email: aa4688@columbia.edu

about me

hi my name is ayaan (pronounced "ah-yawn"). i'm an undergrad at columbia. i debated pf @ brooklyn tech hs for three years. i have very much been out of the competitive debate scene for the past year and a half. i'm like 20 years old, im not a real adult yet, please don't call me judge.

basic norms & round decorum

have your own timer, but my clock supersedes all; avoid massive card shuffling; do not steal prep from your opponents.

if road maps help you deliver speeches, feel free to give them, but i'm neither here nor there to their value.

arrive to the round on time, preferably if you can get here early, please do. starting early means we end early.

please be respectful at all times. this includes avoiding the use of harmful language and ad hominem attacks (avoid logical fallacies in general). practice empathy, communication, and kindness. please feel free to pull me aside if you are feeling uncomfortable for whatever reason.

i might ask for your cards if they're outlandish. the parameters of what outlandish means to me are dependent on the case. just be ready to share them if requested.

if there are any technical/logistical issues, please let me know before the round starts.

round spectators are fine, just be quiet and respectful.

i will disclose if a) required b) both teams request that i do. i will also attach a link to my flow in the rfd.

i'm not heavy on writing essays in the feedback section, if you want details on your performance, you're more than welcome to email me.

speaks allocation is pretty round-dependent, meme cases get 30 speaks (for the meme) but i don't vote for them.

i'm pretty monotone and boring, so i always appreciate a joke or two in speeches to lighten the mood.

core evaluatory philosophy

tech > truth always, and i am not super versed in progressive argumentation, but i have taken a western philosophy seminar, so i think i'll survive.

please cut your cards properly, i cannot stress this enough. poor card cutting destroys the structure of my flow and lessens my opinion of your arguments.

if there is intense evidence clash, your job should be to explain to me why your evidence is better.

the second rebuttal should ideally respond to the first constructive and first rebuttal.

if you do run non-frivolous theory

my ideal shell: interpretation -> violation -> standards -> voters -> implication.

respond to the violation in the speech immediately following it.

the key to winning my vote -> a fantastic summary

the summary is the most important speech in the entire debate (especially the first one). it's also one of the hardest speeches to master, so don't beat yourself up over it if you're struggling. in an ideal round, i should be able to listen to just the summary + ff and make the correct decision.

the core formula for a good summary:

• pick the best offensive and defensive arguments to extend (this also means collapsing on stuff that didn't work for you).
• gain access to the offense that you choose to extend.
• make an argument about why that offense should win you the round (aka weighing).

(more details are in this lecture)

picking arguments to extend

• choose arguments that weren't responded to / poorly responded to by opponent (easy to access).
• choose arguments with large impacts (easy to weigh).
• consider how all of your arguments fit within the context of the round (generic advice, takes practice).

gaining access to offense

• frontline: respond to the responses to your argument, you must do this for *all* active responses to your argument. a common structure for a frontline is the "they say ... we say ..." format.
• extend: now that you've frontlined your argument, restate your cards and explain the jist of the claim again, must extend link + impact.

why you should win (weighing)

• comparativeness is your friend. directly compare your offense with your opponent's offense and explain why yours is better. please have warranting for your impacts (nuke war prereqs the economy is not as solid as you might think).

additional info: how to extend

• the easiest way to extend is to just give a short tag on your card and explain why it supports your claim
• practice practice practice extending your arguments before the round!

final thoughts

• summaries are very hard to master, but they are formulaic and can be executed successfully with enough practice. i believe deeply that most flow/tech judges will be convinced of one side after the summary, and without a good summary, the final focus is bound to be weak.
• without adequate knowledge of your topic, all the advice above becomes relatively trivial. come prepared!
• remember that you need to extend throughout your speeches all the way to the ff.
• don't get too stressed out! debate may seem like the end of the world, but the grass is greener on the other side. have fun, argue with passion, and make the most of it.

I spent thirteen seasons solely working in policy. I have spent the last five seasons working in public forum. In addition to coaching and judging, I served as the Tournament Director for the NYCUDL, the Vice President for Policy Debate for the BQCFL, part of tab staff for NYSFLs, NYSDCAs, the New York City Invitational, and the Westchester Invitational, and in the residence halls for DDI.

What this means for PF debaters is that I am very flow-centric and expect good sign posts. If you give me a road map, I expect you to follow it. While I understand that you will not read evidence in-round, I do expect you to clearly cite your evidence and will listen to (and reward) good analysis of evidence throughout the round.

What this means for policy debaters is that I typically spend more time running tournaments than judging in them. My flowing skills are not what they used to be. You need to SLOW DOWN for your tags and authors or else they will not make my flow. You should also SLOW DOWN for the actual claims on any theory or analytic arguments (Treat them like cards!). My flow is sacred to me, if you want me to vote for you, your flow should look like mine. Lay it out for me like I am a three year-old.

As for arguments, I consider myself a stock-issues judge. Those are what I coach my novices, and I still feel they are the best arguments in policy debate. That said, I have voted on all types of arguments and performance styles in debate. If you want me to vote on something that is not a stock issue, you better explain it to me like I am a three year-old. Even if you want me to vote on a stock issue, you should explain it to me like I am a three year-old.

I do not typically ask for (or want to) examine evidence after the round. It is your job to explain it to me. There is no need to add me to an email chain. That said, if there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says, you should make a point of that in your speeches.

As for paperless debate in general, I like my rounds to start on time and end on time. If your technical issues are hindering that, I will start running prep. I will do my best to accommodate debaters, but you need to know your tech at least as well as you know your arguments.

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

I am a PF parent judge with some past experience, meaning I am more on the lay side of these arguments. I am a traditional flow judge, so I will evaluate the round from what I have on my flow, to ensure it makes it to my flow, try not to spread or speak overwhelmingly fast (you need to say it or I won't evaluate the round on it).

Preferences:

• Speed, jargon, etc. is OK as long as your point is clear and you are understandable
• Please do not send called cards in cross, that is what prep is for
• Although they are not particularly present in PF debate, I will throw out any theory, kritik, or tricks arguments as they are not real debate (I want to see actual debating of the topic)
• Claims, warrants, and impacts must be clear and not buried within piles of evidence (commentary is helpful in this situation)
• Absolutely no spreading
• Tell me why everything matters
• I will not evaluate crossfire, if you want me to judge on it, extend it into a speech
• I will keep track of your time, but its best that you do the same to ensure there are no errors

As always, try your best, work hard, and be passionate. I look forward to judging you, have fun and good luck!

Debate:

• Do not spread if you can avoid it. I am Hard of Hearing, and while I use hearing aids enunciation is key to me understanding you, and your opponents deserve to hear all you have to say.
• Be polite to your opponents. I will dock points if you are disrespectful.
• Try to keep it out of the weeds if you can, I appreciate substantive points of clash unless technical points are necessary.
• Sign posting! Please! Ill be flowing.

MY BACKGROUND:

• I am a government major at George Mason. I have competed in parli, LD, PoFo, Impromptu, Extemp, and varying interps. I have judged all debates (LD, PoFo, Parli, Policy, Congress)
• I've worked in both chambers of Congress and the Whitehouse. I love government and know a lot about it! I care a lot about information accuracy, but care even more that opponents catch inaccuracies.
• I am the captain at the George Mason University Speech team. Hit me up if you want more info on our program!

If you have questions, feel free to email me! mizer@gmu.edu

I am a Cancer with a Gemini moon and a Leo rising :) If you would like to send me docs my email is jacobkemp23@gmail.com

I AM LAY, A SIMPLE SPEECH JUDGE, PLEASE BE NICE TO ME, IWILL CRY.

I WILL FLOW THOUGH I PROMISE AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GO TOO FAST.

I am interested in hearing Kritikal arguments and debate, so do not stray away from that just because you see im a lay judge. (I'm not the lay-est tbh).

Please make sure you are being as specific in your description of arguments.

Logic and realism is important to me. Make me logically believe your argument and impacts. If its TOOO much of a stretch it may affect my decision. But i'll probably buy more than you think.

Hey y'all. I'm Paul Kim and I just graduated from Duke University with a degree in Biology and a minor in Neuroscience. After a brief encounter with PF in 8th grade, I dabbled in British Parliamentary debate in college and was on Duke's mock trial team for 3 years. Most of my understanding of debate comes from Sim Low

Please send your evidence to ptk1601@gmail.com

For Public Forum:

• I care a lot about evidence quality and ethics – make sure you have appropriate citations and that you are not misrepresenting your evidence or altering it. Please use proper cards and it is preferred that you do not paraphrase, rather, you should read quotes and excerpts while adding your own analysis.
• It’s extremely important that you collapse on one argument and tell me why it outweighs your opponent’s impacts. Give me a weighing mechanism and tell me why it’s preferable/
• Please have clear extensions of your arguments and do not immediately jump into the line by line. Provide a big picture image at the top of what your world looks like and explain the internal links to your impacts.

• I will vote on progressive arguments like kritiks if they are properly explained, and I am only really comfortable with theory arguments about evidence ethics, paraphrasing, or disclosure. Anything frivolous will be lost on me.

For Policy: (everything said in the PF section still applies here)

• I will not consider what I don't hear whether or not it's on your speech doc.
• Feel free to structure your speeches however you please, but any conspicuous signposting is greatly encouraged and appreciated!
• I have next to no knowledge on the topic beyond what little I've heard in the VERY few policy rounds I've judged. There is no such thing as overexplaining with me as your judge so please hold my hand.
• Finally, and most importantly,I CANNOT UNDERSTAND SPREADING. I am working on this as I judge and listen to more rounds of debate, but please understand if I clear you rather quickly.

I will raise your speaks by 0.1 if you can name all of the F1 world drivers' champions in order from 2023-2000 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

email: cbm2158@columbia.edu

I am a judge and coach for Brooklyn Technical High School. I mostly coach public forum now, but I have more experience with policy. I competed on the national policy circuit in high school ten years ago. I am currently a PhD student in English and Comparative Literature.

I do my best to maintain a detailed flow and place a premium on clear and consistent signposting.

I like Ks and theory, but I think they are difficult to run well in public forum.

I don't typically ask for evidence after the round unless there is some contention about what a piece of evidence actually says. Flag it in your speech, and I'll be happy to look.

Feel free to raise any other questions or concerns before the round!

Less is more! I will judge by quality of evidence not quantity. Your speech should be loud and clear.

I debated policy for Damien High School and the University of Redlands in Southern California. I also did some LD and a lot of Model UN. I have judged many college and high school rounds. I can flow. And am currently a Federal lobbyist/lawyer.

I do not have extensive PF experience, but I do have a strong history of judging argumentation and working on legislative policy. While spreading may allow more arguments to be put forward, if you are not clear in your language, or gloss over important arguments, I will not be able to properly judge you. Please do your best to speak clearly in your arguments.

I judge on reasonable impact, your arguments should be made within logical reason. Speaking in hyperbole does not strengthen your argument.

Set up your arguments. Why should I care, what are the stakes, why now?

Email: oddoye.sean@gmail.com

Experience: Speech (Varsity DI and Extemp.); 2 years, HS LD (NJFL); 2 years, College parli (APDA and BP); 2 years.

1. I competed in circuit LD in high school, however that was a few years ago, so I am a bit rusty, however, I do keep a good flow.

2. Again, since I am a bit out of practice, I'd prefer if you don't spread if it's not necessary (if you are going to spread, just slow down on the tags, if I'm having trouble keeping up I'll raise my hand or say "clear"). Additionally, I value narration and explanations over quick technical blips -- make sure I know what I'm voting for.

3. Please weigh comparatively and clash with each other, win your warrants and explain why your evidence or standards are better.

4. I'm more used to traditional debates, I can count the number of times I've read a theory shell/ks on one hand, as such, I'm most comfortable judging traditional value/value criterion/contention or plan/counterplan debates. The same thing goes for tricks, LARPing, etc-- absent some sort of detailed and comprehensive explanation, I probably won't know what's going on or how to adjudicate lol.

6. If I've missed something, or if you have any other questions, just ask me.

Have fun, and pref/adjust accordingly : )

Introduction: Greetings, debaters. I am Lavanya Peddibhotla, a proud mother of three teenage kids and a seasoned professional with over 23 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, currently overseeing Biometrics operations in a clinical research company. Debate has been an integral part of my career, teaching me the importance of articulating facts and arguing constructively.

Philosophy: As future leaders, students must master the art of respectful and constructive discourse. Demeaning comments or disrespect towards judges, coaches, or opponents are not welcomed. However, acknowledgment of mistakes and sincere apologies will be appreciated and considered positively. Staying on point and offering meaningful rebuttals are qualities I value in debaters.

Bias Disclosure: While I strive for impartiality, I recognize the influence of my experiences. Rest assured, I will evaluate arguments based on their merits and relevance to the debate.

Argumentation: Debaters should present well-structured arguments supported by relevant evidence. Whether focusing on policy analysis, philosophical principles, or empirical data, clarity and relevance are essential.

Presentation and Style: Effective communication is crucial. Debaters should strive for clarity, coherence, and respectfulness in their presentation. Avoiding demeaning language and maintaining decorum is imperative.

Rebuttals and Clash: I encourage debaters to engage with opposing arguments directly and constructively. Meaningful rebuttals that address the core of opposing points will be rewarded.

Decision-Making Criteria: I will weigh argument strength, impact analysis, strategic depth, and overall persuasiveness. Debaters should prioritize effective weighing of competing arguments and impacts.

Feedback: Expect constructive feedback focused on specific arguments, presentation skills, and strategic choices. Feel free to seek clarification or further insight.

Conclusion: Thank you for your participation. I am here to ensure fairness and provide valuable feedback to help you grow as debaters. Best of luck in the tournament.

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Hello! I am so glad that you're here!

I competed in some combination of congress, PF, parli, and extemp for 8 years. I appreciate line-by-line rebuttals, and I will take note if you drop subpoint rebuttals, so don't just carry taglines and unwarranted rebuttals. I don't usually flow cross but I will take note if something particularly important occurs. Since I don't typically flow cross, if you want to make sure that I count a concession, omission, or other notable point during cross towards your side, you should incorporate it into your speeches and weigh. Debate is an opportunity to employ logic and reasoning, not just repetition and intuition. Make your evidence make sense- it won't do that for you. PF speaking times are not optimal for discussing critical theory but I'm willing to evaluate theory if you have a strong grasp on what you're talking about. If you run a K, please don't assume that it will automatically win you the round- really think deeply about what you're trying to accomplish. Often a K is just a framework or an argument, so think about the intended outcome of your approach. Similarly, I am comfortable with PF cases that prioritize non-traditional values or ethical principles. There are always many good ways to analyze a resolution.

I highly value strong and unique speakers. I will evaluate speaking style in your points, and I do not preference cookie cutter speaking styles. Creative and dynamic speakers are often more convincing, so use this to your advantage. I can also see through convincing speaking styles and gesticulation to evaluate the content, so you need to be strong in both.

You should provide a weighing mechanism and framework, and this should be carried through the round. If you want to win, please don't forget to tell me how to evaluate the round. If your opponent offers a weighing mechanism and you provide no reason for me to doubt its validity, that will be the the way that I evaluate the round. If neither team tells me how to evaluate the round, I will run down my flow for dropped arguments, then evaluate winners in clash, then look at the strength of the original arguments.

Brief roadmaps are okay if necessary but should either be at the beginning of your speech (after time has started) or no more than 5 seconds off time. I will keep time, but please keep your own time so that I don't have to interrupt you. I also understand the need to call for cards, but it should be within reason. If your opponent asks for a card and it is revealed that your framing was blatantly misleading or the evidence just does not exist, that will reflect very negatively on your speaker points and potentially my overall ballot. Be honest! It doesn't serve you to lie.

Most importantly- I'm excited that you've chosen to participate in debate. It is non-negotiable to me that you are reasonably courteous to one another and take seriously the opportunity and responsibility to discuss issues that impact real people every day.

In my role as a judge, I adhere to a specific set of criteria to assess debates fairly and effectively. I value clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation. Here are my guidelines:

1. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • I appreciate debaters who communicate their arguments clearly and concisely. Spreading, excessive speed, or reliance on dense debate jargon can hinder clarity and accessibility. Debaters should strive to make their points in a manner that is understandable to both judges and their opponents.

2. Respectful Behavior:

   • Respectful conduct is paramount. Interrupting a partner without their consent or engaging in disrespectful behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. Debaters should maintain professionalism and courtesy throughout the debate.

3. Argumentation and Analysis:

   • I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. Logical reasoning, relevant evidence, and clear impacts are crucial in making a persuasive case.

4. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Debaters should engage substantively with their opponents' arguments. Ignoring or dismissing valid points made by the other side will be detrimental to their overall performance. Constructive engagement and refutation are key components of successful debating.

5. Organization and Structure:

   • A well-organized speech is more persuasive and easier to evaluate. Debaters should structure their speeches coherently, with clear signposting and a logical flow of arguments. A clear roadmap and organized rebuttals are essential components of effective speeches.

6. Flexibility and Adaptability:

   • Debaters should be able to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to respond to unexpected arguments are indicative of skilled debaters.

7. Final Focus:

   • In the final focus speeches, debaters should crystallize the key issues of the debate. Clear voting issues and impacts should be emphasized. Debaters should prioritize their most compelling arguments and explain why they outweigh their opponents' case.

Debates will be evaluated based on these criteria. I encourage debaters to focus on clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation to excel in my rounds. Remember, quality always supersedes quantity in constructing persuasive and impactful arguments.

I am a parent judge but have experience in judging. I expect the debaters to be courteous of each other. I look for clear, organized arguments. Presentation should be in a civil and courteous manner, backed by validated data that is current and unbiased.

I do keep time for the speeches and adhere to time. I expect all of the team members to participate in grand cross fire.

Don't spread and speak clearly.

I'm fine with any arguments so long as they are respectful and not offensive. All debaters must speak clearly in order for me to vote. I can only vote on what I hear and understand. I also like to see evidence for the claims made during the debate. I prefer not to intervene, so it's upto debaters to highlight what is important and why I should vote for them.

I am a debate parent.

I've been judging JV Public Forum for a year and am a lay judge. I deeply appreciate clarity of argument and for debaters to speak slowly enough that I can understand what is being said and follow the connections made.

I usually don't have a lot of topic knowledge. So, be sure to implicate everything, have a clear collapsing strategy, and really explain your points well.

Be sure to extend EVERY part of offense/defense you're going for in back half.

No prog, no spreading.

Crossfire plays a role in my decision.

Lastly, the debate space should be inclusive and fun. Be assertive, not aggressive, don't mock your opponents, etc.

As a judge with over a year of experience in various debate styles, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation and evidence-based reasoning. While I'm open to all styles, clarity in speech and structure is crucial for me to effectively evaluate the debate. I appreciate debaters who engage directly with their opponents' arguments and demonstrate adaptability throughout the round. Tricks or overly strategic plays that detract from substantive discussion are less likely to earn my vote. My goal is to ensure a fair and educational debate experience for all participants.

I am a high school marketing and business teacher and lay judge who has judged DECA competitions in the past but never Debate. I have been well briefed by a national circuit competitor but this will be my first time judging.

I am comfortable with any kind of style a debater may choose to use other than theory or kritiks, but you should realize that I have had the jargon explained to me but usage may or may not make sense unless you explain it clearly in detail.

I look forward to hearing your arguments and judging you -- have fun and good luck!

Updated for NSDA Nationals 2024:

My name is Teja Vepa, please feel free to add me to the chain - Tejavepa {at} g mail

Current / Prior Roles and Affiliations:

Director of Speech and Debate - Collegiate School, NY (2022 to present)

Program Manager - Debate - Success Academy Charter Schools, NY (2019-2022)

Associate Director - Policy Debate - Polytechnic School, CA (2013-2019)

Debate Coach - Claremont HS, CA (2009-2013)

2023-24 Topic Specific:

I have not judged many rounds on this particular topic. I may need some common acronyms specified. If you make it clear early, that would be helpful.

Paradigm for NSDA:

As of this year, I have approximately 20 years of experience with policy debate. I think Nationals is a unique tournament and debaters are tasked with adapting to a varied audience. You do not have to debate specifically for me. I am capable of and enjoy evaluating rounds that range from stock issues, policymaking, plan v K, K v K, and K v Framework.

I will vote for planless affs. I have coached at programs that are significantly more K friendly (Polytechnic) and at programs that typically prefer Plan debates (Claremont). I think both of these models have value.

Specific Argument Types:

DA: The more specific, the better. I tend to disprefer generic DAs unless the link is highly specific. I tend to beleive that the uniqueness controls the direction of the offense.

CP: I do like counterplans and these are some of my favorite debates. Ideally your CP has an internal net benefit. Process counterplans are fine. Conditionality is probably good.

K: Go ahead, I am familiar with a series of K literature bases, and specifically more familiar/well-read with these literature bases: Cap/Neoliberalism, Settler-Colonialism, Lacan/Psychoanalysis, Foucault/Biopower, Threat Construction/ Heg, Agamben/Biopolitics, Zizek. Though I am less well-read on identity arguments than postmodern high theory Ks, I do have experience with the sections of the literature base that are used in policy debate.

K Aff: I think these are legitimate. Please have a stable advocacy and be sure to win your aff if you are using it to outwiegh T/Framework.

T: I am willing to vote on it--T is about technical execution. I tend to prefer limits over other standards, so please explain your impacts if they are based in ground etc.

Framework: I tend to value education over procedural fairness.

Questions:

Happy to answer them before the round, or feel free to email me.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja