them at the end of the round. I am most persuaded by teams that go for fewer arguments in the rebuttals, spend time impacting/fleshing them out, and telling me how it implicates the rest of the debate.

Impacts need to be fleshed out in the final speeches. I need to know what is triggering the impact, where some war is happening, why it's uniquely coming now, etc. I find myself voting for teams that spend a lot of time in the final rebuttal giving me specific details on their impacts, how they can be avoided, and doing impact comparison with the other team. Same goes for more structural impacts. Use your evidence! The details are there but they need to be brought into your analysis.

Case engagement is one of my favorite aspects of debate. I find the block not spending as much time on case, and it makes the debate a lot closer than it should be. If you read one off vs. a policy aff, reading impact defense, solvency take outs, and evidence indicts to these policy teams will go far in front of me. If you are aff, I am persuaded by teams that know their ev in/out and consistently talk about their aff (thorough impact explanations/comparison, drawing me a picture of what the aff world looks like, talking about the aff on other sheets, etc).

If you want me to vote on a role of the ballot/judge, there needs to be clear weighing and impact extension as to why this plays an important role in the debate. Evidence comparison and indicts are also great weighing mechanisms that I find are underutilized.

For kritiks v. policy affs, I prefer teams that give extensive analysis of their evidence and provide specific examples to contextualize their link with the aff, rather than dumping a bunch of cards or shadow extend arguments. If you read psychoanalysis or other high theory, I am going to need a lot of explanation on some basic concepts so please keep this in mind.

With counterplans, I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

If you want to have some fun with what you read, I am all for it! I love impact turns including nuclear war good, untraditional styles where you’re playing games instead of debating with speech times, etc. – so long as there is a metric for how I as the judge evaluate the debate I am here for it.

--- LD ---

While I have not competed in LD, I have judged numerous varsity LD rounds from the local to national level. I do not have a preference to a style in which you debate the topic, i.e. philosophical, kritikal, traditional, etc., however, I do care that you debate the topic in some way.

Here are some thoughts that I have about particular arguments but also how I evaluate LD debates:

1. I view the value-criterion as the framing for the debate and typically go to that debate first so I can filter the rest of the debate through this framework. In some debates it matters, others it doesn't (especially if the teams agree on/have similar value-criterions).

2. I am going to take a bit from a former coach's paradigm because I believe this is something I encounter a lot in LD: "too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it's awesome. You should make sure I know it's awesome while you read it...Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, [by thoroughly explaining their evidence and why it matters in the debate], will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot."

3. I do not like when debaters will read/extend a bunch of arguments that do not provide a good warrant or reason why the argument matters. I would rather the 1NC read 1 less off case position in favor of more developed case analysis, impact calc, or fully complete arguments. I would rather the 1ar make 1 less theory argument in favor of actually explaining what the words "perm do both" mean, why the case outweighs, and sinking time in where it matters.

4. Impacting out your arguments and doing impact/evidence comparison in the final rebuttals is very important to me. Tell me why your arguments matters, why they are a priority, and overall why you won the debate. Ships passing in the night or blippy extensions are not advantageous for you.

5. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but it's not that hard to defend condo good and I think most of these counterplan issues are best resolved at the level of how competitive they are with the aff, not theory. Again, sink time into arguments where you feel confident in going for them and explaining thoroughly in your final rebuttal.

6. I do not discriminate against certain arguments but if you read Kant, I am probably not the judge for you. I have judge a few of these debates and they are pretty confusing to me. If you are a Kant person who gets me as a judge, I need a lot more explanation on some of these buzzwords. I am also convinced that many students who read Kant don't really go for an impact or tell me how it relates back to the resolution so please do these things.

My judging is premised on 2 main things.

1) Argumentation

2) Responsive Work

1) Argumentation

The key thing here is twofold, a technical weigh up of the argument itself, and a truth litmus test. So first off, your argument needs to have the 3 core components of an argument, the claim, the grounding and analysis and finally the tie-back. Tell me what you want me to believe, show me why it is true and tell me it matters in the context of the debate we’re having. It’s not enough to just have a “true” argument, why does it matter, why should I care about it, and in what way does that argument, on its own, help you in your endeavour to win the debate. Then comes the truth test, is your analysis sound enough to stand in the debate, do you give me reason to believe that what you’re claiming is true and would the analysis convince an average intelligent voter. After all, it’s a game of conviction.

2) Responsive Work

Responses work two ways, they are offensive and defensive. Offensive responses juxtapose your arguments with your opponents’ and show why yours are more important, more relevant and basically warrant more weight in the debate. Does the argument, at the very least, respond to the burdens set upon either side by the motion itself, and the chats that happen during the debate? What’s the strategic importance of the argument to your opponent ,and what does their case look like without that one argument, why is it significantly weaker after your rebuttal.

The second part of responsive work is defensive, weighing up the responses. Why was your opponent’s rebuttal insufficient to deal with your case. And even if it was enough to respond, why is the loss of that one argument not enough to warrant you losing the entire debate?

Always be respectful to everyone in the room, be courteous and Remember that debate is supposed to be fun, enjoy and learn from the experience of debating with different people from different backgrounds

Experience

2 Years judging PF

4 Years judging BP

5 Years World Schools Style

Current Senior Coach for the Zimbabwe National Debate Team

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

Hey!

My name is Agezeh Victor (He/Him). I am a student at the University of ilorin, Nigeria. I am a debater with judging and speaking skills in British Parliamentary debating style (BP), World school Debating Championship (WSDC), Public Forum (PF) and Asian Parliamentary (AP)

Conflict: None

Email: agezehvictor2@gmail.com

As a judge, I appreciate when speakers engages the burden of an argument and also attack the argument as it relates to the debate, speaking in a manner that allows your point be understood and not missed.

Also, I expect every individual with debating interest to read the judging and speaking manual so as to know the rules and also to know what is expected of them in each motion.

Furthermore, speaking isn't just about the eloquence of the speech but also about point engagement and burden fulfilment.

Time keeping is very crucial and everyone should keep to time.

Since it an online tournament, ensure to mute you mic when it not your turn to speak and un-mute when it is yours, do not interrupt others when they speak.

I am an enthusiastic and open minded individual who has been judging for two years and I love debating .I studied Information Technology and spend most of my time coding .The metrics I mostly use when judging are:

Truth Assertion
The claim a team provides must contain strong evidence and should explain what the debate is about. The second proof of claim is responding to a rebuttals provided by your opponents. This is important since they can argue a link of truth that might discredit the points given. In the end, it can cost your impacts to be disregarded and reduces your chances of winning the debate.
Classification.
It is important for you to give good reasoning on why your claim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is true and important in the debate. The more well-proofed the evidence is , the higher chances of you winning the argument. The claim should also be within reasoning and proven.
Weighing .
Take your opponent's best case and make a comparison to the case provided from the bench .You'll have earned a solid win if you can show me that even if your side's best case fails, your average or worst scenario is still much better than your opponent's case. This is also done through providing strong reasons supported by clear pieces of evidence . Prove to us why you believe the arguments provided by your opponents is unlikely the case and why its also false.
Framework .
It is important to lay out a structure in a simple and direct format that is easy for me to understand .You can also do this by showing me your breakdown before you begin your speech. Having a simple structure with in -depth analysis makes it easy for me to judge and helps your opponents understand your arguments. Having a coherent speech with logical flow makes it easy to understand your speech word for word.
Team Chemistry
How you and your partner present yourself is also quite important .I will need strong well-structured points to strengthen the cases presented. Having your teammate support your arguments or defend the points initially made is very important and it will be an add-on during weigh-in.
Lastly, it is very important to respect your opponents during debates. Avoid using obscene or rude remarks during the debate. I encourage you to have fun and be as creative as you can when interacting with different people in the debate forums.

Background: I have been judging and training for the past five and a half years. I have debated and judged multiple debate tournaments across continents. I studied Computer Science as my university degree and spend most of my free time judging, debating, eating, and traveling.

Judging criteria:

1. Clarity: The claim must be proven with strong reasoning and evidence. The second level of proving the truth of your claim is by responding to rebuttals of your proof of claim from the opposing team. This is important because the other team can attack a logical gap in the truth of your argument and without sufficient response, the likelihood of your claim being true is diminished. This means that your impacts are unlikely to occur because the claim has been proven to be false which, in turn, reduces your chances to win the debate.

2. Mechanizations: It's also important to give reasons why your claim or counterclaim is true. This is done by showing why your claim is the most important in the debate. So don't just state claims and rebuttals by explaining why it's important. This will improve the quality of the debate by having your claim tag along with mechanization.

3. Weighing: This means one should take the best-case scenario of the opposing side and give a comparative analysis with the case provided. Most responses in debates only tackle the other team's arguments and do not necessarily prove them to be completely false. The importance of weighing You can use different metrics to weigh in your arguments such as which one has a higher sense of urgency, affects more people, has long-term impacts, and many others to prove your arguments is more important.

4. Structure: It is important to present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Having a clear and simple structure helps your case. Note that this also entails having a detailed analysis. This makes it easier for panelists and the team to understand your arguments. This is done by having a linear flow (carefully explaining your arguments in a systematic manner from point A to B to C) and having clear comparatives in your speech.

5. Synergy: How you and your partner build your case is important. This is done by having solid support and extensions to support arguments mentioned by your partner. Ensure you do not sound contradictory or have a different speech from your partner. Ensure you have a coherent and supporting speech.

Lastly, respect your opponents. During the debate, do not use any derogatory or insulting language. I encourage you to use your imagination and have fun while learning and engaging with new individuals in the world of debate. Best wishes!

Email: lydiawang327@gmail.com

Experience: Sammamish 23' debated 3 years on the circuit, acquired 6 TOC bids reading policy and K arguments, and currently 1A/2N at the University of Houston.

Also coaching a few independents, Vanguard debate, and LD consultant for Kinkaid.

Top level:

Tech>Truth - Yes this includes wipeout, spark, death k, whatever. I will not intervene against those arguments or other arguments that are considered "dumb." I will vote on anything that has a warrant.

Do not be unnecessarily mean - there's no reason to make someone feel bad over a debate.

Docs must be sent, I don't care if it is a local, evidence matters. I will not follow along on the doc during the round, but I will most likely read evidence after, sending a doc is not an excuse to be unclear. Strongly prefer word docs over PDFs.

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is a true issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me.

I flow on paper - Please give pen time, be clear, and organized. I'll give two warnings after that I stop flowing. Seriously,

Inserting rehighlightings are okay ONLY if you explain why it matters/what the insert is saying. Otherwise, read them out loud if you want me to flow it.

---Marking a doc is prep time. If you ask for a marked doc, it's your prep time, you should be flowing. If you are not flowing your speaks will be docked. Compiling the doc is also prep time, prep time ends when you are done compiling and press send on the email chain. The more dead time there is in a round, the lower your speaks will be.

The easier you make the round to evaluate for me, the better your speaks will be - this means you should make the round very clean and take the clearest path to the ballot.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. If you're not sure what I mean by this, think punching theory with no 2nr I meets, I am not voting on that ever.

- Conceded arguments require warrants for me to vote on them, simply saying "they conceded x" is not enough.

- I am so tired of LD 2NRs that are 11 pointing condo, be more efficient and move on to substance.

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head.

- If you make me flow your 30 point underview I will be sadder if you don't go for a silly conceded trick that takes out an argument in the debate, than the fact that you made me flow all that.

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory.

- Evidence Matters---I'm very comfortable voting you down if the argument you go for relies on a card that has like 5 words highlighted. I dislike the trend in LD to card spam advantages with 5 different impacts and all of which are so poorly highlighted.

Nur YILMAZ | Junior | Beverly Hills High School

Hello, there! I hope to ensure that a respectful environment is present during debates. I want to emphasize that it is vital to be respectful and understanding during debates. Having fun and learning from each other is top priority.