I mainly did policy for my three years in high school debate both on the local circuit and the national one. I dabbled in congress and had a very brief stint in PF, so I feel pretty comfortable judging any debate event. I graduated from Bingham High in 2020 and the U of U in 2023 and I coach policy for Skyline. I love debate and care about you all having the best possible experience, don't take any of my paradigm as me being mean. Please include me on any email chain: natisjudgingunicely@gmail.com

I am a very spacey person who doesn't make eye contact super well, but I promise I'm listening even if it doesn't look like I am. If I'm not nodding along, flowing or making facial expressions, then you can probably worry that you don't have my attention.

CX

Brief rundown to get the gist:

Please make any topic specific acronyms/terms clear - I haven't been very exposed to things on this one yet

My first impression of this topic is that almost all debates are gonna be poverty vs. econ collapse and that makes me grumpy. If you argue other impacts, I won't be grumpy and will give you higher speaker points for doing so.

Speed is fine, lack of clarity is not

I will listen to any argument that isn't demeaning to a group of people

Tech>Truth but don't say dumb stuff (e.g. if you say aliens built the pyramids and the other team doesn't answer, I will give you the argument but probably not high speaks or the benefit of the doubt)

You shouldn't neglect persuasive speaking just because you're in policy

Impact calc is huge

I am most persuaded by tangible change when it comes to Ks

You won't earn lower than 26 pts unless you engage in misconduct

I will try my best to meet you at your level and judge you accordingly. I will be just as involved in a local tournament between small schools as I will in a national circuit tournament with powerhouses. Every debater deserves a judge who will try to make each debate worthwhile and educational.

No debate is unwinnable, when I disclose I will try to explain what needed to happen for me to have voted differently.

In depth discussion to better understand my philosophy and biases:

REMEMBER THESE ARE JUST MY VIEWS AND THINGS THAT WILL MAKE YOU MORE PERSUASIVE TO ME. I WILL STILL DEFER TO TECH>TRUTH AND LISTEN TO ANY NON-BIGOTTED ARG

Case

A good 1AC should be able to support most of your arguments throughout the debate and you should know it well. Aff debaters who can make smart cross-applications, consistently call back to the 1AC on any flow, kick advantages where they feel it is necessary and read 2AC/1AR ev that expands upon the 1AC instead of rehashing it will likely get high speaks and are more likely to earn my ballot in a close debate, not to mention that it helps you win a debate in front of anyone. An ideal 1NC should be at least 2 mins of case that is as specific as possible to the aff. I understand that specificity can be hard this early in the year and especially hard if you're a small school, but you should still strive to meet it. I LOVE case turns, be they impact or link turns and having offense on case is always good to keep your options open.

CPs

Not much for me to say. Cheaty counterplans are bad and I'm very unlikely to vote on one. Internal net benefits are cool. A CP without a net benefit is almost impossible to win. Perms are just a test of competition. Otherwise, have at it.

DAs

The two things I care about the most here are 1. Impact calc and 2. Details/evidence. Impact calc from the 2nc onward can go a long way toward getting my ballot. This doesn't just mean "We outweigh on x" and moving on. You need to pick a metric you are going for (timeframe, probability and magnitude) and explain why I should care most about that one if the other team is claiming to win on a different metric. Also explain how your impact and the other team's impact interact. In a world where I vote neg/aff, what will the prevention of your impact do to the other team's impact? Will it make it less likely or less damaging? Does your impact control the internal link to theirs? When it comes to details and evidence, I'm a lot more likely to vote on a DA with a convincing link chain that you have fleshed out that may have a smaller impact than a 2-3 card DA that takes 45s and ends in nuke war. This doesn't mean I'm less likely to vote for you if you go for an impact that is less probable than the other team's, just that I want the cliché of wild DAs to slowly start to die. As much as I like impact calc, I need to be fairly convinced of the link chain that leads to that impact for me to vote.

Ks

I am happy to listen to them and some of my favorite debates I've been in and watched had a K in the 2NR. I lean pretty far to left politically outside of debate so don't be afraid of offending me or anything like that. My biggest gripe with Ks is that they often lack substantial change. Criticism of the current state of the world is important, but your solution probably matters more. What happens next needs to be articulated to be truly persuasive to everyone you need on board with your movement. It will be hard to get me to vote for a K with questionable solvency. I don't care if you try to solve for an impact in round or post fiat, but I do really really care that you do something. I think the philosophy Ks bring to debate is very valuable, but it loses that value if it can't compete with other solutions that are enacted by the government. In a similar vain, I think overreliance on jargon with Ks also harms their value. If you can't explain those concepts and your evidence in a way that is comprehensible to most non-academics, it won't do much good for that advocacy and it shows me that you don't know your k well. In short, a good K is one with clear solvency that is articulated accessibly.

K Affs and Neg FW

Everything I said about Ks also applies to K affs, although I probably have a slight bias against them. I generally think switch side solves for any education, K affs can be prone to in-round abuse, and they genuinely do set a precedent for a massive explosion of limits, even if your particular k aff is fairly reasonable. Especially on negative state action topics or where the resolution supports USFG action that can be backed by critical theory, I don't think that K affs are necessary. Reading a plan on the aff with advantages similar to a K is the best way to get around my biases regarding debate being a game. While I will always try to be as impartial as possible, neg FW teams should take notes of everything I just said. Also, cede the political is one of my favorite impacts.

T

I've grown to appreciate T more the longer I've been in debate, but I didn't go for it much as a 2N. All I can say is that you shouldn't go full speed on your T shell since the individual words matter so much.

Theory

Where I lean on most common theory args-

Debate is probably a game

Condo is probably good

Conditional planks are probably bad

Perf con I'm pretty neutral on

Speaking and CX

SLOW DOWN ON TAGS AND AUTHORS. DON'T SPREAD ANALYTICS. Use as many persuasive speaking skills as you can while still being fast. Debate is supposed to be persuasive and practicing talking somewhat like a human will take you far in life. I understand that parroting has to happen or you need to communicate to your partner during their speech. However, I will not consider anything you say when it is not your speech unless it is clearly a performance. Tag team cross is fine, but if you let your partner do most of the talking when it should be your cx, your speaks will suffer. CX is important for setting up arguments and establishing ethos - I will be paying attention even though I won't flow it. Speaker points will be rewarded relative to others in the round and at the tournament, meaning you could get a 29.5 from me at a local tournament and get a 26 with the exact same performance at the ToC. Points will go up if you speak well, have good cross, make bold choices, show character, make the round more fun, and show you care about debate.

Thank your for coming to my TED talk, I look forward to judging you :D

Congress

Pretty speeches are nice, but I won't give many points to speeches that rehash what has already been brought up. Every speech needs to advance the debate as much as possible. I generally prefer quality over quantity when it comes to speeches and questions within reason. If you give 3 great speeches and someone else gives 5 meh ones, I'll probably rank you higher. Participation is still encouraged, though. A good chair is one who is impartial, efficient, assertive, knowledgeable in basic procedures, and maintains decorum while still allowing for some fun interactions.

PF

Most of the PF rounds I was in had great speakers, but the evidence and arguments were lacking. While I do love the pretty speeches and good cross exes, I also want a good reason to vote for you in addition to a reason to give you 30 speaks.

LD

Progressive LDers can refer to my CX ramblings above, traditional LDers can gather what they can from my Congress and PF paradigms, I don't have much to say for LD.

Everyone

I look forward to judging you and want to help you make the most of your debate experience. Email me at the address above with questions about my paradigm or any rounds. Good luck and have fun!

updated 3/19/24

current high school policy debater for Rowland Hall (HG), class of 25 (junior). I mostly debate national circuit varsity.

email chain + feel free to ask me any questions: elihatton@rowlandhall.org

Top Level: Be yourself, and have fun! Middle School is all about learning, so never hesitate to ask for help/questions after the debate. During the round, don't be afraid to make mistakes. Debate is a game*, so try to win, but don't take it too seriously. Humor in round is encouraged and respect for judges and your opponent is a must.

tldr----

tech > truth-- This means that I will vote for the arguments that are winning on a technical level and NOT what I believe (or you assert) is true or not true.

please disclose! even if you're a novice and the tournament doesn't require it, please do so if you can. It makes things better for everyone

Don't be a jerk. If you are rude to your opponents or personally attack them, you will get very low speaks. If you say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise hateful you will lose and get very low speaks. This also goes for impact turns ("racism good" and the like get you an instant L).

speed: I am fine with any speed if you're clear. I flow everything I hear, and I will clear you once per speech. Feel free to look at my flow after the debate if you want to. Don't clip (:

CX: it's binding but I will only evaluate it if you bring it up in speech and explain why it matters

I enjoy clash and creative args. Good work on judge instruction and framing will make your impacts much easier for me to vote on. I will vote on almost anything if you debate it well enough. Offense > defense

For middle school debates, I have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory because you all should probably keep learning about substance arguments (this doesn't apply to T which is something you should definitely learn). I default to the following but can be convinced otherwise:

conditionality is good within reason. Don't drop it and you'll be fine. Same for contradictions. I default to judgekick good (it's a logical extension of condo) unless the aff makes a serious argument (saying "cross apply condo" and moving on doesn't count)

Hidden ASPEC gets new 1AR answers

+0.1 speaks if you make a Jesse Pinkman reference!

LD:

I did this event a little in my freshman year. I'm tired of "traditional" LD debates. In other words, you should debate in front of me more like it's 1v1 policy and less like it's a 2-person speech event

I don't care about your value and criterion as much as most judges do, insofar as they use some arbitrary ideal of "fitting within" or tying back to other args you have made. I think of them as impact framing args and I will go to the value/criterion flow EXCLUSIVELY when evaluating competing impact weights. I will assume util/big stick framing if nobody reads a v/c. This means that, unless the round is really coming down to impact calc, you probably don't need your 45 second value overview at the top of the 2ar

As far as resolutions go, I default to ought=should unless you read another definition. I encourage you to read a plan. Similarly, cp's, k's, and T are fair game for the neg.

NoRVIs. Strike me if that's something you do.

DEBATE GENERAL: I am not a fan of spreading/spewing; if I cannot understand the speakers, I cannot judge based upon the arguments. Fast is fine as long as enunciation is clear. If it gets to the point where I cannot flow, I will judge you based upon presentation alone. During cross, I want to know that you can answer the question, not only rely upon cards. I prefer a civil debate; it makes my job more difficult if I have to discern between what you're saying and how it's presented.

CON: I expect a debate. Unless it's the first aff/neg speeches, I do not expect canned speeches. I am not a fan of voting blocks to keep people low on priority because I think it's important to see how everyone is doing, not just the select few who are better at networking. That being said, if the debate is not being furthered because there are no new arguments or clash and the same speeches are given over and over again, I welcome a motion to PQ to move the session along. I expect the Chair to know the basics, like Robert's Rules, as well as the Orders of the Day, and keep everything running smoothly.

PF/LD: I am looking for evidence but I also want to know that you understand your cases. In LD, if you are going to run a CP, make sure all of the components are there. While a criterion is not required, I do prefer that you have one. In PF, if there is a framework, I expect it to be upheld.

CX: While the biggest impact is important, it should be a realistic one. I am not a fan of spreading or Cap Ks.

Hi! I'm Lydia and I love debate. I competed all throughout high school and placed at state in Foreign Extemp and Interps. I regularly competed in policy, but I'm familiar with all events. I also did theatre and won Speech and Drama Sterling Scholar for my school. In general, presentation is key. If your arguments aren't presented cleanly and efficiently, it makes them difficult to listen to and understand. This applies to both speech and debate events. In a speech event, I want to see creativity and originality. Show me your passion! Nothing can convince me more than a passionate speaker. Most of all, be confident but kind. Good luck!

Email: Tatekalani@gmail.com (I would like to be on the chain)

Policy:

I debated policy for three years in high school, so I'm pretty accustomed to all types of arguments. I'll flow anything just make sure it's a good argument. I'd love to be truth over tech but out of respect, i'll try not to be, though I'm not opposed to you taking that standpoint. K's are fine explain them thoroughly and explain the internal link.

LD:

I mostly debated in policy but did dabble in LD. I tend to like a more progressive LD style but I'll flow anything and let you guys dictate the round. I love creative values and VC.

PF:

Just go for anything I'll flow anything. I like truth over tech.

I did policy throughout high school and now currently debate in college and I read fem primarily my senior year. I’m versed in most literature and will try to judge at your level.

top-level things: please put me in the email chain (sahajarutledge@gmail.com). Tag-team is fine and spreading is fine (I can follow practically any speed) - but PLEASE enunciate (it’ll be a big part of your speaker points) and slow down a little through the rebuttal speeches. AND IF YOU ARE READING TECHNICAL ACRONYMS PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING SAY THE FULL VERSION AT LEAST ONCE. (that’s pointed at the NATO topic)

I’m tech>truth but with a caveat that I’ll be mad if your arguments are flat-out absurd (i.e. the sky is purple, Mexico is part of the US, etc) but for the most part, I’ll vote on what you read regardless if I like/dislike it. I’m okay with overviews but please don’t get excessive with simple arguments. (Don’t spend 5 minutes telling me what T is MOVE ON)

T/Theory: I firmly believe that theory is important in debate HOWEVER please don’t keep repeating the same 1nc shell in every speech and YOU HAVE TO PROVE ACTUAL IN-ROUND ABUSE. That being said here’s how I see theory: neg probably gets conditional worlds, PICs are probably abusive, aff’s are probably topical and education is probably more important than fairness because debate is an educational space. These aren’t fixed metrics but it’s on you to prove the opposite.

K/K affs: I love a good k and am open to anything but framing and link work is key to my ballot. In other words, don’t be lazy and go one-off with a generic link. I’ll be bored. If your k aff is high theory please do a little more explanation and analysis than usual just to help my understanding but for the most part, I should be fine. In any case FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK FRAMEWORK :)

CP/DAs: Do what you want here but don’t run one-liner CPs just to boost the off number it’s annoying to flow also cheaty CPs are fun.

Impact stuffs: Diversify your impacts and IMPACT CALC IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO MY BALLOT

Good judge instruction will win you my ballot.

Who Am I? My name is Joseph Serrano. I participated in Public Forum for Bingham High School. I graduated in 2017, My sibling participated in debate from 2018-2020. I accept any and all pronouns, (barring it/its) I enjoy Fighting Games, Cars, and Photography. I have been involved in the debate scene as a judge longer than I was involved as a debater, I love this community and what it means to me. My coach was Hannah Odekirk née Shoell

Paradigm- General for Debates (Cross Ex, Weighing, Preferences)

Flowing is probably the most important thing about debate, Winning on the flow is pretty much a guaranteed win for me. Keep your ideas organized, I like to see you flow speeches, yours and your opponents. Defense on your own case is undervalued(back up your own ideas, shut down attacks from your opponent.)

I like CX, anyone can read their cards from a laptop, it takes good understanding of the subject matter to be able to answer questions in the crossfire/cross ex. I will flow questions I think are great in Cross Ex/Crossfire. If you had a great answer or tripped up your opponent in CX, bring it up in your speeches.

Clash is one thing that I see missing from most rounds, its like two ships passing in the night. I'm here to see good debate, challenge each others arguments directly. If you ignore things you don't have an answer to, I count that as flowing through on their side. It

I'm fine with Speed if your opponents are, less fine with Spreading but I understand its' purpose . If it gets too fast I'll let you know a few times before I have to stop flowing.

I'd prefer it if you'd time yourselves but I will also have a timer up to see if you're going over during speeches. I will give hand signals, if requested

I'm cool with swapping evidence Off-Time but if it takes longer than what should be necessary, it will cut into your prep time. (For example: if you read the card in the 1AC/1NC, it shouldn't take 5 minutes to find where its located.)

I don't carry a copy of the events rules, but if I feel something is abusive I will look into it. I have been trying to get more involved in Speech events, and I do not know many of the small parts of the rules yet, still working on it.

I do ask for cards that I think might be suspicious or if I just want to see the stat in front of me rather than hear it.

Paradigm- PF

If your argument is only good bc of a highly specific framework within your case its not that great of an argument in my opinion. I don't really care for conflicting definitions that do the same thing, if you only 'win' arguments in your case by using a specific/abusive definition from a non credible source, I don't buy into those things as a judge. Both speakers are important! Do not let others tell you otherwise.

Paradigm- LD

Utah has this weird mix of Traditional/Progressive LD debates. I'd say that most judges will buy into Progressive arguments here in the state. I feel like I'm more Traditional leaning when it comes to LD. I value morality, rhetoric within speeches, and more of the philosophical why. I have and will vote Progressive but neither form of debate is a guaranteed ballot.

Paradigm- Speech/ Congress

Speech and Congress is a nice change of pace from when I judge debates- I'm super lay and relaxed and really care most about delivery and if you seem like you're having fun. Speech events are hard because its all about who shows up on any given day- you can't really prepare in the same way as you do in Debate.

It's ok to take a breather if you feel rambly. For Impromptu I'd rather you end your time early than try to fill it with repeating the same thing multiple times.

I'd appreciate Trigger Warnings for sensitive topics for the sake of your fellow competitors but I will be ok as a Judge. The single trigger that might make me emotional is Sibling Death.

Speaker Points.

Speak loud enough so that I can clearly hear you but please don't yell / strain your voice. Be respectful in and out of round, If I see or hear something super offensive in or out of round, I will be letting your coach know. Banter between schools is fun but keep it civilized, nothing directly harmful to each other personally. Respect people's pronouns please!

"I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, It is best not to say something you'd regret in round or make something up, concede the point and move on.

Being respectful is also a big thing for me, you can be aggressive in rounds without sounding condescending so if I hear you being a little too snappy to your opponents you'll probably get docked a bit

I have no preference sitting or standing during speeches, I will provide reasonable accommodations if asked of course.

I do flow online. It will always be in the individual comments section of Tabroom after round so you can see what I did and did not understand/ get from your speeches, Please don't assume that I'm not paying attention or that I don't care about what you're saying, I just don't make eye contact much during speeches.

(serranojoseph99@gmail.com)- for email chain in Policy/ if your coaches have any questions.

THANK YOU!

John Shackelford

Policy Coach: Park City, UT

***ONLINE DEBATE***

I keep my camera on as often as I can. I still try to look at faces during CX and rebuttals. Extra decimals if you try to put analytics in doc.

I end prep once the doc has been sent.

GO SLOWER

****TLDR IN BOLD****

Please include me in email chains during the debate (johnshackelf[at]gmail). I do not follow along with the speech doc during a speech, but sometimes I will follow along to check clipping and cross-ex questions about specific pieces of evidence.

Here is what an ideal debate looks like. (Heads up! I can be a silly goose, so the more you do this, the better I can judge you)

- Line by Line (Do it in order)

- Extending > reading a new card (Your better cards are in your first speech anyway. Tell me how the card is and how it frames the debate in your future analysis)

- More content >Less Jargon (avoid talking about the judge, another team, flows, yourselves. Focus on the substance. Avoid saying: special metaphors, Turns back, check back, the link check, Pulling or extending across, Voting up or down. They don’t exist.)

- Great Cross-examination (I am okay with tag team, I just find it unstrategic)

- Compare > description (Compare more, describe less)

- Overviews/Impact Calc (Focus on the core controversy of the debate. Offense wins)

- Engage > Exclude

- Clarity > Speed

- Making generics specific to the round

- Researched T Shells (Do work before reading T. I love T, but I have a standard on what is a good T debate)

- Arguments you can only read on this topic!!

Popular Q&A

- K/FW: More sympathetic to Ks that are unique to the topic. But I dig the 1 off FW strat or 9 off vs a K.

- Theory: Perfcon theory is a thing, condo theory is not a thing. I like cheating strats. I like it when people read theory against cheating strats too.

- Prep time: I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive or when you hit send for the email. I am probably the most annoying judge about this, but I am tired of teams stealing prep and I want to keep this round moving

- I flow on my computer

Want extra decimals?

Do what I say above, and have fun with it. I reward self-awareness, clash, sound research, humor, and bold decisions. It is all about how you play the game.

Cite like Michigan State and open source like Kentucky

Speaker Points-Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-99%perfect

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally, you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

All in all, debate in front of me if your panel was Mike Bausch, Mike Shackelford, Hannah Shoell, Catherine Shackelford, and Ian Beier

If you have any questions, then I would be more than happy to answer them

TL;DR Do whatever makes you comfortable (this includes reading any arg allowed by the tournament, tag-team cx, flex prep, and spreading)

Experience: This is my 7th year of policy debate (2 in MS, 4 in HS, 1st in College). For those who care, I debated at the TOC my junior year and qualled my senior year.

HS: SLC West

College: Utah/UTD DS

Add me to the email chain - westslcps[at]gmail[dot]com - also please use this email for doc requests, questions about a round or about debate in general (I really enjoy talking about debate so you will never be bothering me by sending me an email).

The email chain title should include the name of the tournament, round #, Aff Team Code and Neg team code (i.e. TOC R1 SLC West PS v Appleseed YZ) and the file names should be more descriptive than just '2AC'.

General

Warrants > Tech > Truth

If you lack clarity, turn it down slightly otherwise I may miss important arguments. Flowing/info processing time is real, if you are trying to speak at top speed with little vocal inflection, I may miss a whole lot. I don't flow off the doc but I will have it open to check for clipping (reduced speaks unless the other team calls you out in which case I'll do whatever tab says). I will say clear once and then stop flowing and make it obvious.

I genuinely hate bad disclosure practices.

Everything in my paradigm is a 'default'. If a team wins something that I shouldn't default to (debate isn't a game, competing interps < reasonability, etc.), then for that debate, I will accept the claim while coming up with my rfd.

I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. Some additional thoughts.

1. If your overview is long enough that I need another page to flow it, I heard oratory is running thin for competitors. Being a K-debater, I know it is tempting to read these overviews, but often, parts of these overviews can be read on line-by-line.
2. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination. I don't like reading cards after the debate, so please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow."
3. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it. This means that the 2NR and the 2AR should write my ballot for me and usually I will quote you in my RFD.
4. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
5. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation (but cross-applying stuff is chill).
6. Well-explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
7. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
8. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
9. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and email the 1AC before the round start time.

Argument specifics:

AFFs: I have the most experience in Baudrillard K-affs but I have also read a k-aff with a plan text we defended an entire season, I read a 'hard right' aff on CJR and wrote a couple of 'soft left' affs. I'm reading an Anti-blackness aff this season. What I'm saying is that I am a good judge for you no matter what your style is, just make sure you do it well. If your aff is 'soft left', you need to ensure you are always ahead on the impact calc debate (put framing on a separate page in the 1AC).

DAs: Offense > Defense. Idk if I will never buy zero risk, but offense can overcome a 1% risk if that makes sense. I love specific link debates and turns case arguments. Impact calc is crucial.

CPs: I'm pretty neg biased on theory. That being said, tech over truth insofar as warrants are there. An argument is a claim AND a warrant (plus the author, an author is not an argument). If you say judge-kick, I probably will. If judge-kick is new in the 2NR, the 2AR doesn't have to do too much work to win it's bad.

Topicality: I don't think that all T debates are boring. Usually, I will go for competing interps before reasonability. Topicality is just hard on every topic, but it is always good to have a very solid interp card. Fairness is an impact, just a terrible one. I think it is better to use it as an internal link to education or something but you do you.

Kritiks: Yes I have read Kritiks. I have read Kritiks from all over the spectrum- such as Abolition and Orientalism but also Baudrillard and Psychoanalysis. If you read K's, I am a good judge for you but that doesn't mean you don't explain the thesis as you would in front of a non-K judge. I will also know if you don't know what you aren't talking about, read what you know best. I think debate is a game with multiple educational benefits.

Speaker points. I try to change the way I evaluate speaks based on the tournament, you might get a 30 for the same debate at a small tournament but only a 28 at a TOC qualifying tournament.

This is obviously a long paradigm, but if I missed something feel free to email me with questions. I would recommend looking at the paradigms of debaters like Seiji Aoki, Saathvik Pai, Isaiah Ortiz, Hanna Rice, and Madeline Galian in case I am not able to clear something up in time (jokes about any of them that make me laugh will get you +0.1 speaks).

Former Policy debater/National Qualifier (JHS 2000-2003) and parent of freshman debater at Alta High.

For email chains: lksylvia@gmail.com

Policy: I spent the majority of my time competing in policy debate. I am comfortable with any type of debate but prefer a more traditional round and preferred a policy maker framework when I debated myself. Advantages/disadvantages, solvency, and politics are all things I like to hear in a round--how does the plan work/not work in the real world?

If you are using more progressive arguments (kritikal affs/kritiks, etc) go for depth over breadth. I think a judge should adapt to the round presented to them, and I will do my best to evaluate the issues that are explained well in the rebuttals.