For email chains: amoschen96@gmail.com

Debate Related Experience/short bio:

Debated 2011-15 Policy debate @ Parkway West High School MO

Debated 2015-19 NPDA Parliamentary debate @ University of Missouri-Columbia

Asst. coach 2019-21 for Parkway West High School, mostly specializing in policy and LD

Pronouns: he/him

------

TL;DR Generally, I view debate as a game being played between two competing teams of debaters. The purpose of the game is to win through deploying arguments and proving that one's arguments are better than the competing claims put forth in the round. What form/structure that takes is fundamentally up to the debaters.

I've judged/debated pretty much every style/argument set for policy so as long as you're not being abusive, I'd prefer if you debate using the method/format you're most comfortable with and execute it well rather than risk sacrificing your own speaking efficacy by contorting your style to fit what you think I'm most receptive to.

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

Policy Notes:

***Overall I evaluate on an offense/defense basis. To win my ballot, you need to prove your side has stable offense, and that it outweighs any offense presented by the other side. Most of the time this is accomplished by proving the world created by one team is better than the one created by the other. How you garner offense can be varied--it could be done through policy impacts on the flow, impacts from theory arguments, in-round impacts, impacts affecting the debate space, etc. If you want me to evaluate on a different paradigm (stock issues, facts, etc.) just tell me, and I'll do it if you present a compelling enough case. I'm pretty generous with speaker points as long as you seem to be making a good faith effort to engage in the round; I generally will only give low scores for hostility to the other competitors/judges and microaggressions/bigoted behavior.

Thoughts on Specific Arguments:

Performance/Critical Affs: Philosophically, I feel the debate space should be open to as many people as possible and should be accessible to all folks from all different backgrounds and experience. Same goes for debate arguments/style--I debated a whole range of styles in high school/college, and I'm always going to err on the side of greater inclusivity. I feel affs critiquing the resolution/plan text-less affs drive innovation, so I'll listen to those too. I'm open to theory/critical arguments attacking the methodology of the advocacy; I'm less open to the "you're not the rez ergo you're bad" args, I'll still try to evaluate them, but don't expect my ballot just because you read a generic T-USFG or T-Resolved block.

Kritiks: Overall, I really enjoy judging critical debates, but only if they actually make an effort to create a link to *this* particular aff in *this* particular round rather than just throwing a generic cap/security/militarism K as part of a strat/time suck. If the K is obviously generic to the aff, I'm much more likely to give leeway to the aff's no link/perm arguments. Case specific links are obviously my preference, but links based on representations/rhetoric are fine if explained fully. I'll even evaluate "links of omission" or "you didn't talk about this ergo you link," arguments as long as it's explained fully how they operate specifically in the context of *this* aff in *this* round. I feel most K debates are resolved in the alt/alt solvency vs perm debate so I never really take K impacts into account when evaluating them. The exception is pre-fiat impacts--if a pre-fiat impact comes out, I'll always evaluate it before plan-related/post fiat arguments unless I'm given a substantial reason to discount it. Same applies for Role of the Ballot arguments. Relative to other judges, I weigh framework and offense generated from framework (for aff and neg) more heavily, so make sure you comprehensively cover it.

In terms of critical lit familiarity I mostly ran cap and race-related arguments, so I'm most familiar with that, as well as political theory-based K's/authors like Agamben/Foucault, anything to do with securitization etc. Somewhat familiar with gender/queerness based args (but not as much as I'd like) and colonialism-based K's. Don't really know a lot about the high theory crowd like Bataille/Baudrillard/Lacan/Deleuze/Heidegger (do people even read Heidegger anymore??)

SPEED/SPREADING: Speaking completely personally, my opinion on speed in debate is that it's a good thing when done right, and harmful when conducted improperly. Being able to deploy massive amounts of arguments in a round incentivizes conducting more research, rewards faster thinking and decision making, and requires more memory retention. In addition, having a larger amount of developed arguments on the flow adds an entirely different layer of strategy to the round in terms of which arguments you dedicate time to. However, spreading historically in debate has often been used as a tool of exclusion (i.e., go super fast because we know the other team can't keep up and will drop args). Plus the argument can be made that it makes rounds inaccessible to people with auditory/learning disorders. Functionally, that means speed if you want, but only if the other judges/competitors in the round are comfortable with it.

Especially considering the technical limitations of the online format, I think a good rule of thumb is to take whatever your typical max speed is and decrease it by 20% to account for faulty audio equipment, internet lag and other potential technical issues.

Theory: I'm open to most theory arguments (e.g., this argument is bad bc x reason) with the exception of specificity-based args like A-spec, e-spec, f-spec, etc. Generally, I need instances of in round abuse to vote on theory alone.

Topicality: I really appreciate well-thought out T-debates. Most high schoolers doing this activity have the goal of eventually being lawyers/legislators and in those fields, the technical definitions of individual words and how they're used matters a lot. Thus, I'm totally fine getting down into the weeds of whether this aff is fitting this interp of the rez based on the definition of this word and etc. However, I need detailed standards and voters to vote on T alone. RVIs are a silly argument and I don't listen to them.

CPs: I'm open to CPs, I'm open to multiple CPs, I'm open to conditional CPs, and I'll take multiple perms as well. All things considered I default to multiple worlds good, but I'll listen to theory arguments against. Same goes for theory arguments against multiple/conditional CPs, PICs, process/agent/consult CPs, and theory arguments against multiple perms. Once again, most of the time I need in round abuse to vote on theory alone. I think advantage CP+DA+impact turn is a powerful strategy that gets underutilized by high schoolers.

DAs: I hate generic DAs. If you're able to articulate a specific link and internal link chain that's specific to the aff case, I'm more open to it, but if it's just a general "doing the rez causes this bad impact" link, I'll give way more leeway to the aff in terms of link defense. Go for as large or small of an impact as you want--as long as you establish a compelling internal link chain, I'll evaluate it in the general offense/defense clash. Most DAs are weakest on the internal link level, so if the aff defends against/turns it enough, I'll vote aff on the DA even if there isn't much terminal impact defense. I don't care about uniqueness that much unless it's an argument like "this scenario is literally already happening, thus no effect on round." Comparative risk analysis is very important to me, so make sure you're consistently comparing/contrasting your DA scenario to the story the aff is telling and vice versa.

----

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

For email chains: aus.essex@gmail.com

I'm not going to read your cases/evidence unless there are audio issues online or there's a dispute about evidence or maybe cutting. So still send them if you'd like, but it's your job to make sure everything gets said within your allotted time and that when arguments are extended in the round they're fully articulated.

Background:

I did Lincoln Douglas at Burleson High School (2007-2011). I have judged LD around North Texas at various national circuit tournaments, but seem to wind up at UIL tournaments more than anything. More recently I have been introduced to Policy debate via the Boston Debate League.

Policy Debate:

As mentioned, Policy is not the format I've spent the largest amount of my time judging. In lieu of many years of knowledge and familiarity with Policy, I find myself very reliant on my flow and seeing ink on the flow (organized and developed responses to your opponent in a line-by-line or sensible order).

I will ultimately vote on just about anything in a round, but that argument needs a paper trail. Extensions, full development, claim, warrant, impact, etc. Blippy underdeveloped arguments make it extremely difficult for me to evaluate a round.

I'm fine with theory, speed, and generally more progressive elements of debate. But, that may stem more from the enjoyment of experiencing novel argumentation and my own nostalgia rather than an ability to properly evaluate those things in round. If you're spreading too quickly or mumbling I'll yell clear a couple of times to let you know I'm not following. If the round is occurring online I generally think you should speak slightly slower given skips in audio etc.

Crystallization or voters are extremely helpful as a judge. Tell me where you're winning the round on the flow and why it matters.

Etiquette:

I often judge students who are very new to debate or quite young. I do not enjoy rounds that feel overly combative or snippy. Personal attacks are not cool, and CX is not a time to try and control the opposing teams personal autonomy by being overly aggressive. Do not discourage your opponent from enjoying the activity because of your etiquette. You don't win by acting more aggressive.

I'm pretty laid back. I don't care where you sit, I don't care if you stand, what you wear, etc. I'm here for the verbal content of the round. Before the round tell me if you need help with something, time signals, whatever!

*****TL;DR******

I did LD in HS and judged a while, I've judged a few Policy tournaments recently. I flow. I like progressive debate because it's entertaining, but you might have to handhold me through it. Be nice, aggressive ≠ winning. Give me voters make my job easy.

Aanya Ghosh

aanyaghosh23@gmail.com

I usually take on the longer side to decide debates (~10 minutes average) even if it's not close sorry!!!!

You can ask questions but if the post rounding gets excessive and I'm just answering the same question over and over again I'm just going to leave :/

PLEASE try to be clear if you are spreading through analytics at top speed and ur not clear I won't feel uncomfortable not voting on something that was incomprehensible

General

I debated for four years at Lexington High School in MA (1A/2N). I accumulated 9 bids and qualified to the TOC four times, consecutively double-qualifying in CX and LD. Coaching Lex + some independents.

I would prefer not to judge lay/traditional rounds but I will adapt to you.

I don't care where you sit/stand as long as I can hear you. You don't have to ask me to take prep.

The email chain should be formatted as follows:

Tournament Name Year Round # Flight # --- AFF [Team Code] vs NEG [Team Code]

Tech > Truth whenever possible. I will try and adhere as closely as possible to the flow to adjudicate debates, save for morally abhorrent arguments or callouts. Clarity >>> Speed. I will listen to CX. I don't care if you tag-team/open CX. Prep can be cross, but cross is never prep. Compiling a doc is prep, but sending it doesn't count. I don't have defaults--please don't make me flip a coin.

I will hold the line on new arguments -- I should be able to trace a line from the 2AR to the 1AR.

For new 2NR evidence, my thinking is as follows: if it's supporting an evidentiary position held in the 1NC and is responsive to new 1AR evidence, then it's generally permissible (for example, if the 1NC reads heg bad and the 1AR reads new heg good cards). However, I err against the 2NR introducing new evidence that could have been read in the 1NC (e.g. reading a new impact scenario for a disad) ABSENT the 1NC justifying why they should get to. Any defaults I have can be easily changed and only apply when no arguments have been made regarding the matter.

Policy

Evidence matters just as much as spin, and the latter is distinct from lying. Yes zero risk if it's won. I like impact turns. Cheaty counterplans/permutations are yours to debate.

Kritik

I consider myself agnostic in these debates--have been on both sides.

Neg teams should read framework and link walls in the 1NC. I will hold the line on new 2NR framework interpretations that seem to have emerged from nowhere. Please don't pref me if you read overviews that take up half of your speech.

Fine for clash/fairness/skills 2NRs as well as counter-interps/impact turns. I enjoyed going for kritiks and presumption versus K affs.

Philosophy

I'm familiar with most common frameworks, but over-explain super niche stuff. I would prefer to see a robust defense of your syllogism and not hedging your bets on preclusive end-all be-alls such as "extinction outweighs" or "induction fails".

Determinism is probably one of my favorite arguments to hear and I will especially enjoy if you read Van Inwagen!

Theory

I don't care how frivolous it is. Reasonability and drop the argument are underutilized.

For policy: I am a good judge for theory; I won't intervene and will vote on anything (1 condo, new affs bad, hidden ASPEC (if I flow it)).

T

Precision should be articulated as an internal link to clash and limits in the 1NC. LD should have more policy-esque T interpretations that define terms of art in the resolution.

Tricks

I didn't really go for these when I debated but I'm not opposed to judging them--just make them easy for me to evaluate.

Saying "what's an a priori" is funny one time maximum.

PF

Given my background, I probably care very little about lay appeal relative to your technical skill in terms of determining who gets my ballot (but it will, of course, factor into speaks). Good for spreading/tech arguments, just don't execute them badly. I would prefer that you read cards; if not, at least have formal citations when paraphrasing.

PLEASE share evidence/cases before your speeches with me (and probably each other), whether it's via an email chain, SpeechDrop, or Tabroom file share.

If you disclose in PF, I will give +0.1 speaker points for having a wiki page and +0.3 if you have open-source disclosure for most rounds (let me know before round/before I enter speaks).

I won't default to sticky defense; just make a short reason as to why it is or isn't valid.

Speaks

I'm probably a speaks fairy; I think they are oftentimes interventionist and will take into account their effect on seeding/clearing. I won't dock speaks for reading any particular style of argument. I will for being egregiously rude.

Speaks are lowkey relative depending on how tired I am but I usually inflate anyways

Technical efficiency above all will be rewarded, but here are some extra things you can do to boost your speaks (pre round ideally):

• Sit down early and win and/or use less prep (let me know)
• Read entertaining/funny arguments I haven't seen before
• Bring me food (protein bars/shakes/preworkout please!!! fruit tea boba, black coffee, energy drinks (Celsius, sugar-free Monster, C4), anything with caffeine, healthy snacks) +0.5
• Correctly guess my astrological element, zodiac sign, and/or moon and rising signs. You get 3 tries for each variant.
• Correctly guess my favorite three-stage Pokémon evolution (NOT eevee)
• I will bring my speaker preround and if you play a song I like
• Beat me at Gamepigeon Word Hunt/Anagrams or Monkeytype 30 second no punctuation typing test
• W references (Drake, Naruto, Serial Experiments Lain, South Park, Gone Girl)

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

my name is olivia, i coach debate and do mock trial and love public speaking. i am a chill judge, and am very experienced, i’m fine with speed, i like when you outline your arguments specifically as you move throughout your speeches, and when you spend time weighing and outlining which arguments were left unresponded to or dropped. don’t be mean to each other during cross :)

Lives don't matter. If you want me to weigh lives, you must first tell me why lives matter. Otherwise, talk about literally anything else.

TL;DR: Always sign post in summary and final focus, extend, and provide warrants for impacts and responses. Do the weighing for me.

Signpost: Please signpost your voting issues at the top of your summary and final focus. Then as you speak, reiterate them at the top of each voter. If you don't signpost, I have no idea what you are talking about. It just sounds like you are extending your whole case or doing another rebuttal. Either way, I have no idea what to vote off of. IF YOU DON'T PLAN ON SIGNPOSTING, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

Don’t extend through ink: If you get a concession out of your opponent, extend it in your speeches. I am flowing only the speeches so if you don't bring it up in your speeches, it didn't happen. Also, do not say "extend my 5 impacts" or "extend my 5 responses." Actually say these impacts or responses.

Collapse: Collapse all your arguments down into 1-3. If there is clash between teams, you can make that one voting issue. As long as the things are relatively related, I have no problem.

Consistency: Voting issues should be consistent between speeches. If you have two voting issues in summary, then you should have the two same voting issues in final focus.

Timeframe: All impacts should have a timeline. It is hard to weigh impacts if I have no idea how long it takes for them to realize.

No audible alarms: Please try not to use audible alarms. They are annoying and only serve to cut yourself off. While it will not affect speaker points if teams insist on using them, I will drop my pen when it rings regardless of where you are in your sentence.

Cross-applying: I will cross apply arguments and impacts that each team extends into summary and final focus even if teams don't do it themselves. In addition, if I card you and the evidence is critically relevant to either side, I will cross apply that also. This does not mean that I will create and vote off of new arguments I find in the evidence. This just means that if your card provides two impacts and you neglect to mention the other impact could negate the first one, I will take that into account and apply it for you. I am not an activist judge; I just want to make sure that evidence is being used properly and is not misconstrued. If I feel something is purposely misconstrued or left out, I will drop that card and any resulting impacts.

Weigh: Explain why the impact of one issue is more important even if the metrics are different. Hint, prioritizing lives is a losing battle, refer to top of paradigm.

Speaker Points: If you signpost, speak coherently, cover the flow, and are engaging, you can expect a 30. Prioritize coherency over speed because 1) Stumbling knocks off speaks and 2)Anything I can't flow I can't weigh. Not covering everything on the opponent's flow is OK if you cover all the important impacts and warrants. Missing a thing here or there won't affect speaks. Engagement just means you don't speak in a way that would lull me to sleep. Tournaments are long; I get tired. If you are funny, sassy, or at least make eye contact, I will be more than happy. Please don't look at your flow the entire time. Always SIGNPOST in summary and final focus. This is my biggest pet peeve. If you don't signpost, that's 2.5 points gone. Just tell me "first voter is x" and "second voter is y." Very easy to get these points and makes my RFD easier since I know what the big issues are.

Assume that I have a general understanding of the topic but definitely explain any esoteric ideas or little know events/facts.

Also, please don't be rude or condescending; it's a competition but everyone should enjoy their time in debate, not feel harassed.

Experience: Debated @ College Prep (in Oakland) for 4 years in Public Forum; qualled to TOC. Student @ UVA.

For TOC: I have not done any research on this topic. Include me on the email chain (davidwornow4@gmail.com). I'd prefer if you go slightly slower than usual (like 75-80% your usual speed) just because Zoom lags and sometimes it loses stuff you say. Also, I expect virtual handshakes!

Tech judge

Unique args are good/have fun and do your thing

The crazier the arg the easier analytics will be at taking them out

You can do anything- sit while speaking, speaking quick, etc.

Don't require 2-2 split or any split

Please keep track of your prep time

Ask me before round for specific stuff.